pchapman

To append to my post: The UV damage section of the Wilcox tests was already in post #13 of this thread, by rmarshall, although with no attribution provided.

That's good, especially about the kill line. Still, riggers don't have portable wind tunnels or Pilot Chute Gauges, so one can't always predict whether a pilot chute will have issues in the air. We might only be able to say, "It looks kind of older... probably will be fine. But if you're having problems, maybe not." So the rigger may only have eliminated any blatant pilot chute issues from being the culprit.

One has to be careful about what type of nylon any given source is talking about. Thin parachute nylon will be more affected than thicker cordura, which will be less affected than thick parachute webbing. Although webbing will lose strength slower than canopy fabric, faded webbing can still lose a lot of strength. I hope pilot emergency rig makers have gotten better at covering risers over the years, as the risers over the shoulders take a lot of UV beating from those pilots not covering their rigs in the cockpit. The Wilcox webbing strength tests -- somewhere out on the web and at one time in Skydiving magazine -- focused on abrasion, bad needles, and cuts, but also had a page on UV damage. Some olive drab (or similar) Type 7 webbing went down to 84% of original actual strength in 80 days in the sun (I think in Florida), and was down to 43% in 360 days.

I have a copy but see it seems to be on the UK Skydiver rigging manuals pages: http://www.uk-skydiver.co.uk/cms/files/file/1458-swift-cirrus-orion-manualpdf/ This does include the odd original Swift brake system. As you may well know, there are a couple bulletins out for the canopy -- rib shape and bartacks.

Ah, Tricky Dick. (I've been listening to a couple audio books related to Nixon lately, such as "One Man Against the World" -- a title which sums things up nicely. In the era of Trump, reading such stuff does have a strangely calming effect. Some exceptional events do have historical precedent. Clearly their personalities are very different, but with similarities in thought and action in certain cases.)

Also: New Cypreses. 15.5 years, no maintenance required (tho' recommended). More expensive though. (By 12% at one popular site) Overall it is a pretty tough topic to try to put into an article what a newbie needs to know about buying gear, so no wonder the original article is getting some thoughtful critiques...

Background from the video page: I like how the two tandems did drogueless RW. After all, the fall rate won't be that high with only kids as passengers, and not having a drogue makes RW safer.

Yeah, it's not until one reads further in some articles that they reveal that he might have been making a joke about the closeness of Putin - Trump ties. Maybe. Or maybe not. I don't know. Words are important, but context matters too.

And in another thread you wrote: While there's a whole thread on that topic, I'll reply here to you. I'm not expecting to change your mind, but to use it as an example of an evolving story where it is hard to pick out the truth: Being an outsider, I thought, hey, maybe you have a point. There's a sensational news article about a big leak, then a couple of high officials -- not just the liar-in-chief -- clearly state that there was no leak. So yeah maybe it is a matter of degree, perhaps that details were discussed (entirely legally) in the meeting that were more sensitive than some in the room expected, and thus shocking them. This led to a news story by people who are not likely to think favorably of Trump. With only that information, I can see there are doubts about it being a big scandal rather than just a little kerfuffle about what information to hide versus reveal in diplomatic talks. But then I also see things like this from Slate.com about the denials: Slate listed a series of specific claims in the Post story, each of which could be considered. So the strong but general and broad denials are not entirely satisfying, whatever the actual events and interpretation may be.

The DZ I jump at has had Solos for students and Pilots for rentals for some years now. Even without velcro, those soft lines seem to let the lines, especially the brake lines, fuzz up quickly, from what I've seen. Ugh. In contrast, the DZ has not had any major complaints with Solo openings on static line and short delays. (I don't know if there are any minor complaints.) (Mind you the full ZP version Solo's sometimes opened brutally hard at terminal, until the DZ finally got some bigger sliders from Aerodyne. I have some fun PFF videos of students rapidly disappearing upwards out of view...) Aerodyne's coloured line attachment points are nice for newbies learning to pack.

A photo is attached of my '94 Racer. Perhaps it will clarify some of the history a little for anyone watching this thread. The rig uses two housings, both terminated by brass ferrules, and there's no gap between them. I don't have an RSL, but from the manual, the traditional 2 sided RSL design did have the RSL loop around the housing that went to the backpad pins, further 'back' from the gap -- basically where the housing disappears into the rig in my photo. [Edit: So things 'break apart' in the sense of one housing end changing position, but with 2 separate, normal housings, nothing has to actaully 'break'.] Where the split between the housings is, that aft housing just slips into a loop of elastic material, so that when the RSL yanks on the housing, the end of the housing pops out of the elastic, allowing the RSL to slip off it and pull the ripcord cable. (In my pic there's also a little flap of material that isn't original, that I added, to protect the reserve risers from rubbing on a sharp hot knifed edge of fabric at the housing gap area.) Good to see this thread and learn what the modern design is like.

I sometimes wonder to what degree a recovery arc difference is a true or perceived one, or is a function of the inputs. Take two canopies with the same actual recovery arc. One turns more quickly, and has lighter front risers. I bet many who crank a 270 with that one will say it has a longer recovery arc because they got into the dive quicker and could hold it better in deep front riser for the turn. So they came out of the turn with more speed and a steeper dive, leading to a longer recovery arc -- even if the two canopies performed the same if the setups were identical in turn rate and dive angle. So NO it doesn't have a longer recovery arc on one sense, but YES it does in another, given typical human performance that makes it easier to get a longer recovery on one. It would mean that assumptions about input conditions on any test would have to be considered. It could be a partial explanation as to why a canopy claimed to be flat flying at the same time seems to have a fairly long recovery arc. (Other factors would still apply. If two canopies had the same flat glide angle, but one was a more efficient design and flew faster, it would likely have a larger recovery arc.)

Frottage?

That even strengthens the point they make about the Horizon, that I'm applying to reserves. Blocky non-ZP canopies have gotten better at landing at higher loadings: - Really old reserve designs are poor for landing at high loadings (eg, MicroRaven). - More modern reserve designs (eg PD-R, Smart) are better - A very new design like the PD Optimum is easier yet to land, making the reserve slightly less reserve-like compared to what came before - Then along comes the Horizon, which is also a rectangular canopy a bit like a reserve -- but what with their Optimum experience, and using some ZP in important spots, it should land even better. Different missions, different designs, but for now I'll guess they didn't make the landings worse. The max weights for the Optimum and Horizon are similar if one looks at the tables. (When one looks at the max PD recommends for the Optimum for an Experienced jumper, rather than the even higher certification weights.) And then, for a canopy as modern as the Horizon, they say you should have experience with something a couple sizes smaller before jumping it! Again, this isn't necessarily some huge revelation, and it must be tough to know how conservative to be when writing manuals. PD might also be more conservative for the Horizon, because it's one thing to have an occasional reserve ride, another to pound out jumps all day on a canopy one wants to last some hundreds of jumps at least. But it is an intriguing point of view on how canopies unlike our typical main canopies may pose extra challenges. (In the Optimum Flight Characteristics document, PD is actually much more relaxed. They say one should have 50 jumps on a canopy no more then 15% larger. So basically, they prefer one have one's reserve no more than a size smaller than one's main, if that's the smallest one normally flies.) (Yes if a wingsuit pilot upsizes 2 sizes in their rig to fly a Horizon, then he has taken care of idea of having experience on something 2 sizes lower.)

I found an interesting statement in the FAQ for PD's new Horizon wingsuit canopy, a rectangular canopy, which is largely low bulk fabric -- similar to F-111 style fabric in flight characteristics -- but with some ZP in "all the right places" PD says. Presumably the front top skin. Now it is a main canopy and not a reserve, but will be somewhat similar aerodynamically. PD says: That suggests they see that people aren't generally as able to land blocky F-111 style canopies as in the old days. (CRW jumpers may be an exception, as their ZP canopies can often be more of a handful to land gracefully.) It isn't as if they think the Horizon lands poorly. In the Flight Characteristics document, they say it does plane out easily for nice landings. Yet they also warn that great landings are not automatic, that one has to have the right skill and technique to achieve good landings. It makes me wonder how well jumpers nowdays will deal with highly loaded reserves. It isn't a HUGE problem, after all, most people do just fine with their occasional reserve landing. Highly experienced jumpers who have small reserves may not have much F-111 experience either, but are more likely to be already familiar with a range of canopies, descent rates, and wing loadings. So perhaps a small F-111 canopy is something they can handle. A few years back an intermediate jumper acquaintance had a really bad landing on his reserve, but was saved by spring mud. While it was a quality PD reserve, it was a size or two down from his main so it was a higher wing loading than he was used to. It seems that his experience with ZP canopies misled him as to what to expect. It seems he started moving the brakes while quite high, intending to start a gradual plane out like on a normal jump. He didn't realize this was the wrong thing for a reserve, and soon found himself still high off the ground without hardly any flare left. In light of an example like that, the new PD statement is particularly interesting. Some of us were around in F-111 days but many jumpers are not used to the idea of having to make sharp, low altitude flares required in many cases. (I don't much care what size reserve other jumpers wear on their backs, but when I'm teaching a canopy course I start to care a little more about people's choices and giving them good advice on what to watch out for under canopy. So I thought the topic interesting.)

In Canada a Coach 1 can start with 75 jumps, a Jumpmaster with 125, Coach 2 with 200, TI 500, PFF (like AFF) 600. So at a DZ not doing AFF style jumps, a Coach 1 might go out with a student (who has gotten past static line or IAD jumps) to observe (but not to contact or interact with) a student doing turns and loops, to critique their performance.

The 200 jump value isn't a god given number. Other jurisdictions have tried different things. Canada had a 200 jump & C licence limit held over from before GoPro days, then changed it to 50 jumps minimum for half a dozen years -- although technically a jumper needed B license which one doesn't typically get right at 50 jumps, and one was supposed to have an audible, and (more vaguely) seek advice from experienced photographers and only use a camera in a type of jump that one is competent in. They changed things a couple years ago, bumping it back to 200 jumps but still a B license. The lower limit had been really handy for new coaches and instructors with fewer jumps to be able to video their students, when other instructors already were able to do so. Whether the limit was 50 or 200, both had some arbitrary element and neither was perfect. (Off topic: FlyLikeARaven: Hmm, I don't recall you previously having a profile picture showing a 2-out. Living an interesting life lately? )

Now in defence of the weirdo in the White House (a building that should have a "Baby on board" sticker on the front door): Trump could say he received no real, credible warning about Flynn. Maybe in his mind some African was flapping his lips about Flynn, trying to sow dissent, but it came from a dubious and partisan source, so that's perhaps a conversation that Trump just wouldn't save into long term memory, and if he did, didn't consider it a real warning.

It sounds like you know your canopy well, at your wing loading. Which is really good. It is tough to provide jumpers in general with advice on 'what brakes do on final approach', because it depends so much on the canopy & wing loading & wind. Traditionally and in the simplest look at how canopies fly, "brakes = slower & steeper", but newer jumpers do need to know that with modern canopies a little brakes can reduce the descent rate a fair bit without decreasing the speed much, extending the glide through the airmass. When the headwind is also lighter, they'll travel further over the ground too. This tendency for a little brake to reduce descent rate applies most to canopies trimmed to dive, and is less likely to apply to a canopy already trimmed to fly fairly flat. I'm not sure but the Pilot tends to be a fairly flat trimmed canopy. The principle certainly still holds that one shouldn't surprise anyone behind oneself, although some amount of vertical glide path adjustment is generally accepted. (I knew a guy who did stalls - for just a moment - with his F-111 canopy on final at a moderately busy DZ. While he wasn't zig zagging in traffic, and he had things under control, the DZ did ask him to fly a little more predictably nonetheless and not give people heart attacks...)

Ok, a guy with severe ALS breaks both arms in a wind tunnel, due to have no muscle resistance. It's a good example of where we in skydiving related industries -- or at least many of us -- aren't always aware of pitfalls in dealing with a person's medical condition, and the individual themself isn't aware of the risks either. I've seen similar with a paraplegic doing a tandem. Even with the student's legs well lifted for landing, when the instructor made a nice slide-in landing, the student broke both his ankles when his feet twisted. Nobody involved had realized how important muscle resistance is to keeping a joint stable. I don't know the wind tunnel industry so I'll leave others to discuss how different indivdual tunnels or chains deal with clients with different physical problems.

Off topic: Similarly, at the local DZ last year, two girls broke ankles while taking their first Flight-1 course. Worst injuries all year at the DZ. Not exactly typical results, but ya never know what might happen...

Since the issue of container size had come up in this thread, how did it work out, for fitting in your Centaurus that held a 282 Foil?

That's a local story for me in Toronto, and it'll be interesting to see what her story is. I can understand that BASE jumpers or Urban Explorers might occasionally get stuck somewhere, but this looks both very gutsy and totally unprepared?!

So, what's the trend these days for elastics on Phantom canopies or the like? Lately when packing pilot bailout rigs, I've seen more half width elastics, sometimes cut from 1 1/4" elastics, sometimes I believe from 1 1/2" ones. In the old days when Phantoms were still skydiving reserves, from any reputable rigger I only saw the "proper" 1 1/4" elastics used on the diapers, plus the 2" ones for the two closing stows. While old manuals allowed no variation, newer ones do: Although that still leaves it a bit open whether it is "only if you aren't good enough to rig it properly". Still, when I called National in 2012 they allowed alternative elastics "as long as proper tension is maintained". Also, a rig built a couple years earlier and only packed at the factory at FFE (who seemed to be doing the sewing work for National), did use half width elastics, both natural rubber and some black ones that I guess were synthetic. All in all I'm more inclined nowadays to go with half width elastics, although I'd keep tension balanced by sticking with all full width or all half width. P.S. - I'm talking about round canopies. Bonus points for anyone who remembers National also built square mains and reserves for a little while.

"I'm not writing this because I think megamalfunction is a total doofus and because I'm celebrating 4/20, Hitler's birthday. " As you can see, ambiguities and poor use of English can obscure the meaning. It isn't clear from that wording whether I think those two things about the OP and Hitler (for that's the simplest interpretation), or whether I'm presenting them as hypotheticals that do not apply in my case. In this case, they don't. I guess that Dause, not known for his touchy feely side apparently, just shot his mouth off to reporters in a dumb way that can be be badly misinterpreted.