Joellercoaster

Yeah, they still make them, and people still buy them. Even now, I don't think anything flies as flat, and turns as quickly (at least on toggles). They are probably a terrible swooping platform, but I don't swoop so that's fine. You can dance around, turn super flat to get yourself out of trouble in a crowded pattern, and get yourself back from things that other people don't. The popular canopy I would compare it to surprises people a lot: I think it's like a more aggressive Pilot, but flares (way) better under load. The "even uneven leg straps" fear was, I think, a product of the jumping population getting used to twitchy elliptical canopies in general. People have gotten way better at deploying stably and understanding how their body input affects their flight. The wind tunnel probably helped the Stiletto mal rate a lot, ironically. And you need to actively fly the opening, rather than just letting things happen to you, but that's true of a lot of canopies nowadays and it's not the "Spinetto" of stereotype.

Echo this. I have a 135 that I load at about 1.8, and it has never given me trouble but I am very mindful of deploying flat and stable. I've always pro packed it and never done anything weird or special compared to other canopies, and I am not a particularly careful packer. I've also used it for training camps with overworked packers getting me onto short calls, real "turn around and don't watch, good now here's your rig" situations. Body position > packing magic, IMO.

Yeah... I gave up on /r/skydiving because it was kind of a trash fire, but I stayed on Reddit in general. I closed my Facebook account completely years ago. Facebook really did kill forums (in general), but I think it did not replace them with anything as good.

This is true, but some people still prefer them and buy them on new rigs, even though they can afford the hacky. People's reasons differ - in my case I just like the positive way it feels to reach, identify, and pull on, and it also seems less flappy-aroundy (which is a real rigging term) when packed. I know exactly where it is going to be and it's easy to check without looking. The thumb thing *is* probably physically possible, but not if you reach with your palm. There is also a tiny but non-zero (as in, it is a thing that has happened) chance of a bridle half-hitching around a hacky and causing a pilot chute in tow, which doesn't exist with the pipe (or freefly pud, which is a whole other can of worms). But the number of jumps done on hackies without issue tells you how much to worry about that, I guess. Both are fine.

This is not *exactly* the thing you are asking, but one data point is my V347 which I've packed numerous 135s and 129s into as well as 150s. It has had a Smart 150 in there the whole time. I went down to a Crossfire 119 for a couple of jumps but I'm not sure I'd do that full time without a bit more consideration.

If only we could be sure that was true! Manufacturers can't even be relied on to agree how the surface area of a canopy should be measured.

One very effective way to get what you want here would be to join/found a 4-way team. Find three other serious, motivated people (and a regular videographer if you can), get a proper coach, and off you go. It's the fastest way I've seen for people to keep their skills learning curve properly steep, early on in their careers. Even if you only do it for a single season, your flying and understanding will be so far ahead of where you are now, and ahead of the people at your level who fun jumped all year. -- "I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan "You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

It's all very well making it clicky, but it still doesn't make the link work. -- "I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan "You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

This is true, but it's not practically preventable by you as an average jumper. One of the risks I accept (along with several of the preventable ones I mentioned, honestly) when I go for a jump is that I have no idea how to maintain a plane. I think we're having a great time arguing semantics and we probably don't really disagree... my original problem is with people (deliberately or otherwise) blurring the line between luck and care in skydiving. -- "I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan "You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

I didn't say they were glamorous. But easy: Don't want to be killed in a canopy collision? Land far away from the other people, and jump at a DZ with enough space to do that. Don't want to be killed in a freefall collision? Don't jump with other people. Don't want to walk into a propeller? Always approach a plane from the rear. Don't want to hit the tail? Always exit with care. Don't want to wrap the tail? Look after your gear in the plane, check your pins before exit, and as before, exit carefully. Don't want to die a landing accident? Land away from other people, fly a big canopy carefully, and only jump in perfect conditions. Check the spot before you get out and stay in the plane if you're not happy with it. These things are easy to eliminate. Not glamorous, they won't make you popular, but they are easy. Yes, not doing these things is a mistake, and mistakes happen. But they don't just happen, like some kind of random dice roll. Telling people that skydiving is a crapshoot might be cool, but it's also untrue. If it is, then so is leaving the house (look before you cross the road), so is cooking dinner (don't leave the gas on), so is having a bath (don't fall asleep in there drunk). We all assume some level of risk, and different skydivers tolerate different levels of risk. Some of us tolerate a lot! But the only really non-negotiable risks are plane crashes, hard openings and the one-in-a-million double mal scenario. -- "I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan "You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

Exactly two of these cannot be reduced to zero simply. Hard openings are a real thing. Very rare, but real. Main/reserve malfunction is a real thing, but I think the chances you mention are off by a factor of several thousand at least. Millions of skydives get made without it happening. The rest are very easy to avoid. Not necessary glamorous. But easy. You talk about it like skydiving is some kind of rolling of the dice, like all of these things "just happen" to skydivers. They don't. Also, you missed "choking to death on DZ hamburger", "being struck by lightning standing in open spaces", "accidentally drinking Jet-A1" and "being trapped under the DZ vehicle" as risks. -- "I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan "You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

This happened to a friend of mine not once but twice with his cordura BOC, resulting in reserve rides both times. The pilot chute material wadded up at the mouth and stopped it from extracting (and he's a strong dude). He liked the cordura and was aware of how to pack it but it turns out not all packers are... in the end he just replaced it with a Spandex pouch I think. -- "I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan "You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

You're on the right track. But instead of looking at it as an alternative to downsizing, you can think of it as an additional risk to avoid while downsizing. Downsizing and changing platform should be done separately, and some people don't ever change planform. Ellipticals can be a pain in the arse and require more care and feeding (and frankly, risk) than people can be bothered with - the juice is not worth the squeeze. But having decided to change planform (I get that your Katana is merely an example, could be a Zulu or a Crossfire or whatever, and you're not thinking about doing it now anyway), you should definitely do it in a size you are already well experienced with. If in the future you do decide you want something more aggressive than what you have now, it should almost certainly be a slightly smaller version of the class of thing you have now -- "I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan "You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

There's an I/E and CCI here who is still called Crazy Legs. DjangoWorldWide, as you've found (and Bill points out), difficult moments are very soon overcome by the euphoria of the ensuing triumph And to anyone reading this who is doing AFF or thinking about it: there is zero embarrassing about having multiple jumps to get past an AFF level. Zero. Just part of the process. I admit the money hurts though. -- "I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan "You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

I'd say 95% coached and 5% own time. If you're trying to get better, you're crazy to not get coaching all day long. The additional cost is tiny (sometimes even zero) compared to the increased benefit. Getting in the tunnel to hoon around with mates is fun, but it's really expensive fun and you're not going to learn much. -- "I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan "You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?