Skydiving Reserve Canopy Buyer's Guide: 2023

[@SkyTrashActual]

Fantastic presentation

[@timothyrogers7511]

Hey Tony, great comprehensive info. Thank you. When can we expect the video on containers?

[@robertwarner5963]

That "stickiness" is more likely to be caused by the urethane coating on free-bag fabric. That fabric was originally water-proofed because it was intended to be made into back-packing gear.

[@msarapik]

Very good presentation! Any thoughts on Paratec's Speed 2000 reserve? They are a popular option in Europe and known for their generally low pack volumes.

[@shadeland]

I think they're a good option (they seem to be highly regarded) but they don't have any presence in the US. I think they were planning on going after the US market but that hasn't seemed to materialize (or at least, not yet). I think they have an ETSO, perhaps a TSO. The ETSO is interesting as I believe it's for a bail-out rig where the pilot deploys and never unstows the brakes. That gets around the ETSO EASA decision not to ETSO *any* skydiving equipement, but emergency rigs and canopies are OK.

[@PFryderyk]

@@shadeland Paratec uses the Speed2000 reserve canopy in their Wingmans - bailout rigs for pilots. It's the same canopy that they sell as a skydiving reserve. I'm actually interested in that matter too, but I was unable to find any useful opinions or comparisons regarding Softie rigs with Optimum canopies, Pararec Wingmans and Rigging Innovations P-124 Aviator. I think a ram-air canopy has many advantages in comparison with a round (the ability to choose the landing the touchdown point being the most important) but for some reason (I have no idea why) the round bailout parachutes are still way more popular even though nobody uses rounds as sport skydiving reserves any more. I'd appreciate any thoughts and opinions regarding the ram-air bailout riggs both for a pilot who is also a skydiver and for a non-jumping pilot.

[@PFryderyk]

I found a Speed 2000 manual online stating that the canopy has been certified under FAA TSO C23d.

[@shadeland]

@@PFryderyk They may have lost the ability to manufacturer a TSO'd component. You can have a TSO authorization, but unable to comply currently with the requirements. THat's what happened to Vortex/Parachute Systems. They have a TSO, but they don't have an acceptable facility anymore so they can't make anything TSO'd. I don't know if that's the case with the Speed2000, however.

[@kevinmcgrath127]

Hi Tony, thanks for your very insightful video. I actually was thinking about downsizing but after a skydiver (highly experienced) had a terrible accident at the dz recently has changed my thinking completely…if I am going to continue skydiving I will buy a 190 or 210 canopy. My question is which ones have the reputation of having reliable openings and least malfunctions?..I know this is hard as there are so many variables

[@shadeland]

As far as openings go, they're all about the same there. There's just a few to avoid, like the Micro Raven (especially the ZP top skin variant, but any Micro Raven). They all have to open within a specified amount of time, typically 300 feet or 3 seconds, though the standards have varied a bit over the years it's still within that ballpark.

[@davidcurkan7220]

WP Mars has TSO C23d!

[@shadeland]

It does not. There are no Czech companies listed in the FAA TSO approval database for C23D that I can find. They may have tested to the standards set forth in C23D, but they have not received a TSO authorization from the FAA. They must received an FAA authorization to be considered legal in the US for US and foreign residents (foreign visitors can jump it, as long as the harness isn't also TSO'd). From the EASA, I can only find their pilot bail-out parachutes (rounds) listed in the ETSO list, which makes sense since the EASA has specified they do not certify skydiving gear.

[@robertwarner5963]

Mostly accurate information. Fabric manufacturers tend to refer to reserve fabric as "zero to 3 cubic feet per minute." A salesman from Gelvenor bragged that his reserve fabric was consistently 0.5 cfm at the factory door. I have owned one shiny new main canopy made of F-111 fabric (Para-Flite Cruislite) that opened hard for the first 70 jumps, then openings got more comfortable after that. We expected F-111 mains to last 600 or 700 jumps before landings got too hard. Earlier in my rigging career, I must have packed a good thousand round reserves, but now no longer own the appropriate tools. I discourage buying round reserves to anyone who has not made a few dozen jumps on round mains, because landing rounds requires far more training. Even my Parachutists Over Phorty Society customers - who started on rounds - now only own square reserves. Perhaps the old farts know something!!!!! I did about 70 jumps on round mains back during the 1970s and early 1980s. I also have 3 landings under round reserves. My last round reserve landing missed the country! Hah! Hah! It took the Canadian Army 2 weeks to pound round landings into my long-term memory. I eventually made 2 jumps on round reserves, but missed the country during the last one. Hint: my last jump on a round canopy was in 1986. You should have mentioned that BASE, precision landing and canopy formation competitors prefer 7-cells for more predictable openings and better stability under canopy. I have a single jump on a 5-cell reserve. It was unstable in roll and promptly retired after than single jump. Finally, tradition - and regulation - requires the reserve packing data card to go with the reserve CANOPY when components get switched, That is because containers often wear out from hard use, sunlight, desert dust, etc. but reserve canopies can easily out-last 2 or 3 containers. When in doubt give photo-copies of reserve packing data cards to both new owners and keep a third photo-copy in your old logbook. All that desert dust is why most pilot emergency parachute manufacturers recommend retiring their products after 20 years. After 20 years service, most PEP harnesses and containers are faded, frayed and filthy. Rob Warner FAA Master Rigger, Strong TIE, Canadian Army Basic Parachutist, West German Army Bronze Paratrooper wings, etc.

[@christopherwood2796]

Honest question, how does landing around take more training? You learn plf with both ram air and round canopies but you have to learn to flare and time a flare with a square.

[@lobbyrobby]

Thank you for this. I'm hoping to go through aff soon so it's nice to research and learn about this stuff

[@PFryderyk]

Hi! Thanks for the video. I was looking for some material regarding reserve canopies for some time. I have some questions for you, though. First, what do you think of Paratec Speed2000 reserve? They're advertised as the biggest surface area per pack volume. Also, rather a general question regarding LPV reserve canopies, don't you think they wear faster than those made of regular "F-111"? Do you have any opinion regarding non-TSO'd reserves for people outside the US? Another thing, somehow connected with the previous question, in case a foreigner jumps a non-TSO'd reserve and/or container in the States and needs a repack (let's say after a cutaway whilst in the US), would an FAA rigger pack that reserve? Last but not least, are there any differences in opening and flowers ght characteristics between different reserves? I know that when you're in need of using your reserve, the opening shock and flare power are not of your main concern but why not take it into consideration when choosing the reserve canopy? I've heard that PD says Optimum opens and flies more like a main than a reserve. Would you confirm that? How about the others? Are you aware of any differences? Thanks for the great content and got your reply!

[@shadeland]

Hello! Here's my thoughts on the Speed2000: I don't have any experience with them, personally. I did message with the manufacturers about whether they were still making a TSO'd version and selling in the US, I got a message back saying they were planning on re-entering the US market but it doesn't seem to have happened (and a follow up to the contact they provided didn't get me any answers). I had heard they can't find a supplier for the material anymore, but I don't know if that's either accurate or current. I've got two cutaways on an Optimum 143 loaded about 1.3, and I would say they fly like a main. The flare was one-stage on a both being little-to-no wind days, but both times I stood up without any problem. So flying like a main, I would say it's pretty accurate. According ot PD, the Optimum was designed to open more smoothly (but still within the TSO testing limits). I think that's a good thing for freeflier and speedfliers. Some of the older canopies may not be a good choice in those cases in case there's a premature reserve deployment.

[@shadeland]

As far as an FAA rigger packing a non-TSO'd system for a foreign visitor, many of the larger dropzones require that if *either* the container *or* the reserve are TSOd, the whole system must be packed by an FAA certificated rigger. If neither the container or reserve have a TSO, then it would need to be packed in accordance with the country of origin of the jumper, and as long as they accept an FAA rigger that should be OK I think.

[@PFryderyk]

@@shadeland Thank you for your reply. I understand the requirement for the system to be packed by an FAA rigger in case at least one of the components is TSO'd. Concerning that, choosing both non-TSO'd container and non-TSO'd reserve seems the most convenient solution for a foreign skydiver - this way they neither need to look for an FAA rigger in their county before travelling to the States nor require a repack after arrival. On the other hand, I've heard a statement that every FAA rigger (or at least the majority of them) will refuse to pack a reserve in case either the container or the reserve itself is non-TSO'd. Is that true? Are the FAA riggers legally allowed to pack non-TSO'd reserves? Do you have any thoughts on that?

[@shadeland]

@@PFryderyk I think we are, but I’ve never been asked to do so. I’ll find out!

[@robertwarner5963]

@@PFryderyk yes. The latest opinion forces FAA-licensed riggers into an awkward corner. The FAA says that they can only sign on top of components that are manufactured under an FAA TSO. Personally I find the latest opinion silly ........... BUT since I hold both Canadian and American rigger ratings, I pack a dozen or so reserve per year for Canadian skydivers who like to spend their winter vacations jumping in the USA. My Canadian rigger rating allows me to sign off on any parachute "approved" in its country of manufacture. "Approved" is a vague term in Canada since only two Canadian skydiving manufacturers have ever held TSOs (Roger Sport and Flying High Manufacturing). Since CSPA is run by a good-old-boys network of volunteers, "approved" evolved to mean whatever parachutes you were allowed to jump at the Canadian Nationals.