Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Intentional Breakaways

 


freeflyer58D  (B 32456)

Apr 8, 2012, 10:01 PM
Post #1 of 53 (2820 views)
Shortcut
Intentional Breakaways Can't Post

Ok, so today the topic of doing an intentional cutaway was brought up. We have read all the "legal". 14CFR Part 105, BSR's and we see nothing that requires a "Tri" system. i completely see the reasoning behind the tertiary system, but we are only interested with the legal side of things at this point. so, im hoping someone can point us to the right spot. after reviewing part 105, it is left very open ended. you could very easily read into it whatever way you wanted. especially when discussing the definition of Reserve parachute. just curious if anyone knows of any "legal" binding literature one way or the other.

so far: Part 105... No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows

BSR's: 2. Pre-planned breakaway jumps are to be made by only class C- and D-license holders using FAA TSO'ed equipment. [E]

excerpt from a skydiving magazine article: One reason it's not more popular is the lack of suitable equipment. Although it's legal to make intentional cutaways with a standard sport rig -- one main and one FAA-approved reserve -- most skydivers would rather have two jettisonable mains and a reserve.
http://www.skydivingmagazine.com/questions/ques14.htm

really hoping to get some good legal reference on this! not peoples opinions.


virgin-burner

Apr 8, 2012, 10:31 PM
Post #2 of 53 (2801 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freeflyer58D] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

if you're so worried about the legal stuff.. why dont you just pack yourself a mal and go for it?

besides that, i still think it's fucking stupid, the only time i've ever thought about i was in my first year, had hardly 100 jumps and just didnt want my expensive reserve-repack be wasted. did i say it's fucking stupid already? it IS fucking stupid!


crotalus01  (B 28932)

Apr 8, 2012, 11:13 PM
Post #3 of 53 (2778 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freeflyer58D] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Dont know the legal side of it, but there was a guy in (I believe) Lake Wales FL that celebrated his A license by chopping a good main - and got a baglock on his reserve. I am sure someone here can provide the details as I read about it on here - or maybe it was just bullshit. At any rate, why take the chance? Your reserve is your last chance, and they are pretty damn reliable, but they are NOT foolproof...


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 8, 2012, 11:21 PM
Post #4 of 53 (2775 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
if you're so worried about the legal stuff.. why dont you just pack yourself a mal and go for it?

besides that, i still think it's fucking stupid, the only time i've ever thought about i was in my first year, had hardly 100 jumps and just didnt want my expensive reserve-repack be wasted. did i say it's fucking stupid already? it IS fucking stupid!

That dress looks good on you...Tongue


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Apr 8, 2012, 11:31 PM
Post #5 of 53 (2770 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
just didnt want my expensive reserve-repack be wasted. did i say it's fucking stupid already? it IS fucking stupid!
Do it at the end of the repack cycle. Jeez, kids these days! Laugh

I've done intentional reserve deployments doing certification work. I wore a third parachute on the front. Smile


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 8, 2012, 11:37 PM
Post #6 of 53 (2769 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freeflyer58D] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Use either breakaway risers with a second main or two sets of mini risers (with a second main) on a large harness ring. Meets both the letter and intent of FAA regs.

Ideal is, of course, a rig designed for the purpose, like UPT's Skyhook demo rig.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Apr 9, 2012, 1:42 AM
Post #7 of 53 (2744 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freeflyer58D] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

There is nothing illegal about doing a intention cutaway. Part 105 says you must be wearing an approved harness, an approved reserve and one main parachute.

Sparky


105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems.

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:



obelixtim  (D 84)

Apr 9, 2012, 2:22 AM
Post #8 of 53 (2728 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freeflyer58D] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

 
By definitiion, any time you chop a mal, you are doing an intentional breakaway.

The difference comes in the amount of time you have spent planning it.....seconds as opposed to an hour or two.

Why you would want to chop a perfectly good main with only your reserve as backup isn't too smart, I think. Of course you rely on your reserve every jump you do, but pushing the envelope unnecessarily doesn't seem like a good idea.

We had a rig which would take two mains, and we always static lined the first one to eliminate the need to have a ripcord in your hand. I use it a few times on demos,.. it was also good to test jump a few home made designs and systems we came up with.

An intentional cutaway on such a system though is no real substitute for dealing with a real malfunction, because the stress factor is so much less. When you are carrying 3 parachutes, and are cutting away at a higher altitude than you would normally be opening at is not really a big deal at all, even when you jump a deliberately packed malfunction.

Yes you are physically performing a cutaway, but it is really not that much different from a cutaway in a hanging harness, apart from the fact you are at a higher altitude.

For fun, testing or demos, fine, but there really isn't a lot of point in doing an intentional, as its not really a realistic scenario...

For someone who has never had a mal and needs one for rating purposes, perhaps that rule needs revisiting. You might as well have a power line or tree landing as one of the things you have to experience.


virgin-burner

Apr 9, 2012, 2:29 AM
Post #9 of 53 (2725 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
if you're so worried about the legal stuff.. why dont you just pack yourself a mal and go for it?

besides that, i still think it's fucking stupid, the only time i've ever thought about i was in my first year, had hardly 100 jumps and just didnt want my expensive reserve-repack be wasted. did i say it's fucking stupid already? it IS fucking stupid!

That dress looks good on you...Tongue

yea-yea, wasnt long before i've had a REAL manly reason to use my reserve anyway.. thinking about it, have you ever exited from 180ft!? i have! Wink

LaughLaughLaugh


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Apr 9, 2012, 6:12 AM
Post #10 of 53 (2679 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freeflyer58D] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Would you please clarify the question?

As far as I can tell, you answered your own question by quoting the FARs and a relevant BSR...neither of which make any reference to a requirement for anything more than two parachutes.

I'm not clear on what you are seeing as "open-ended".

Had you asked the advisability of an intentional cutaway on a dual-parachute system, I could answer that easily.


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 9, 2012, 6:35 AM
Post #11 of 53 (2662 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

thinking about it, have you ever exited from 180ft!? i have!

In reply to:

Yeah me too...the 1st time we turned 9 points on an 8way...then we got better!


monkycndo  (D License)

Apr 9, 2012, 7:00 AM
Post #12 of 53 (2645 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
thinking about it, have you ever exited from 180ft!? i have!

In reply to:

Yeah me too...the 1st time we turned 9 points on an 8way...then we got better!

I cry bullshit.






We know you never got better.Laugh


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Apr 9, 2012, 11:00 AM
Post #13 of 53 (2519 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

"
In reply to:
By definitiion, any time you chop a mal, you are doing an intentional breakaway. ...
"

............................................................................

I disagree.
Main malfunctions are never "intentional" ergo any cutaway from a malfunctioning main is an emergency.

"Intentional" implies that the cutaway is "optional." IOW you could land that main without injury.

Intentional cutaways must be declared before you board the airplane. Most regulations and DZs require you to wear a second (certified) reserve when doing intentional cutaways.


freeflyer58D  (B 32456)

Apr 9, 2012, 11:56 AM
Post #14 of 53 (2483 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

This is exactly the "open ended" part that we are having trouble verifying. you ask for 5 peoples interpretation of the BSR's/ FAR's and everyone has a different opinion. i guess the real question we are looking for an answer to is "when is a 3 canopy system required by regulation?" RiggerRob has said "Most regulations and DZs require you to wear a second (certified) reserve when doing intentional cutaways. " I cant vouch for each DZ's procedures for cutaways, but i also cant find regulation anywhere that makes mention of the terch system. the debate was never in reference to what the best practice is for doing intentional cutaways, most everyone is in agreement that a 3 parachute system adds redundancy to the whole event. it was more of a "find the reference" debate. so far, it appears that doing it with a sport rig is acceptable with a C/D license, and TSO'ed equipment. just curious if anyone else could point to the correct references. most people have tended to think that it is illegal to perform the cutaway without a Tri system. but no one has been able to prove that to be the case.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Apr 9, 2012, 12:17 PM
Post #15 of 53 (2464 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Main malfunctions are never "intentional" ergo any cutaway from a malfunctioning main is an emergency.

It comes down to which nit you want to pick, The mal is simply the platform from which you depart the scene. If I am riding a mal, cutting it away is definitely one of my intentions at that point.

Pre planned is probably a better term to use...because a mal certainly isn't planned. Dealing with it is.

A DZO would be less than wise to allow you to board the aircraft with only two parachutes with the intention to cut one away no matter what.

But as far as formal regulations to make it illegal to do a pre planned cutaway without a tertiary, I doubt it is in print anywhere, simply because it is a fairly rare event, and I doubt the lawmakers have ever considered it..

The 3 parachute "rule" has simply evolved as a sensible option, by sensible skydivers, looking after their own arses.

How about the in flight transfer scenario. That could also be classified as an intentional cutaway. I've seen a couple done at close quarters by people whose reserves are due for a repack.

One in particular I remember came as close to an entanglement and bounce as you'd ever want to get without actually doing so. The jumper screwed it up completely, getting himself tangled up in his reserve, and THEN chopping his main....luckily he fell out of the entanglement.

He needed clean boxers after that one.....


(This post was edited by obelixtim on Apr 9, 2012, 12:21 PM)


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Apr 9, 2012, 12:32 PM
Post #16 of 53 (2451 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The 3 parachute "rule" has simply evolved as a sensible option, by sensible skydivers, looking after their own arses.

It is also funny if you activate the 3rd after cutting away the 1st in order. The 2nd in order my have better cut-away system, than a hook knife.Cool


Skyper

Apr 9, 2012, 1:10 PM
Post #17 of 53 (2423 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Can someone explain or post a link which explains how this 3 chutes system actually works? I used to jump with belly reserve, but that one was not possible to be cut-off. So I wonder if you have a classic sport rig with main and (non-cuttable) reserve in which way can you cut that (1st) reserve prior the deployment of the 2nd reserve, except with a knife?
p.s. sorry if this is a bit off topic question.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Apr 9, 2012, 1:14 PM
Post #18 of 53 (2417 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skyper] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

 Speaking of the system we used to use....We had two mains, with a reserve on the front, you could chop both mains.

On other systems, the tertiary has no pilot chute, is a roundie and is deployed by hand, i.e. you pull the ripcord, take hold of the canopy and throw it away from you, then feed out the lines.

Its how reserve procedures used to be back before cutaways were common.

A bit scary if you are in a spin, you have to remember to throw the reserve into the spin.

This kind of tertiary is the type used by hang glider pilots.


(This post was edited by obelixtim on Apr 9, 2012, 1:17 PM)


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Apr 9, 2012, 2:00 PM
Post #19 of 53 (2384 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skyper] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Skyper,

There have been chest mounted containers that are attached with 3-rings systems instead of the 'conventional' snap & D-ring.

This allows the user to deploy the 'chest pack' canopy, let it open & fly a little, then cutaway & open the main that would be mounted on your back in a normal location; keeping your back-mounted reserve ready to be used if necessary.

Here are two photos of the Strong Entr 3-canopy system. The 3rd photo is one I just came across; I do not think it is of a Strong system.

JerryBaumchen

PS) Back about 1980 I was contacted by some Japanese jumpers who wanted a cutaway system using two ParaCommanders on the back & a chest pack on the front. I built the harness with one ParaCommander risers attached via 1 1/2 shots & the other ParaCommander risers attached via 3-ring system. The idea was to cutaway with the 1 1/2 shots first, then cutaway the 2nd ParaCommander, if necessary, using the 3-ring system. Most rigs in Japan at that time were still using 1 1/2 shots.
Attachments: TriDem-1.jpg (121 KB)
  TriDem-2.jpg (95.5 KB)
  TriDem-3.jpg (105 KB)


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Apr 9, 2012, 2:06 PM
Post #20 of 53 (2378 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Sparky,

Quote:
There is nothing illegal about doing a intention cutaway. Part 105 says you must be wearing an approved harness, an approved reserve and one main parachute.

I agree with you.

Until I come across some FAA document that specifically says I cannot do something, then I can do it, what every it might be.

Just my $0.02, I only speak for myself; I am not the FAA.

JerryBaumchen


FanOfFalling  (B 6359)

Apr 9, 2012, 2:13 PM
Post #21 of 53 (2369 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Not a specific reply to you Jerry(previous poster) but off that line of thought.

Is there a (current)legal point at which premeditated intention to use your reserve makes it no longer a 'reserve'. If you leave the aircraft with the 100% intention of deploying this reserve chute can it be said to be held in reserve? Could it be called just a second planned main deployment? (regardless of planform, branding, naming, being packed by a certified rigger ect)


fcajump  (D 15598)

Apr 9, 2012, 2:16 PM
Post #22 of 53 (2367 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
By definitiion, any time you chop a mal, you are doing an intentional breakaway.

The difference comes in the amount of time you have spent planning it.....seconds as opposed to an hour or two.

Why you would want to chop a perfectly good main with only your reserve as backup isn't too smart, I think. Of course you rely on your reserve every jump you do, but pushing the envelope unnecessarily doesn't seem like a good idea.

We had a rig which would take two mains, and we always static lined the first one to eliminate the need to have a ripcord in your hand. I use it a few times on demos,.. it was also good to test jump a few home made designs and systems we came up with.

An intentional cutaway on such a system though is no real substitute for dealing with a real malfunction, because the stress factor is so much less. When you are carrying 3 parachutes, and are cutting away at a higher altitude than you would normally be opening at is not really a big deal at all, even when you jump a deliberately packed malfunction.

Yes you are physically performing a cutaway, but it is really not that much different from a cutaway in a hanging harness, apart from the fact you are at a higher altitude.

For fun, testing or demos, fine, but there really isn't a lot of point in doing an intentional, as its not really a realistic scenario...

For someone who has never had a mal and needs one for rating purposes, perhaps that rule needs revisiting. You might as well have a power line or tree landing as one of the things you have to experience.

I've had one individual that put forth the argument that since the FAA regs indicate a single harness, dual canopy system, adding a third canopy might be seen as a violation...

Legal question asside, having chopped from both a real mal and an intentional... I found the intentional much scarrier... it was the anticipation that got to me. With the real mal, there was no time to think about it only time to execute the procedures. The cutaway, well... you could do it now, or later or just land it... (why I used a too small to land for my first... no way was I gonna chicken out under a 24' flat at my 254-lb exit weight)

Very fun, but get a rigger who has experience to work with you before trying it.

JW


obelixtim  (D 84)

Apr 9, 2012, 2:54 PM
Post #23 of 53 (2348 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Here are two photos of the Strong Entr 3-canopy system. The 3rd photo is one I just came across; I do not think it is of a Strong system.

JerryBaumchen

That loooks like a good system. Ours was built back in the early 70's, initially for demos, out of a B4 H & C, with two mains and two sets of 1 1/2 shots, and a normal belly wart on the front.

The sight of it would prolly scare the crap out of people today, but it worked well. I did quite a few demos with it, showing "emergency" procedures, which wasn't strictly accurate, but the crowds didn't know, and thought it was great.....We always let them know what we were planning, of course...


(This post was edited by obelixtim on Apr 9, 2012, 2:57 PM)


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Apr 9, 2012, 3:12 PM
Post #24 of 53 (2335 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skyper] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Can someone explain or post a link which explains how this 3 chutes system actually works? I used to jump with belly reserve, but that one was not possible to be cut-off. So I wonder if you have a classic sport rig with main and (non-cuttable) reserve in which way can you cut that (1st) reserve prior the deployment of the 2nd reserve, except with a knife?
p.s. sorry if this is a bit off topic question.
I've seen one build from a wings.
It has 5 handles.
Throw-out for the 1st(main).
A set of cut-away and reserve handle outside for cut the 1st and deploy, the 2nd,"reserve".
A set of cut-away and reserve handle inside for cut the 2st and deploy, the 3nd(reserve).

I was built for tandem in mind. You suppose to use the outer set first.


(This post was edited by phoenixlpr on Apr 9, 2012, 3:13 PM)


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Apr 9, 2012, 7:34 PM
Post #25 of 53 (2260 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

"
In reply to:
... How about the in flight transfer scenario. That could also be classified as an intentional cutaway. I've seen a couple done at close quarters by people whose reserves are due for a repack.

One in particular I remember came as close to an entanglement and bounce as you'd ever want to get without actually doing so. The jumper screwed it up completely, getting himself tangled up in his reserve, and THEN chopping his main....luckily he fell out of the entanglement.

He needed clean boxers after that one.....
"

.........................................................................

I must be getting old, but I thought that canopy transfers fell out of fashion around the same time that round reserves fell out of fashion (late 1980s)????


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Apr 9, 2012, 7:37 PM
Post #26 of 53 (995 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FanOfFalling] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

If a prospective TI came to me and told me that he had satisfied the "intentional cutaway" pre-level - while wearing only two parachutes - I would tell him to quit wasting my time, because he is too stupid to allowed anywhere near a tandem student.

P.S. There is NO WAY I would jump strapped
to his chest.

Rob Warner
Strong Tandem Examiner
FAA Maste rRigger


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Apr 9, 2012, 11:37 PM
Post #27 of 53 (971 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If a prospective TI came to me and told me that he had satisfied the "intentional cutaway" pre-level - while wearing only two parachutes - I would tell him to quit wasting my time, because he is too stupid to allowed anywhere near a tandem student.

P.S. There is NO WAY I would jump strapped
to his chest.

Rob Warner
Strong Tandem Examiner
FAA Maste rRigger

I agree. He could be quite dumb. I'd say I had an un-recoverable spinning line-twist, so I had to cut-away and use my reserve. Wink


FanOfFalling  (B 6359)

Apr 9, 2012, 11:50 PM
Post #28 of 53 (966 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

That's a good consequence for sure. One I'd agree with absolutely given someone I care about, or anyone at all, might end up strapped to their front one day.
Thanks,


(This post was edited by FanOfFalling on Apr 9, 2012, 11:51 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Apr 10, 2012, 2:05 AM
Post #29 of 53 (952 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FanOfFalling] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Not a specific reply to you Jerry(previous poster) but off that line of thought.

Is there a (current)legal point at which premeditated intention to use your reserve makes it no longer a 'reserve'. If you leave the aircraft with the 100% intention of deploying this reserve chute can it be said to be held in reserve? Could it be called just a second planned main deployment? (regardless of planform, branding, naming, being packed by a certified rigger ect)

It seems you may be right.


105.3____ Definitions.

For the purposes of this part—

Reserve parachute means an approved parachute worn for emergency use to be activated only upon failure of the main parachute or in any other emergency where use of the main parachute is impractical or use of the main parachute would increase risk.



But if you wear a second reserve that would satisfy this section. When I was testing I would wear an approved harness under the test rig and attach a chest mount to it. That way I was not depending on any part of the test item which at that point was not TSO’d.

Sparky


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Apr 10, 2012, 4:36 AM
Post #30 of 53 (946 views)
Shortcut
Re: [monkycndo] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

Yeah me too...the 1st time we turned 9 points on an 8way...then we got better!

I cry bullshit.






We know you never got better.Laugh
LaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaugh


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Apr 10, 2012, 4:56 AM
Post #31 of 53 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fcajump] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I've had one individual that put forth the argument that since the FAA regs indicate a single harness, dual canopy system, adding a third canopy might be seen as a violation...
In reply to:

And that would be incorrect.

Part 105.43:

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-
harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command
of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute
operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute
system, unless that system has at least one main parachute,
one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single
person harness and container........


---
Note that the dual system is a minimum requirement.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Apr 10, 2012, 5:02 AM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Apr 10, 2012, 5:26 AM
Post #32 of 53 (919 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Note that the dual system is a minimum requirement.

And it says nothing against wearing a second harness, or indeed using separable D-rings to add a belly mount to the existing harness. One may or may not like that solution, but it doesn't actually alter the TSO'd harness being worn.

Sparky's point about the 105.3 definition of a reserve parachute is certainly an important one to this thread -- that's what suggests you need a certified reserve that you are not planning to use, that doing an intentional with just two canopies is illegal. If you are planning to use the certified reserve, then for that jump it is not a "reserve parachute" which must be "an approved parachute worn for emergency use [etc] "

If doing an intentional cutaway, would strapping a belly mount to your harness with separable D rings be acceptable? I'm thinking it is OK legally.
(It isn't ideal technically, but was the way that people locally used to do intentionals any time I heard of them or did them.)

This parachute would be an "approved parachute", even if the method of attachment is non-standard. Other parts of part 105 mention things like "approved reserve parachute, and approved single person harness and dual-parachute container". So that's saying that the approved parachute is a separate thing from the harness. So you don't need a second approved harness underneath, for example.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Apr 10, 2012, 5:26 AM
Post #33 of 53 (919 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I must be getting old, but I thought that canopy transfers fell out of fashion around the same time that round reserves fell out of fashion (late 1980s)????

I always thought it was a dumb idea myself...

That one occurred in the early 80's if my alzheimers serves me correctly....

Funny how quite a few on the DZ at the time, decided that a due for service reserve was better dumped on the ground after that incident........I was right beside him under canopy at the time and it scared the crap out of me.


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 10, 2012, 8:44 AM
Post #34 of 53 (874 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

...using separable D-rings to add a belly mount to the existing harness.

In reply to:


WORD OF CAUTION~

Just adding a set of separable D rings to your sport harness doesn't make it safe (or smart) to jump with an additional reserve mounted there!

The harness wasn't designed to take an opening shock that way.

Also, separable D rings move on the harness, I saw a sport rig rendered in-op because a 26' lopo mounted in a wart on the MLW slid all the way up during a sub-terminal deployment, jamming the handles and requiring extensive repairs to correct.


~on my demo rig I have separable D rings that are mounted to a loop of webbing placed on the backside of the MLW by the rig manufacturer...with the explicit instructions that it was NOT to be used as a placement point for an additional canopy.

The Harness was not TSO tested with a canopy there.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Apr 10, 2012, 8:51 AM
Post #35 of 53 (871 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

 The rig sliding up the MLW on deployment (especially a terminal one) can also be a neck breaker when the cross connector between the reserve risers catches the jumper under the chin.

And another one I read about years ago where the Darwin award winning jumper decided to attach his D rings to the harness, and did so by stitching them with e thread to the OUTSIDE of the MLW...

You can guess the rest of that particular story....


pchapman  (D 1014)

Apr 10, 2012, 9:37 AM
Post #36 of 53 (860 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just adding a set of separable D rings to your sport harness doesn't make it safe (or smart) to jump with an additional reserve mounted there!

I figure it is unlikely for the harness to have a structural failure. But yes, it is a last ditch thing, and could strip handles, hit up agains the chest strap, and cause some damage. But considering you would have used it only if your reserve failed, you might consider yourself lucky.

Interesting to hear that someone actually used such a canopy!

The deployment system from an old military belly mount is also not ideal. Better would be a method to toss the bagged round canopy with a long bridle out away from anything above -- like the style used for a paragliding reserve or a proper skydiving tersh.

Seemed to be standard procedure around here though, because it was easily available.

Sometimes one has to use a particular rig, because that is being tested, and one can't go modify it permanently. So sewing in new ring attachments, or renting some fancy 3-canopy factory rig isn't of use.

Two harnesses can also have issues -- if you have a partial mal on your regular reserve, and toss out a belly mount 3rd canopy, you may be dealing with canopies pulling in different directions, crushing you in between. (Like someone local doing an intentional two out, who ended up choked unconscious by dual harnesses and risers pulling opposite directions.)

Hard to find a perfect answer.


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 10, 2012, 2:53 PM
Post #37 of 53 (831 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Hard to find a perfect answer.


In reply to:

A better idea is use the right tool of the job, I've seen way too many 'unlikely' things come to fruition because all the possibilities weren't understood or considered.

Better to plan/design for a worse case when considering things going sideways in aviation.

Opening shock on a sport harness is more or less vertical, that's 90 degrees from a chest mounted reserve in many cases.

I've seen what sub-terminal opening shock does to a chest strap when a 20 pound 'flag container' was hung from it...pulling several stitches out & weakening the strength.

Imagine a terminal opening on a non-reefed canopy pulling 90 degrees out from the design parameters/configuration.

Think about catchin' 1/2 a dozen G's mid-chest forward...what's keeping ya from going out the back side hole ~ a bungee won't do it. Sly



A coupe de ville may 'work' for off-roading, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. especially when better suited machines are available.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Apr 10, 2012, 3:06 PM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Apr 10, 2012, 3:29 PM
Post #38 of 53 (818 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Think about catchin' 1/2 a dozen G's mid-chest forward...what's keeping ya from going out the back side hole ~ a bungee won't do it. Sly

Forces on the rig aren't much different than for any low mounted bellymount .... but I'll grant you that containers now don't travel as far down the back as a military style backpack!

We're still back to the question of what tools have been available for the job at your average DZ for intentionals onto their reserves. Maybe, compared to the very occasional ones in my local area in the '90s and early '00s, nobody really did them at other DZs??


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 10, 2012, 4:42 PM
Post #39 of 53 (805 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

what tools have been available for the job at your average DZ for intentional onto their reserves

In reply to:

What I've seen used is a conventional harness with the main pack tray removed and a wart hooked up front on the D's with a round canopy sans pilot-chute inside.

The only real 'speciality' part of them is longer than normal risers to hang the reserve low & away from the operating handles on the 'regular' harness & container that's worn over the the back-up one.


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Apr 10, 2012, 5:00 PM
Post #40 of 53 (801 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Peter,

Quote:
Forces on the rig aren't much different than for any low mounted bellymount

For the most part, I tend to agree with. But each instance is unique & should be treated as unique.

We all have some opinions on this subject, and that is not a bad thing.

The TSO standards specifically state that another parachute may be added to the test parachute for use during the live jumps. The TSO standards make no comment as to the method of installation of the additional parachute, it is up to the parachute designer.

Attached is a photo of a chest pack added to a back-pack pilot rig for a test jump. The seperable connector link goes under the two risers & the diagonal back strap ( ~ the MLW ), then the risers go through the solid link with the d-rings at the other end.

This loads the chest pack risers right where the normal loads would be. This setup has been unintentionally jumped at terminal on a chest pack without any damage to any of the equipment.

Some will criticize this but it worked.

JerryBaumchen
Attachments: gut pack-2.jpg (59.3 KB)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Apr 10, 2012, 6:29 PM
Post #41 of 53 (792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Interesting one Jerry!

A separable link plus webbing and ring is in some cases an alternative to an RW-6 when such a separable 3 ring isn't available.

Another method for attaching a belly reserve is to put a separable D-ring on the harness (around the MLW) just below the base 3 ring. For any upward pull it just presses against where the 3 ring is built into the harness.

The attached pic shows this for a separable RW-6 ring, instead of a real D-ring. (I set it up for the photos so isn't screwed on tight.) The pic shows it on an old rig where there's no mudflap that has to be pushed aside.

For the RW-6, I have it attached so it 'points away from' the regular 3 ring to minimize interference, although that would put greater bending loads on it if loaded towards the top of the rig. Not sure what's best.

I haven't used this method yet but have heard it being done, whether keeping the belly canopy as the final canopy, or deploying it as the first canopy (to be chopped).

Any opinions on this system?

Once again it is not a perfect solution at all.

At least it'll only damage your chest strap if you open head down. Wink
Attachments: MdCIMG8697 RW-6 below 3 ring.jpg (128 KB)


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 10, 2012, 7:05 PM
Post #42 of 53 (781 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

whether keeping the belly canopy as the final canopy, or deploying it as the first canopy (to be chopped).

In reply to:

Looks interesting Peter.

I would use it as a last back up though, even if the canopy were cut-away, deploying it might put the ring in a position where it would hinder the operation of the main 3ring should you need it.

Just blue skying here...Wink


pchapman  (D 1014)

Apr 10, 2012, 7:57 PM
Post #43 of 53 (770 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Speaking of things one isn't entirely sure about...
there's that technique of 2 sets of mini rings within a large main ring. Maybe it works really well, but it is hard to feel warm and fuzzy about it the first time you see it. Even if that is the way it was or is done on a Strong Tridem in the one photo Jerry had.


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 10, 2012, 8:28 PM
Post #44 of 53 (764 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Speaking of things one isn't entirely sure about...
there's that technique of 2 sets of mini rings within a large main ring. Maybe it works really well, but it is hard to feel warm and fuzzy about it the first time you see it. Even if that is the way it was or is done on a Strong Tridem in the one photo Jerry had.

LaughLaugh
Yup.

Seen that a few times, seen it work well...something in my head still says~ THAT's gonna be a problem! Wink


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Apr 10, 2012, 8:41 PM)
Attachments: tridem Strong Ent.jpg (137 KB)
  2.jpg (110 KB)


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Apr 10, 2012, 10:46 PM
Post #45 of 53 (744 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Peter,

I have used that type of idea, but that was many years ago & I like to think I'm smarter now.

Why not just use a seperable link like I did & bring the chest pack riser between the 3-ring like I did with the Solid Link?

Sometimes we do what we have to do to get the job done; and then we hope for the best.

JerryBaumchen

PS) Is that rig an early Racer?


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Apr 11, 2012, 12:02 AM
Post #46 of 53 (735 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The TSO standards specifically state that another parachute may be added to the test parachute for use during the live jumps. The TSO standards make no comment as to the method of installation of the additional parachute, it is up to the parachute designer.

That is why I would always wear an “approved” air crew harness with an “approved” chest mount hooked to it. In most cases the canopy and the harness I was testing were an unknown quantity. In the picture I am jumping an air crew system, DuraChute during Alpha Quals for the Navy.

Sparky

http://i397.photobucket.com/...ydiving/ThinPack.jpg


theonlyski  (D License)

Apr 11, 2012, 4:10 AM
Post #47 of 53 (720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

I've got a T-10 harness that would probably work well for a chest mount reserve under your harness.

Also works well for doing intentional chops using the capewells. Angelic


pchapman  (D 1014)

Apr 11, 2012, 6:08 AM
Post #48 of 53 (706 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why not just use a seperable link like I did & bring the chest pack riser

Much appreciated, that's a very nice solution, threading a short riser through the 3-ring! That solves a lot of the direction-of-pull issues. Not much space on some mini ring rigs, but in general it'll work.

(If I want to do that, I'll have to scrounge a couple more links and visit Beatnik & his new harness machine. The picture is of an '84 Racer, a rig that was old even when I bought it as my very first. Any old skydiver should know why there's a tiny divot added to the harness rings, which were forged in 1982.Wink)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Apr 11, 2012, 8:02 AM
Post #49 of 53 (694 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I've got a T-10 harness that would probably work well for a chest mount reserve under your harness.

Also works well for doing intentional chops using the capewells. Angelic

An air crew QAC harness does not have the capewells to deal with.

Sparky


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Apr 11, 2012, 11:25 AM
Post #50 of 53 (676 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Peter,

Quote:
Much appreciated

IMO some people like to use this site to argue; I prefer to use it for information, in both directions.

Quote:
Any old skydiver should know why there's a tiny divot added to the harness rings, which were forged in 1982.

Yup

Wink

JerryBaumchen


Deyan  (D 322)

Apr 11, 2012, 12:58 PM
Post #51 of 53 (266 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

PS) Is that rig an early Racer?

That's what I'd like to know as well Wink

I have never seen a chest strap sewn in the Dring 4p.st. It's probably something build way before I was born Tongue
And that Type 7 MLW for a Racer?


pchapman  (D 1014)

Apr 11, 2012, 3:49 PM
Post #52 of 53 (247 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deyan] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

(Type 13 for the Racer MLW actually, 7000 lbs. Reserve rear risers are type 8.)


skypilotA1  (D 17101)

Apr 17, 2012, 9:32 AM
Post #53 of 53 (195 views)
Shortcut
Re: [freeflyer58D] Intentional Breakaways [In reply to] Can't Post

I have about 25 intentional cutaways using an additional "D" ring set-up I developed on my sport rig. I could hook up a third main that I chopped after deployment, back into freefall and open my conventional main. Not really a big deal after 5 or 10 jumps, just a hassle chasing the chopped canopy after a high opening.
In reply to:



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)