Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Intentional Breakaways

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

riggerrob  (D 14840)

Apr 9, 2012, 7:37 PM
Post #26 of 53 (998 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 (974 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 (969 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 (955 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 (949 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 (940 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 (922 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 (922 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 (877 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 (874 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 (863 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 (834 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 (821 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 (808 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 (804 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 (795 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 (784 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 (773 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 (767 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 (747 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 (738 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 (723 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 (709 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 (697 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 (679 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


First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)