Forums: Skydiving: Incidents:
Two canopy out - Multiple locations

 


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Jan 28, 2013, 6:50 AM
Post #1 of 52 (4527 views)
Shortcut
Two canopy out - Multiple locations Can't Post

Its been floating around Facebook for a little while so it might as well be brought up here that in the last 2 months there have been multiple reported instances of two canopy out situations arising from complications with Apache Wingsuits. The issue has been documented at least once on video that due to the placement of the handles now being inside the rig and needing modification to reach the handles at deployment this can result in an accidental pull of the reserve handle just at deployment. In one instance the canopies entered a downplane close to the ground.

This Apache suit style was originally designed for the BASE environment where there are no handles to pull and was later modified to try and get it to work in the skydiving environment. There were previous issues that a modification that was proposed to allow this suit to be used for skydiving had increased the pull force on the reserve handles to a level above TSO certification levels.

At least one West Coast DZ has now put out a ban on that particular style of wingsuit due to the issues that have been identified with it, all other wingsuits seem st still be allowed at this time at that DZ.


Tony-tonysuits  (D 1460)

Jan 28, 2013, 10:03 AM
Post #2 of 52 (4257 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, its the tie being above the chest strap is the problem, the tie has the below the chest strap so as the chest strap goes up on opening the suit stays with it,


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Jan 28, 2013, 12:30 PM
Post #3 of 52 (4054 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Its been floating around Facebook for a little while so it might as well be brought up here that in the last 2 months there have been multiple reported instances of two canopy out situations arising from complications with Apache Wingsuits. The issue has been documented at least once on video that due to the placement of the handles now being inside the rig and needing modification to reach the handles at deployment this can result in an accidental pull of the reserve handle just at deployment. In one instance the canopies entered a downplane close to the ground.

This Apache suit style was originally designed for the BASE environment where there are no handles to pull and was later modified to try and get it to work in the skydiving environment. There were previous issues that a modification that was proposed to allow this suit to be used for skydiving had increased the pull force on the reserve handles to a level above TSO certification levels.

At least one West Coast DZ has now put out a ban on that particular style of wingsuit due to the issues that have been identified with it, all other wingsuits seem st still be allowed at this time at that DZ.


The referenced online videos:

Two-out/Apache
Reserve pull test/Apache


normiss  (D 28356)

Jan 28, 2013, 3:16 PM
Post #4 of 52 (3885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Tony-tonysuits] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Can you explain what you said?
In English?


It makes no sense the way it's written.


yoink

Jan 28, 2013, 3:26 PM
Post #5 of 52 (3875 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post



wow. That looks like sport death just waiting to happen...


miconar  (D 1084)

Jan 28, 2013, 7:38 PM
Post #6 of 52 (3583 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

The tie should have very little to no slack at all in it. The suit loop, tie point on the rig, Velcro on the suit, Velcro on the rig, hard housing on the rig and the tie itself should all coincide as much as possible. Anything else would introduce slack into the system. That is how I read it at least.


(This post was edited by miconar on Jan 28, 2013, 7:53 PM)


Premier Remster  (C License)

Jan 29, 2013, 6:41 AM
Post #7 of 52 (3294 views)
Shortcut
Re: [miconar] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

The fact that anyone, never mind a manufacturer, would think that any amount of messing with the handles and rigging around the cables is acceptable in a skydiving situation is mind boggling. Especially with the amount of mounting evidence of major issues.




chuckakers  (D 10855)

Jan 29, 2013, 11:48 AM
Post #9 of 52 (3084 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The fact that anyone, never mind a manufacturer, would think that any amount of messing with the handles and rigging around the cables is acceptable in a skydiving situation is mind boggling. Especially with the amount of mounting evidence of major issues.

yup.


QuickDraw  (C License)

Jan 29, 2013, 11:50 AM
Post #10 of 52 (3084 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Was that downplane induced by trying to bring his main to the front?
It looked pretty landable before the riser-work.


Helmet mounted tersh anyone? Wink


(This post was edited by QuickDraw on Jan 29, 2013, 12:05 PM)


FB1609  (C 1409)

Jan 29, 2013, 12:56 PM
Post #11 of 52 (3017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [QuickDraw] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Hopefully a full ban on the suit without a base rig until they resolve this. Anyways, I'm pretty sure nobody who has one would jump it with a normal rig for now if they saw those vids. A link should be sent to all who bought or jump one. Good of you to get the word out before the inevitable.

That hardpull vid was crazy.


(This post was edited by FB1609 on Jan 29, 2013, 1:04 PM)


miconar  (D 1084)

Jan 29, 2013, 1:13 PM
Post #12 of 52 (2994 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FB1609] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

When properly rigged I have yet to see the issue with these. People want to put something half assed together without consulting a rigger/mfg and doing the research, or ignore the plain to see fact that the rig they have doesn't match the suit they got, they gonna get bitten. If they think they can just throw it all together and find out if it works properly for the first time in the air, they gonna find out for the first time in the air for sure.

This is a mod, not a commercial product. It should be treated as such. It doesn't always work out of the box and modifications on the suit/rig are sometimes needed, which is why it's not sold as sky gear. Accept it before you buy it or get the x3. For Christ sake it's the same damn suit minus some cool factor. The only reason to get one of these is if you are actually competing, which makes youa big boy, or should at least. YMMV.

And FYI - the setup shown in the hard pull video is now banned and not in use. I understand why Spot is still showing it - he is trying to show what can happen when you start playing with things and have a bad system/suit/rig combo. It is meant as a deterrent for the uninformed that just want the biggest coolest thing out there. How ever some of you are reacting to that vid as though that setup is still considered airworthy. It is not. The fact they jumped that setup many times before ever trying a pull test on the ground speaks more to the understanding they have for the gravity of the craft they chose for themselves then the validity of the setup.


(This post was edited by miconar on Jan 29, 2013, 1:35 PM)


gzimmermann  (D 31852)

Jan 29, 2013, 1:53 PM
Post #13 of 52 (2935 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Tony-tonysuits] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes, its the tie being above the chest strap is the problem, the tie has the below the chest strap so as the chest strap goes up on opening the suit stays with it,
Did somebody steal your user and password here? Sorry, Tony... The next big thing coming up is not so experienced jumpers using the BASE pouch for their pilot chute on regular WS skydives out of Otters without questioning the risks and rules by saying "I am just getting used to the pull sequence for the one and only true grip". Just like the other very much experienced wingsuiters jumping the Apache with no access to the handles with the argument "I jump BASE, no worries". WTF!?


normiss  (D 28356)

Jan 29, 2013, 1:55 PM
Post #14 of 52 (2929 views)
Shortcut
Re: [miconar] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

I find it more of a violation of the TSO.
It's just downright stupid and deadly.


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Jan 29, 2013, 2:19 PM
Post #15 of 52 (2895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [miconar] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
When properly rigged I have yet to see the issue with these. People want to put something half assed together without consulting a rigger/mfg and doing the research, or ignore the plain to see fact that the rig they have doesn't match the suit they got, they gonna get bitten. If they think they can just throw it all together and find out if it works properly for the first time in the air, they gonna find out for the first time in the air for sure.

This is a mod, not a commercial product. It should be treated as such. It doesn't always work out of the box and modifications on the suit/rig are sometimes needed, which is why it's not sold as sky gear. Accept it before you buy it or get the x3. For Christ sake it's the same damn suit minus some cool factor. The only reason to get one of these is if you are actually competing, which makes youa big boy, or should at least. YMMV.

And FYI - the setup shown in the hard pull video is now banned and not in use. I understand why Spot is still showing it - he is trying to show what can happen when you start playing with things and have a bad system/suit/rig combo. It is meant as a deterrent for the uninformed that just want the biggest coolest thing out there. How ever some of you are reacting to that vid as though that setup is still considered airworthy. It is not. The fact they jumped that setup many times before ever trying a pull test on the ground speaks more to the understanding they have for the gravity of the craft they chose for themselves then the validity of the setup.

Has anyone actually gone ahead and done testing that quantifies the actual advantages of having the MLW covered vs exposed?


diablopilot  (D License)

Jan 29, 2013, 2:49 PM
Post #16 of 52 (2856 views)
Shortcut
Re: [miconar] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
When properly rigged I have yet to see the issue with these.

When you get a container manufacturer to utter these words it may be true, un till then it is a null statement.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jan 29, 2013, 9:58 PM
Post #17 of 52 (2601 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The fact that anyone, never mind a manufacturer, would think that any amount of messing with the handles and rigging around the cables is acceptable in a skydiving situation is mind boggling. Especially with the amount of mounting evidence of major issues.

Bingo!


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jan 29, 2013, 10:02 PM
Post #18 of 52 (2595 views)
Shortcut
Re: [QuickDraw] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Was that downplane induced by trying to bring his main to the front?
It looked pretty landable before the riser-work.

He mishandled the entire EP for two-out side-by-side.
Got lucky that the downplane didn't happen higher.

The downplane was induced by him yanking on the risers.


The111  (D 29246)

Jan 29, 2013, 10:33 PM
Post #19 of 52 (2578 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Has anyone actually gone ahead and done testing that quantifies the actual advantages of having the MLW covered vs exposed?

It's easier to zip your suit up with the chest strap inside. Wink


sky12345

Jan 30, 2013, 1:01 AM
Post #20 of 52 (2538 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The111] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Has anyone actually gone ahead and done testing that quantifies the actual advantages of having the MLW covered vs exposed?

It's easier to zip your suit up with the chest strap undone inside. Wink

here, fify


johnmatrix  (D 9999)

Jan 30, 2013, 1:27 AM
Post #21 of 52 (2520 views)
Shortcut
Re: [miconar] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The fact they jumped that setup many times before ever trying a pull test on the ground speaks more to the understanding they have

That in it itself is possibly the most insane part of this whole saga.
Why the hell wouldn't you do a pull test on the ground?
I think it's only a matter of time until someone gets killed skydiving one of these suits.

Further to that, I don't even know how they're allowed to be jumped if they violate the TSO - if you can jump gear that violates the TSO then why can't you jump with the BASE gear that they were actually designed for?


johnmatrix  (D 9999)

Jan 30, 2013, 1:34 AM
Post #22 of 52 (2519 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Has anyone actually gone ahead and done testing that quantifies the actual advantages of having the MLW covered vs exposed?

That's something I've asked before on these forums and I don't think I got a response.

I reckon the difference is minimal, at best. It stands to reason that there would be some performance gain but I reckon it's not a lot.
On top of that I'd imagine that most people skydiving it bought it because it is the biggest suit on the market, not because the chest strap is inside the suit.
If you were that worried about the chest strap I don't see why you couldn't just put some tape across the top of it when you put your gear on.


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Jan 30, 2013, 12:05 PM
Post #23 of 52 (2410 views)
Shortcut
Re: [johnmatrix] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi john,

Quote:
I don't even know how they're allowed to be jumped if they violate the TSO

Not trying to argue, trying to find out what leads you to conclude this.

Elaborate, please.

JerryBaumchen


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Jan 30, 2013, 1:35 PM
Post #24 of 52 (2323 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hi john,

Quote:
I don't even know how they're allowed to be jumped if they violate the TSO

Not trying to argue, trying to find out what leads you to conclude this.

Elaborate, please.

JerryBaumchen

Depends. TSO-C23F refers to PIA TS-135 for minimum performance standards. I'd argue that the thumb loops violate the TSO cert due to the increase in pull force above acceptable limits.

TS-135 states clearly the "types" of systems that are subject to the standard (single harness reserve assembly, single harness emergency assembly, dual harness reserve assembly). The testing and certification is done on the rig. I'd argue that when you relocate the handles from the designed location(s) on the harness and install them on the suit. You've just added the suit to the system. The suit was not part of the system when certified. Therefore I don't see how you can still be in compliance. There doesn't seem to be anything in the document to cover this corner case but I believe a couple comments illustrate the intent. Section 4.3.3 lists testing requirements for reserve ripcord. First few words are "Under normal design operating conditions". I don't think ANY skydiving container with the handles relocated meet that standard. It's not the way they were designed, nor how they were tested during certification.


(This post was edited by GobbleGobble on Jan 30, 2013, 1:37 PM)


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Jan 30, 2013, 3:26 PM
Post #25 of 52 (2239 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Gobble,

Nicely put if I may say so.

I tend agree but remember, I do not speak for the FAA. It would probably be very successfully argued that relocating the reserve ripcord handle would put the 'alteration' outside of the design parameters, i.e., would no longer comply with the TSO.

Thanks, always good to get a thought or two,

JerryBaumchen


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Jan 30, 2013, 4:15 PM
Post #26 of 52 (1491 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hi Gobble,

Nicely put if I may say so.

I tend agree but remember, I do not speak for the FAA. It would probably be very successfully argued that relocating the reserve ripcord handle would put the 'alteration' outside of the design parameters, i.e., would no longer comply with the TSO.

Thanks, always good to get a thought or two,

JerryBaumchen

I'm pretty surprised Tony went there in the first place. Also surprised a bit that H/C mfgs haven't put out a note saying don't do this. What I don't understand and would like someone to get me smart on is what the limitations are for master riggers with regards to all this stuff. I've read the verbage on repairs and such, but wondering how far they can mod a system before they could be running foul.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 30, 2013, 5:32 PM
Post #27 of 52 (1450 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

>I'm pretty surprised Tony went there in the first place.

Note that these suits are intended for BASE, not skydiving; thus it's not an intended use of the suit (although Tony has given suggestions on how to use them for skydiving.)

> Also surprised a bit that H/C mfgs haven't put out a note saying don't do this.

I don't think there's been enough time for them to respond to this yet.


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Jan 30, 2013, 6:07 PM
Post #28 of 52 (1429 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>I'm pretty surprised Tony went there in the first place.

Note that these suits are intended for BASE, not skydiving; thus it's not an intended use of the suit (although Tony has given suggestions on how to use them for skydiving.)

> Also surprised a bit that H/C mfgs haven't put out a note saying don't do this.

I don't think there's been enough time for them to respond to this yet.

The original mod used handles that connected via french link around the cutaway cable and reserve cable (respectively).

The original mod was provided by Tonysuits.

The issue was noted over 10 months ago.

A sticky was started by Tony in the WS subforum on March 20, 2012.

The mod that relocates the handles to the suit and off the MLW, I hope was not suggested by Tonysuits. It sounds like it was.

Putting up a disclaimer on your site saying that a suit is BASE only and then engaging in the above is pretty stupid. By providing the handles in the first place he's blown that disclaimer out of the water IMO.

Just should have left it alone.

The Squirrel guys have bypassed this completely by the way they designed the zip system. MLW outside the suit for sky. MLW can be moved inside for BASE.

You are seriously going to tell me that it takes someone 10 months or more to look at this and say "this is a less than brilliant idea"?

I'm not trying to shitbag on Tony. I just don't get the thought process. He and his team make great stuff, I just think this was poorly thought out (and continues to be).


Andy9o8  (D License)

Jan 30, 2013, 7:00 PM
Post #29 of 52 (1403 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Note that these suits are intended for BASE, not skydiving; thus it's not an intended use of the suit (although Tony has given suggestions on how to use them for skydiving.)
.

Well, depending on what was said, and in what context, that just might give someone with an agenda the ammo to argue that it inches it closer to the line. At the very least (again, depending on what/how was said) it potentially creates an inconvenient ambiguity. Just saying.


(This post was edited by Andy9o8 on Jan 30, 2013, 7:01 PM)


johnmatrix  (D 9999)

Jan 31, 2013, 12:19 AM
Post #30 of 52 (1271 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Quote:
I don't even know how they're allowed to be jumped if they violate the TSO

Not trying to argue, trying to find out what leads you to conclude this.

Elaborate, please.

Honestly I'd just assumed all gear had to be TSO'd to be jumped legally from aircraft. That is not correct?
Perhaps I did post a bit quickly. Smile


Premier Remster  (C License)

Jan 31, 2013, 1:25 AM
Post #31 of 52 (1254 views)
Shortcut
Re: [johnmatrix] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

Quote:
I don't even know how they're allowed to be jumped if they violate the TSO

Not trying to argue, trying to find out what leads you to conclude this.

Elaborate, please.

Honestly I'd just assumed all gear had to be TSO'd to be jumped legally from aircraft. That is not correct?
Perhaps I did post a bit quickly. Smile

No, it's not correct.

The Harness/Container and the Reserve generally need to be TSO'd to be jumped from an aircraft, in the US (along with some other rules, like be a 2 canopy system, etc...). I say generally because exceptions can be granted.

Other countries have different requirements and may recognize different standards.


johnmatrix  (D 9999)

Jan 31, 2013, 2:15 AM
Post #32 of 52 (1238 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the clarification.
I have seen a couple of Apaches modified for skydiving that did seem to look OK.
I'd consider jumping a setup like the one I saw but I'd have to have a very good reason to do so - good enough to accept the extra risk involved with being a test jumper.


dustin19d  (D License)

Feb 2, 2013, 6:48 PM
Post #33 of 52 (885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess this is a moot point as the purpose of this thread is to discuss the usefulness of this particular wing suit designed for BASE but modified for free fall.
I didn't see anyone else notice that he pulls hard right rear riser on the left parachute and hard left rear riser on the right parachute effectively turning them into the ground. The twist in the main on the right doesnt really effect anything, as long as the risers are equal (same length) the parachute could care less that the twist is there. Any inputs to that parachute should obviously be above the twist VIA rear riser. He did the right thing keeping both canopies and all brakes stowed however the low self induced down plane was avoidable Unsure


monkycndo  (D License)

Feb 3, 2013, 4:19 AM
Post #34 of 52 (807 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dustin19d] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

The pilot starts pulling right rear riser on the reserve, but changed to the left rear. In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers would cause the canopies to turn towards eachother, not go downplane. It was pulling on the outside riser of the reserve that caused the reserve to turn away from the main and induce the downplane.

If stable, letting both canopies fly is the best and safest way to handle a two out. But if you must turn to avoid an obstruction, steer the canopy that is on the outside of the turn and have it push the inside canopy the direction you want both to go. In the situation in this video, the pilot should have used only left rear riser of the main to push the reserve to the left. If he had also responded a bit sooner, a small correction would have been more than enough to make sure he would have had open ground to land and reduced the amount of input needed to get the same amount of direction change then waiting to be where he was and feeling the need to make a much more drastic turn.


fasted3  (D 30104)

Feb 3, 2013, 7:24 AM
Post #35 of 52 (994 views)
Shortcut
Re: [monkycndo] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The pilot starts pulling right rear riser on the reserve, but changed to the left rear. In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers would cause the canopies to turn towards eachother, not go downplane. It was pulling on the outside riser of the reserve that caused the reserve to turn away from the main and induce the downplane.

If stable, letting both canopies fly is the best and safest way to handle a two out. But if you must turn to avoid an obstruction, steer the canopy that is on the outside of the turn and have it push the inside canopy the direction you want both to go. In the situation in this video, the pilot should have used only left rear riser of the main to push the reserve to the left. If he had also responded a bit sooner, a small correction would have been more than enough to make sure he would have had open ground to land and reduced the amount of input needed to get the same amount of direction change then waiting to be where he was and feeling the need to make a much more drastic turn.
Yeah, but...
The line twist in the main would make it harder to control it. Not saying your suggestion wouldn't work, but I think that twist would make it more difficult to predict what would happen, leading to...
If he did start messing with it sooner and things went bad, the outcome could have been worse. By waiting, he had a survivable outcome even though it did go bad.
I still like your comment though. If his last minute response had been to use the main, it probably would have been better yet.
Good stuff.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 3, 2013, 10:43 AM
Post #36 of 52 (938 views)
Shortcut
Re: [monkycndo] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers

Where in the world did you guys get the idea to play with risers in a two-out?
Crazy


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Feb 3, 2013, 10:43 AM)


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Feb 3, 2013, 12:09 PM
Post #37 of 52 (900 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers

Where in the world did you guys get the idea to play with risers in a two-out?
Crazy

hypothetical;

You're heading for a building, scary obstacle (similar to the ditch in the video) fence, power lines, construction debris pile, or other unlandable area and have a two-out. It's too late to safely release the main.
What would you do?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 3, 2013, 12:29 PM
Post #38 of 52 (891 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers

Where in the world did you guys get the idea to play with risers in a two-out?
Crazy

hypothetical;

You're heading for a building, scary obstacle (similar to the ditch in the video) fence, power lines, construction debris pile, or other unlandable area and have a two-out. It's too late to safely release the main.
What would you do?

Call the wife.
"Honey, come on down to see the crash! It's going to be a beauty!"

Seriously, though...

DSE
Since you didn't specify altitude, I'll throw it back at you.
Options
- Do nothing, take the thump
- Emergency avoidance maneuver with risers
- Emergency avoidance maneuver with toggles

If you are that close, either avoidance maneuver will be necessarily radical which, in all likelihood will adversely affect your canopy flight...probably to the extent of exponentially increasing the speed at impact.
(folded up canopies, entangled, downplane?)

If you're going to do an avoidance maneuver , use the toggles that are already in your hands.

Higher altitude
Fly the proper canopy with toggles using gentle, minimal inputs to avoid the obstacles.


Edited to add: Yes, I know the SIM provides options for both toggles OR risers. Toggle control has been tested. Has riser control been tested? I mean other than, "I did it and I'm still alive so it must be good-to-go."


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Feb 3, 2013, 12:35 PM)


The111  (D 29246)

Feb 3, 2013, 1:12 PM
Post #39 of 52 (863 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Edited to add: Yes, I know the SIM provides options for both toggles OR risers. Toggle control has been tested. Has riser control been tested? I mean other than, "I did it and I'm still alive so it must be good-to-go."

I'm not sure there have been any tests where one of the canopies had line twists. In a situation like that I may think twice about releasing brakes on either canopy (assuming I decided to keep them both and land it with the twists). For instance, one good hypothetical is what if the twisted canopy is the dominant one? Releasing those brakes accomplishes nothing since steering lines are unreliable (at best) when twisted up, and releasing the brakes on the non-dominant canopy goes against conventional wisdom based on... testing.

If I did decide to land a biplane where one canopy had twists, I'd probably do a control check with risers only up high. If I could safely control if like that, I would probably leave the brakes stowed. If it didn't seem safe like that, I'd release toggles on untwisted canopy and do another control check. If didn't seem safe like that, I'd probably try to separate the canopies as far as possible and chop main.

But yes, in general, "riser control" has been tested. It's been proven that risers are a means of controlling a canopy.




popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 3, 2013, 5:26 PM
Post #41 of 52 (793 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The111] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But yes, in general, "riser control" has been tested. It's been proven that risers are a means of controlling a canopy.
Show us who, what, when and where.

One having line twists pretty much makes it a no-brainer on which to fly.

So, you've chosen to do something other than proven best practices. OK your choice. I will ask you that until the riser trick is tested and proven, that you teach the young jumpers to use toggles, please.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Feb 3, 2013, 5:36 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 3, 2013, 5:28 PM
Post #42 of 52 (792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BudHadfield] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
If you're going to do an avoidance maneuver , use the toggles that are already in your hands.

Use the toggles or risers that are most likely to help you, without making things worse.

Use the technique that has been tested and proven best practices. How are you going to know that either one is the most likely to help you? You don't.

Or,

Are you saying to let go of the toggles and then perform the maneuver with the risers?


Maybe YOU have test info?


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Feb 3, 2013, 5:30 PM)


format  (B 15348)

Feb 3, 2013, 8:41 PM
Post #43 of 52 (734 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's too late to safely release the main.

When is too late?


pchapman  (D 1014)

Feb 4, 2013, 6:27 AM
Post #44 of 52 (615 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers

Where in the world did you guys get the idea to play with risers in a two-out?
Crazy

Although you weren't responding to me specifically, these are my sources, that suggest that leaving toggles stowed and using risers is best:

-- Jim Cowan of CPS at PIA 2009
-- John Leblanc of CPS in a 2004 lecture
-- the CSPA manual, FWIW (PIM 2 rewritten 2010)

These are in contrast to the Dual Square Report presented at the PIA in 1997, which mentions flying the front canopy in a biplane, or the 'dominant' canopy in a side by side, with gentle toggle input.

(However, it never explicitly mentions releasing toggles, what to do if certain toggles are released or not, or toggle positions for matching a canopy that has toggles set. Thus my opinion is that the toggles issue might not have been thought out as much at that time as in later publications.)

The USPA SIM basically follows the Dual Square Report, but is explicit about releasing toggles in order to steer.

I personally don't believe that using toggles is "proven best practice" or that the Dual Square Report is the final word in scientific proof in the field. I tend towards preferring to keep the canopies slower if possible (if they aren't the less common type that is on the edge of stalling when brakes are set), but would agree that more evidence would be useful.


Premier faulknerwn  (D 17441)
Moderator
Feb 4, 2013, 7:11 AM
Post #45 of 52 (590 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

For me if I already had the main toggles unstowed I would continue steering wiih them.

If I ended up with 2 parachutes out in a stable configuration with both sets of brakes were still stowed - I wouldn't screw with what was working and would steer using really gentle riser inputs.


format  (B 15348)

Feb 4, 2013, 8:40 AM
Post #46 of 52 (548 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulknerwn] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
For me if I already had the main toggles unstowed I would continue steering wiih them.

... and if the toggles were stowed?


Premier faulknerwn  (D 17441)
Moderator
Feb 4, 2013, 8:50 AM
Post #47 of 52 (534 views)
Shortcut
Re: [format] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

The second paragraph of my above post / I would not change a stable configuration and would steer with risers


normiss  (D 28356)

Feb 4, 2013, 8:51 AM
Post #48 of 52 (532 views)
Shortcut
Re: [format] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Might want to read his post again.
Wink




Krip  (Student)

Feb 4, 2013, 10:47 AM
Post #50 of 52 (459 views)
Shortcut
Re: [format] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It's too late to safely release the main.

When is too late?

YMMV.

I don't think this is a exact science. Their are lots of variables Shocked.

Know your options and deal with it.Unimpressed


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Feb 4, 2013, 10:53 AM
Post #51 of 52 (499 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Krip] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

I have split this thread, any further conversations on the two canopy out and how to fly the canopies should be taken to the proper thread in Safety.





Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)