Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Intentional breakaway requirements

 

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

nsh  (D 31799)

Jan 24, 2010, 12:15 PM
Post #1 of 45 (5122 views)
Shortcut
Intentional breakaway requirements Can't Post

Hi All,
From what I got from SIM, the requirements for pre-planned breakaway is C license.
I think that the safe cutaway practice (with proper equipment, say, with two reserves) could be beneficial for even an AFF student (well... or at least A-licensed skydiver), because the malfunctions that require cutaway will not wait until you get your C.
I have not had any malfunction requiring cutaway yet, but I would really love to practice the intentional cutaway before I actually have to have my first unintentional one. I believe if I had previous a cutaway experience, the unplanned cutaway situation would be much more controllable for me...

Could anybody please comment on this idea? Do I misunderstand anything in SIM requirements?


dragon2  (D 101989)

Jan 24, 2010, 12:25 PM
Post #2 of 45 (5046 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nsh] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

Try a search, this has been debated a few times here before.

Intentional cutaways are dangerous because of the added gear (2 reserves are dangerous in that you cannot cut either of them away should you want or need to, you get more handles too) and change in procedures, so these should only be done by experienced skydivers IMO. I did 2 myself, but after having performed 2 "real" cutaways for the first one. A much better option is to demo the reserve you have as a main since it flies and flares quite differently from modern sports mains, and if you have any doubt whatsoever in your reserve procedures do not jump until you cleared those doubts with your instructor. Try to get in a hanging harness and practice that, a lot. Leave the intentionals for (much) later, if you still want to by then and can find the required gear.


nsh  (D 31799)

Jan 24, 2010, 12:35 PM
Post #3 of 45 (5036 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the reply. I tried to search but couldn't find anything relevant.
Actually, my main concern was not about flying the reserve canopy (even though it should have been a concern - the advice to try reserve as a main makes perfect sense to me).
I did had a practice in a hanging harness... but I do not think that it is the same like while in a sky. Maybe I am wrong. Will have to wait for my either C or the malfunction (whichever comes first, hehe Crazy).


(This post was edited by nsh on Jan 24, 2010, 1:27 PM)


GLIDEANGLE  (D 30292)

Jan 24, 2010, 1:05 PM
Post #4 of 45 (5017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nsh] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I do not think that it is the same like while in a sky

Since most cutaways are probably due to rapidly spining malsan intentional cutaway isn't going to be like most mals either!


nsh  (D 31799)

Jan 24, 2010, 1:14 PM
Post #5 of 45 (5008 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GLIDEANGLE] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

Very true... unless you simulate it. Wink


pchapman  (D 1014)

Jan 24, 2010, 1:22 PM
Post #6 of 45 (4998 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nsh] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

Interesting about the C license. Rules vary - in Canada one only needs a Solo certificate, not even the A licence. (Manual deployment procedures appropriate to a belly mounted no-pilot-chute reserve need to be trained and signed off, however.)

Still, whatever the rules, it isn't usually something done while someone is still a relative novice. It could be done more often but the big thing is that there usually isn't any really appropriate gear with which to do an intentional.


fencebuster  (D 29918)

Jan 24, 2010, 5:03 PM
Post #7 of 45 (4884 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GLIDEANGLE] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

I have had 4 cut-aways and none of them were in a situation that was overwhelming. Main out . . . is it there, square , controllable and landable? If not . . . cut away. I have subscribed to changing the decision and act altitude to 3000 if I have time because of my early 1st cutaway experience (second AFF jump) where I knew I had a major problem at about 4500 feet worked it for a little bit and then decided I would make my decision and act at 3000. All but one of my cut-aways involved a spinning main, so that is definitely a stressor not present in an intentional cut-away with three canopies.

IMO, don't be in a hurry to experience a cutaway, but practice your emergency procedures, and, if faced with the situation that calls for the cut-away, do it. Trust the gear. It works.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Jan 24, 2010, 6:46 PM
Post #8 of 45 (4848 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GLIDEANGLE] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Since most cutaways are probably due to rapidly spining mals....

That's a leap. Let's not go from trying to be helpful to adding to misunderstandings.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 24, 2010, 8:16 PM
Post #9 of 45 (4807 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nsh] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

>I have not had any malfunction requiring cutaway yet, but I would really
>love to practice the intentional cutaway before I actually have to have my
>first unintentional one.

Use a hanging harness ten feet over a pool, and use a real cutaway system. That's about as real as it gets.

>I believe if I had previous a cutaway experience, the unplanned
>cutaway situation would be much more controllable for me...

History has shown that this isn't something that most people have trouble with, oddly enough. Even newer jumpers report it being almost automatic.


lekstrom10k  (D 3001)

Jan 24, 2010, 8:20 PM
Post #10 of 45 (4807 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nsh] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

 Most intentional cutaways on a third canopy. seperable D-ringa are attached on your main lift webs. You jump deploy the canopy from the deployment bag cutaway Then after freefall open your normal canopy. Its mostly for demos not a training device. As stated PD comes to demo rigs at a boogie they have reserves set up as mains . It is a good time to try what your potential reserves fly like. The canopies have bridle and bag attaching rings on top


airtwardo  (D License)

Jan 24, 2010, 9:19 PM
Post #11 of 45 (4779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lekstrom10k] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Most intentional cutaways on a third canopy. seperable D-ringa are attached on your main lift webs. You jump deploy the canopy from the deployment bag cutaway Then after freefall open your normal canopy. Its mostly for demos not a training device. As stated PD comes to demo rigs at a boogie they have reserves set up as mains . It is a good time to try what your potential reserves fly like. The canopies have bridle and bag attaching rings on top


Just to add~

Before someone just attaches D rings to their harness they need to consult with a rigger that understand the harness stress and geometry regarding a terminal opening on those rings.

My harness was specifically designed for the attachment of said D rings.

I wouldn't want my life to depend on the harness holding together in a way it wasn't designed or intended to.

http://www.dropzone.com/...nt;postatt_id=80358;


http://www.dropzone.com/...nt;postatt_id=80356;

http://www.dropzone.com/...nt;postatt_id=80357;


nsh  (D 31799)

Jan 24, 2010, 10:23 PM
Post #12 of 45 (4753 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fencebuster] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you! :-)


Sletzer  (B 31200)

Jan 25, 2010, 9:44 AM
Post #13 of 45 (4643 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nsh] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

Some larger boogies will have gear manufacturers demoing their systems that enable you to do an intentional cutaway. I was able to do one at last year's Skyfest with a UPT Skyhook Demo. I believe they required something like 100 jumps and $50.

Totally worth the cost. It's intimidating to use a more complex system with the extra handles, but they drill the new ep's into your head- and if you're not comfortable with it, don't go.

I'd be willing to bet that just such an opportunity might pop up if you go to the Skydive Expo in March.


nsh  (D 31799)

Jan 25, 2010, 10:00 AM
Post #14 of 45 (4630 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sletzer] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

I was going to do it in Sebastian this new year (there was going to be SkyHook demos with intentional cutaway there). But DZ staff members say they will stick to USPA/SIM requirements on that which is "C" license.
And I must admit, that although I badly wanted to try it, I appreciate DZ staff doing the business that way. :-)


catfishhunter  (D 28796)

Jan 25, 2010, 10:40 AM
Post #15 of 45 (4611 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nsh] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Very true... unless you simulate it. Wink

Your Kidding right?


nsh  (D 31799)

Jan 25, 2010, 10:49 AM
Post #16 of 45 (4595 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

Sure thing, I did not mean packing the mal. But I thought that cutting away while doing intentional spiraling on the decent altitude would simulate it (maybe, preferably with RSL off).
Does it sound like a too crazy idea? I was going to discuss that with somebody experienced before doing this anyway...


dragon2  (D 101989)

Jan 25, 2010, 11:00 AM
Post #17 of 45 (4583 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nsh] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Does it sound like a too crazy idea?

YES.


nsh  (D 31799)

Jan 25, 2010, 11:37 AM
Post #18 of 45 (4563 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

I am OK if it just sounded crazy but it'd be safe enough to do. Smile
Any safety concerns that could be added on the top of a regular intentional breakaway safety issues, please?


sparkie  (D License)

Jan 25, 2010, 11:57 AM
Post #19 of 45 (4547 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nsh] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I am OK if it just sounded crazy but it'd be safe enough to do. Smile
Any safety concerns that could be added on the top of a regular intentional breakaway safety issues, please?

how many do you want on top of the issues mentioned above.....? No point in continuing the same line of questioning...

Cutaways and reserves are there for emergency use.............Why would you @ your experience level want to create such an emergency? What do you seek to learn? You can demo reserves using them as mains.

As for intentionally cutting away while in a self induced spiral... I would only advise that if you are tired of living and want to try something new.


(This post was edited by sparkie on Jan 25, 2010, 11:59 AM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Jan 25, 2010, 12:34 PM
Post #20 of 45 (4526 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nsh] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

The range of responses is kind of funny, even if they are all valid and have a point.

Do an intentional?
"Don't worry about it, if you keep yourself properly trained, when you actually have a mal, your actions will be automatic and be no problem anyway."

Do an intentional with a spiralling main (pop a brake)?
"Oh my god, no, that's dangerous!"

So being stuck with a spiralling main when low and you don't expect it, seems to sound like no problem, while doing it higher when you are ready for it is dangerous.

To reconcile those very opposite statements one may have to believe that:

a) that simulating an emergency can be dangerous.
(Yes, sometimes it can be.)

and
b) a real malfunction emergency is not really dangerous.
(Well, hopefully not too dangerous if you are well trained. At least cutting away is very safe compared to the alternative of not cutting away!)

and
c) the improvement in safety you might get from the experience of an intentional is not worth the risk taken to get that experience. (That can be debated.)

My personal opinion is still that you don't need to do an intentional but it is a good experience. Like anything new to you in skydiving, get some good advice first. I wouldn't object to it being done by people with well under 200 jumps.

I wouldn't recommend the spiralling thing for ones first intentional, if one is still fairly junior. And anyone wanting to try it, should first do a jump or two where they play with popping a toggle after opening. The accelerating turn can be a little disorientating when one isn't actively steering a spiral. And it is good experience in how one's canopy behaves similar to if one does pop a toggle on opening.

As for doing the spiralling intentional if one has an RSL hooked up, that I'm less sure about the answer. I'll leave that alone. I'd rather have the time to get stable after the chop.


virgin-burner

Jan 25, 2010, 12:36 PM
Post #21 of 45 (4526 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dragon2] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Does it sound like a too crazy idea?

YES.

u put on that flame-resistant gear, nsh!? Wink


airtwardo  (D License)

Jan 25, 2010, 1:04 PM
Post #22 of 45 (4509 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As for doing the spiralling intentional if one has an RSL hooked up, that I'm less sure about the answer. I'll leave that alone. I'd rather have the time to get stable after the chop.


So you're saying an RSL is safe for un-planned chops, but less so if the cutaway is intentional? Wink


nsh  (D 31799)

Jan 25, 2010, 1:40 PM
Post #23 of 45 (4488 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey, thanks a lot for the precise summary. I really appreciate your (and everybody's else, who is eligible Wink) constructive response.


nsh  (D 31799)

Jan 25, 2010, 1:47 PM
Post #24 of 45 (4483 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Does it sound like a too crazy idea?

YES.

u put on that flame-resistant gear, nsh!? Wink

I'd say waterproof will make more use then... Well, you know... it might be too scary to me, hehehe Laugh


nsh  (D 31799)

Jan 25, 2010, 1:59 PM
Post #25 of 45 (4477 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nsh] Intentional breakaway requirements [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Does it sound like a too crazy idea?

YES.

u put on that flame-resistant gear, nsh!? Wink

I'd say waterproof will make more use then... Well, you know... it might be too scary to me, hehehe Laugh

anyway... why do you ask about me wearing flame-resistant gear, virgin-burner? Sly


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

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)