Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
Would you consider...

 

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

Ronaldo  (D 34728)

Nov 30, 2010, 4:09 PM
Post #1 of 32 (3325 views)
Shortcut
Would you consider... Can't Post

Letís say you fly a small main (elliptical 120 or less) and have a larger reserve (160 or up) and end up in a really bad spot, over the city with little or no alternative landing areas. Would you consider cutting away your main to land under a larger, more docile reserve (and possibly reducing the chances of serious injuries)? If not, in which other scenario would you do it (injured, dislocated shoulder, etc)?
Iím pretty sure I will receive answers like: check your spot before jumping, fly a canopy you can land anywhere, etc, but please remember this is a hypothetical situation.


petejones45  (C License)

Nov 30, 2010, 4:19 PM
Post #2 of 32 (3277 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronaldo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Letís say you fly a small main (elliptical 120 or less) and have a larger reserve (160 or up) and end up in a really bad spot, over the city with little or no alternative landing areas. Would you consider cutting away your main to land under a larger, more docile reserve (and possibly reducing the chances of serious injuries)? If not, in which other scenario would you do it (injured, dislocated shoulder, etc)?
Iím pretty sure I will receive answers like: check your spot before jumping, fly a canopy you can land anywhere, etc, but please remember this is a hypothetical situation.

I don't think it would be very wise to cutaway a good chute(i wouldn't), if you are jumping something that small you would have to make that decision quick because lose things will come down pretty fast


AggieDave  (D License)

Nov 30, 2010, 4:19 PM
Post #3 of 32 (3277 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronaldo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

I have a heavily loaded Velo 111 and a not quite as loaded PDr-176 in my rig.

No I would not consider cutting away due to a bad spot. Even over a large city, there are "runways" for my canopy, it really isn't that hard to put even a highly loaded canopy down where you want it (if you're qualified to jump that canopy in the first place).

As for injury, it really depends on what injury I had sustained and all the other mitigating circumstances. My first reaction is to say that I wouldn't chop for something like that. If anything, I've only landed my reserve twice, but I've landed my main hundreds of times, so I like to go with what I know the best.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Nov 30, 2010, 4:32 PM
Post #4 of 32 (3257 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronaldo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

Well those who have been in this community see the "hypothetical" some times come true, so yes, you will hear about it.

Stick to the good square, stable, stearable canopy and land conservatively.

Never cut away a functioning canopy if this is not part of an intentional cut away system.

Matt


airtwardo  (D License)

Nov 30, 2010, 4:37 PM
Post #5 of 32 (3250 views)
Shortcut
Re: [petejones45] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Letís say you fly a small main (elliptical 120 or less) and have a larger reserve (160 or up) and end up in a really bad spot, over the city with little or no alternative landing areas. Would you consider cutting away your main to land under a larger, more docile reserve (and possibly reducing the chances of serious injuries)? If not, in which other scenario would you do it (injured, dislocated shoulder, etc)?
Iím pretty sure I will receive answers like: check your spot before jumping, fly a canopy you can land anywhere, etc, but please remember this is a hypothetical situation.

I don't think it would be very wise to cutaway a good chute(i wouldn't), if you are jumping something that small you would have to make that decision quick because lose things will come down pretty fast

I would think the OP with a D license and 4 times as many jumps as you, would have a much better idea how fast a small main comes down that you do...YMMV Sly


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Nov 30, 2010, 4:44 PM
Post #6 of 32 (3233 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

But you have to admit his advice, this time, was not too bad.

Yeah?

Matt


airtwardo  (D License)

Nov 30, 2010, 5:09 PM
Post #7 of 32 (3207 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But you have to admit his advice, this time, was not too bad.

Yeah?

Matt


Even a blind squirrel...SlyWink


pchapman  (D 1014)

Nov 30, 2010, 5:19 PM
Post #8 of 32 (3189 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronaldo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd consider it.

The problem is, by the time I figure I can't actually find a spot to land a fast canopy, I'll probably be too low to really want to chop.

I'd still consider it though, if the landing choices look really really bad.

A bad situation would be too low over an area to find a municipal park, or a commercial area with larger flat roofs. Streets are no good in residential areas served by above ground hydro, where every 50' a wire crosses the street. If every home has a peaked roof, what's left? Backyards can be small and also have phone lines every 50'. About all that's left is decent sized trees.

But the actual situation depends so much on the design of the neighbourhood...

You know what?
I think I'll start a thread in Safety & Training about landings within a city, because otherwise I'll derail this thread.
Nothing wrong with asking the question about cutting away, but the more common issue will be dealing with a city landing without a cutaway.


jumper03  (D License)

Nov 30, 2010, 5:20 PM
Post #9 of 32 (3184 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
But you have to admit his advice, this time, was not too bad.

Yeah?

Matt


Even a blind squirrel...SlyWink


will staple his nuts to the door???


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 30, 2010, 5:25 PM
Post #10 of 32 (3177 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronaldo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

>Letís say you fly a small main (elliptical 120 or less) and have a larger
>reserve (160 or up) and end up in a really bad spot, over the city with little
>or no alternative landing areas. Would you consider cutting away your
>main to land under a larger, more docile reserve (and possibly reducing
>the chances of serious injuries)?

Yes. Depends on the area of course; in many ways my smaller canopy (109) is better at getting into small areas than my reserve (143.) But if I'm going to be landing in an antenna array full of tightly packed vertical poles, or at night into a completely unknown area then yes, I'd consider it.


petejones45  (C License)

Nov 30, 2010, 6:35 PM
Post #11 of 32 (3115 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Letís say you fly a small main (elliptical 120 or less) and have a larger reserve (160 or up) and end up in a really bad spot, over the city with little or no alternative landing areas. Would you consider cutting away your main to land under a larger, more docile reserve (and possibly reducing the chances of serious injuries)? If not, in which other scenario would you do it (injured, dislocated shoulder, etc)?
Iím pretty sure I will receive answers like: check your spot before jumping, fly a canopy you can land anywhere, etc, but please remember this is a hypothetical situation.

I don't think it would be very wise to cutaway a good chute(i wouldn't), if you are jumping something that small you would have to make that decision quick because lose things will come down pretty fast

I would think the OP with a D license and 4 times as many jumps as you, would have a much better idea how fast a small main comes down that you do...YMMV Sly











ok


airtwardo  (D License)

Nov 30, 2010, 6:53 PM
Post #12 of 32 (3101 views)
Shortcut
Re: [petejones45] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Letís say you fly a small main (elliptical 120 or less) and have a larger reserve (160 or up) and end up in a really bad spot, over the city with little or no alternative landing areas. Would you consider cutting away your main to land under a larger, more docile reserve (and possibly reducing the chances of serious injuries)? If not, in which other scenario would you do it (injured, dislocated shoulder, etc)?
Iím pretty sure I will receive answers like: check your spot before jumping, fly a canopy you can land anywhere, etc, but please remember this is a hypothetical situation.

I don't think it would be very wise to cutaway a good chute(i wouldn't), if you are jumping something that small you would have to make that decision quick because lose things will come down pretty fast

I would think the OP with a D license and 4 times as many jumps as you, would have a much better idea how fast a small main comes down that you do...YMMV Sly











ok




Laugh NOW yer catchin' on!


Jbag  (D License)

Nov 30, 2010, 11:21 PM
Post #13 of 32 (3004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

not a reply to airtardo but more to the OP, if you are worried about this type of situation research the area you are jumping over with google earth or a similiar satellite program and find your outs before you go up...make a plan for each out situation you can think of for where your airplane flies.


petejones45  (C License)

Nov 30, 2010, 11:26 PM
Post #14 of 32 (3000 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Jbag] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
not a reply to airtardo but more to the OP, if you are worried about this type of situation research the area you are jumping over with google earth or a similiar satellite program and find your outs before you go up...make a plan for each out situation you can think of for where your airplane flies.

that could work but google earth isn't always up to date


D22369  (D 22369)

Dec 1, 2010, 12:38 AM
Post #15 of 32 (2974 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronaldo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

honestly I would never chop a canopy that I am very familiar with for a reserve that I have flown only a handful of times.

there is no guarantee that the reserve will work

your best bet in your hypothetical situation is to realize at a high enough altitude that the dz is not an option and choose an alternate landing area

some dz's have photos from altitude and everyone should make themselves familiar with the outs.

as for if I was injured - either canopy wouldnt be pleasant on landing if a shoulder was dislocated but I would still keep my functional main

Roy


Ron

Dec 1, 2010, 6:25 AM
Post #16 of 32 (2894 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronaldo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

No. I would never trade a flying canopy for what is behind handle #2.

1. There have been cases of reserve parachute malfunctions.
2. You have more exp flying the main than the reserve.

Yes, people have died doing off landings.... But in most of those cases they didn't really modify the approach to landing.

Back to the FJC: If you are going to land somewhere bad.... Don't fly there! If you screwed up and are there, then aim at the best thing and fly at half brakes and prepare to PLF.

Quote:
injured, dislocated shoulder, etc

With a dislocated shoulder.... How are you going to pull both handles in a timely manner?


Ronaldo  (D 34728)

Dec 1, 2010, 7:44 AM
Post #17 of 32 (2857 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
1. There have been cases of reserve parachute malfunctions.
What if you pack your own reserve and have already test jumped it once as a main?Smile

In reply to:
2. You have more exp flying the main than the reserve.
True, but wouldn't a skilled pilot under a small main feel even more comfortable under a smaller square 7 cell? Obviously you have to adapt to the different glide and speed to make your approach.

In reply to:
With a dislocated shoulder.... How are you going to pull both handles in a timely manner?
I don't see a problem to cutaway and pull reserve with one hand but surely it will take longer (and you open lower) so it is a real disadvantage. Also, if you can't grab both toggles to flare wouldn't it be better to land at a lower wl (with brakes set)?


JohnRich  (D License)

Dec 1, 2010, 8:26 AM
Post #18 of 32 (2836 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Jbag] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
if you are worried about this type of situation research the area you are jumping over with google earth or a similiar satellite program and find your outs before you go up...make a plan for each out situation you can think of for where your airplane flies.

Even better: go visit the site in-person, walk around, and draw pictures in a notebook of where obstacles are, like fences and power lines, that may not be seen on internet aerial photos. If you haven't done that, you're not properly prepared.


(This post was edited by JohnRich on Dec 1, 2010, 8:27 AM)


Ron

Dec 1, 2010, 9:20 AM
Post #19 of 32 (2806 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronaldo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
What if you pack your own reserve and have already test jumped it once as a main?

It does not change the fact that it could still *malfunction*. Even properly packed and tested mains can mal.

Quote:
True, but wouldn't a skilled pilot under a small main feel even more comfortable under a smaller square 7 cell? Obviously you have to adapt to the different glide and speed to make your approach.

And the point is that under stress you are not going to be able to call up all your skill and you are not going to be able to adapt as quickly as you might like.

I have had 9 or 10 mals AND have a PRO rating and I can tell you that I can easily land my main wherever I want 99% of the time, but I do not have the same accuracy with my reserve that I have only jumped 7 times (3 were tandem mals).

Look at it this way... You have 500 jumps, lets say 200 are on your current main. Lets say you have 1 reserve ride. So you are less than 1% as current on your reserve as your main.

Add up the chance of a mal, that you do not have much exp on your reserve, and that you are not going to be as skilled under stress.... and to me it screams bad idea.

Quote:
Also, if you can't grab both toggles to flare wouldn't it be better to land at a lower wl (with brakes set)?

Sure, but again you are trading a perfectly good main for what is behind handle #2.

PLUS, a 7cell F111 does not fly anywhere as nice as a ZP. Back in the day when F111 mains were common the rule of thumb was your 9cell main at 1:1 would be considered an aggressive WL. 7cells were even bigger. My first main was a 7cell F111 and it was 220 sqft and it was the same size and canopy my *instructor* jumped.

Most people don't have 200+ sized reserves, so my 113 reserve with no flair is going to land me pretty damn hard. Your 143 is not going to set you down as softly as you think either.

Thinking out of the box is good, but in most situations sticking to your main, IMO, is the safer bet.

Bill mentioned a possible exception... A night jump in an area you know is bad.


Icon134  (D 29820)

Dec 1, 2010, 9:49 AM
Post #20 of 32 (2788 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronaldo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What if you pack your own reserve and have already test jumped it once as a main?Smile
I do pack my own reserve... I also pack my main... and it doesn't malfunction very often either... (I haven't had a cutaway on my current main canopy or the previous 2 main canopies) but that doesn't mean I would ever want to consider jumping with it as my only option.

In reply to:
True, but wouldn't a skilled pilot under a small main feel even more comfortable under a smaller square 7 cell? Obviously you have to adapt to the different glide and speed to make your approach.
I have one jump on my Reserve (PDR 160) I would much rather have my stiletto 135 (a ZP elliptical 9 cell) to get back from a long spot then the 160 sq ft F-111 low porosity 7 cell... which is ultimately designed to "sink" into tight spots just in case that's all you have at your disposal...

Edited to add: a statement from The PDR Flight Charactistics:

"...The PDReserve has a relatively flat glide for an ďF-111,Ē 7-cell canopy, but it does not glide as far as many zero-porosity main canopies will."


(This post was edited by Icon134 on Dec 1, 2010, 9:57 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 1, 2010, 10:13 AM
Post #21 of 32 (2757 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronaldo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

>Letís say you fly a small main (elliptical 120 or less) and have a larger
>reserve (160 or up) and end up in a really bad spot, over the city with little
>or no alternative landing areas.

As an alternative to this question:

Let's say you have a 109 main and a 143 reserve and you have to bail out at 2000 feet over a very bad area. Will the area beneath the aircraft factor into you decision on which parachute to use?


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Dec 1, 2010, 10:14 AM
Post #22 of 32 (2757 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronaldo] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Lets say you fly a small main (elliptical 120 or less) and have a larger reserve (160 or up) and end up in a really bad spot, over the city with little or no alternative landing areas. Would you consider cutting away your main to land under a larger, more docile reserve (and possibly reducing the chances of serious injuries)? If not, in which other scenario would you do it (injured, dislocated shoulder, etc)?

Sure, if there really were no reasonable landing areas.

Of course in real life cities have streets and parking lots that are both a lot like runways and work great for landing.


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Dec 1, 2010, 10:17 AM
Post #23 of 32 (2753 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Let's say you have a 109 main and a 143 reserve and you have to bail out at 2000 feet over a very bad area. Will the area beneath the aircraft factor into you decision on which parachute to use?

Having a 105 main and 143 reserve the area will be the deciding factor.


skyrider  (D 14710)

Dec 1, 2010, 10:28 AM
Post #24 of 32 (2744 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DrewEckhardt] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

Large city??? I'd be looking for a roof to land on with my main!


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Dec 1, 2010, 10:33 AM
Post #25 of 32 (2743 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Would you consider... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
PLUS, a 7cell F111 does not fly anywhere as nice as a ZP.

No. A 7 cell low aspect F111 canopy flies differently from a modern ZP skydiving wing. For some situations it flies a LOT nicer.

In no wind conditions you can fly the 7-cell final approach at glide ratios from 2:1 down past 1:1 all the way to the target and have energy left for a nice flare and stand-up landing. If you really need to you can bring it straight down in a sink although you don't want to land immediately after doing that for a significant distance, especially with smaller canopies and/or no soft surface to crash on.

A contemporary skydiving canopy starts around the same 2:1 glide ratio, gets flatter after you apply brakes, and stays that way until just short of stalling.

Landing with other people in a 50x100' clearing surrounded by trees and boulder strewn drop-offs the classic design is a _LOT_ nicer.

In reply to:
Most people don't have 200+ sized reserves, so my 113 reserve with no flair is going to land me pretty damn hard. Your 143 is not going to set you down as softly as you think either.

While not as nice as a 7-cell at a more proper .7 pound/square foot loading, my 143 still retains a lot of the nice approach characteristics from its bigger brother.


(This post was edited by DrewEckhardt on Dec 1, 2010, 10:34 AM)


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

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)