Sep 17, 2003, 12:38 PM
Post #1 of 15
poor landing = pulled foot muscles
first jump of the day this sunday, i was flying back from a long spot. there is nothing but wide open fields, so i had no shortage of spots to land, however, all those fields are covered by tall prickly weeds, and tiny cacti. So i chose to land on a dirt taxi way next to the runway (there's really only the jump plane that this dz, so traffic wasn't going to be a problem) as i got closer to the ground, the winds started getting very squirly, i went to half brakes, then a gust of wind threw me to the left and i compensated w/ right toggle, at that point (approx 5 feet according to a witness) something happend and i just dropped like a rock and hit the ground. i dunno if the canopy collapsed, or stalled, or what, but i landed hard, and failed to plf.
i was out the rest of the day, went to a doctor the next day who said i pulled a muscle in my foot.
the good news: hopefully i'll be jumping again this weekend.
lessons: check the spot. plf. is it likely that landing that close to the runway could have been the source of the turbulence?
quade (D 22635)
Sep 17, 2003, 12:42 PM
Post #2 of 15
is it likely that landing that close to the runway could have been the source of the turbulence?
Depending on the exact conditions, yes, it's possible that the runway heated by the sun created a thermal and resulting unseen dust devil. Even a small and fairly slow one could create enough of a shear to do what you have described.
as i got closer to the ground, the winds started getting very squirly, i went to half brakes, then a gust of wind threw me to the left and i compensated w/ right toggle, at that point (approx 5 feet according to a witness) something happend and i just dropped like a rock and hit the ground. i dunno if the canopy collapsed, or stalled, or what, but i landed hard, and failed to plf.
In reply to:
I'm pretty sure that using the brakes in turbulence just makes it worse. I was told it is a common misconception that using the brakes in winds will stable out the canopy. Anyone else want to agree/disagree on that?
IMHO - I've found that letting the canopy fly through turbulance works much better than half brakes. I used to get scared in turbulance and half brake it, but after getting myself to fly full speed through things a few times, it just feels like I have more control.
I was tempted to start a new thread concerning this topic to deflect some of the traffic away from the Cypres debates. Now it's my understanding that when our canopies have collapsed, we are better off being in half breaks (there's a better chance that the canopy will reinflate in half breaks). But for sure, I'd much rather fly through turbulence in full flight as a rigid wing is much less likely to collapse. Then again I never said I was the sharpest pencil in the box.
(This post was edited by CanuckInUSA on Sep 17, 2003, 1:53 PM)
>I've found that letting the canopy fly through turbulance works much >better than half brakes.
I think that's true: turbulence = full flight, canopy actually in danger of collapsing = 1/4 to 1/2 brakes. The canopy will reinflate more readily with some brakes, and if it doesn't - you're going slower when you impact.
Personally, I've always felt that it works best to "fight" the turbulence. That is, full flight but counter the bumps. If they push you left, bump the right toggle, etc. My thought was that this helped to keep the canopy pressurized but is only a result of my own experience and nothing scientific
A parachute is a pressurized wing and not (really) a drag device, therefore the higher the internal pressure the more rigid it will be. Flying on brakes will reduce the airspeed and therefore the pressurization... (IMO, the "old school" of thought is based on a drag device: breaks = lower decent rate = lower impact speed. Or something).
Flying breaks to recover a stall allows the parachute to pressurize slowly/evenly - this won't help you much if you have stalled close to the ground, but in these circumstances flying at full drive (until flare time, obviously!) will give your parachute a better chance of remaining inflated.
Small print: I'm not a rigger/instructor, these are my own opinions etc etc. Edited to add: those that are, please feel free to correct me!
(This post was edited by evilivan on Sep 17, 2003, 3:34 PM)