Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Landable malfunction?

 

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

aix2011  (B License)

Mar 4, 2011, 3:50 PM
Post #1 of 71 (2635 views)
Shortcut
Landable malfunction? Can't Post

I just had a thought about a jump a year or so ago, and wanted to see peoples opinions.

At the time I had about 70 jumps, jumping a navigator 230. wing loading (0.9).

On opening at about 3000ft, i noticed an immediate problem. My first thought was that i had twists, but before i even tried to clear them in the usual way I saw that this was not going to be possible.

The lines from my front and rear risers were twisted above the toggles but underneath the slider. spinning myself left or right would make no difference.

I wasn't entirely sure what was wrong, but i had a good canopy, so my instruction told me the next thing to do was a control check. I released the toggles and did a turn each direction and a couple of flairs, canopy was fully controllable. But had these twists.

At this point I was at about 2200ft. I knew I had to make a decision quickly, chop it or not? I decided to stick with it.

I flew a cautious pattern with no radical movement, just in case. Good stand up landing, no problem.

When I got pack to the packing area, i explained what had just happened and was told by a more experianced jumper that i should have chopped it. Their reasoning was that the twists in the lines could have trapped my sterring lines, thereby making the canopy uncontrollable. Good point i think, but I hadn't been taught that or thought about it under canopy.

My question is, is this the sort of malfunction that you can choose to land, or is it something you should always chop? At the time I think i did the right thing keeping it, but now with the knowledge about the steering line, possibly getting trapped i'm not so sure.

I think it is called a container rotation, the risers were not twisted but the lines from front and rear risers were twisted round each other (once) above the steering toggles so that they were twisted underneath the slider. I can't find any picture to describe it better than that. The cause of it was flipping the contrainer through the risers at some point after landing it on the previous jump.

Of course, i should have spotted this whilst i was packing. But, it isn't blatanty obvious when laid out on the mat as the twist in the lines is hidden as it passes through the grommet of the slider.

I realised that in my line check, i had been running my fingers through the lines to the slider, letting go and then starting from the other side of the grommet. So it is entirely possible to miss this rotation as it gets drawn up to the slider grommets, i have now changed my check so that i make sure the line i hold on one side passes through the grommet without twisting around another.

Just thought i'd pass on the lesson and see who else has had this, and what you would do if you had it again.


DocPop  (C License)

Mar 4, 2011, 3:55 PM
Post #2 of 71 (2565 views)
Shortcut
Re: [aix2011] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

It sounds to me like you're describing a step-through.

My opinion would be that if it passes the control check, I would land it.


mx19  (D License)

Mar 4, 2011, 3:58 PM
Post #3 of 71 (2559 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

I've seen plenty landed and even landed one myself the other day! I've also seen a couple chopped, just depends on wether or not the pilot fells they can land it.


aix2011  (B License)

Mar 4, 2011, 4:02 PM
Post #4 of 71 (2555 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It sounds to me like you're describing a step-through.

My opinion would be that if it passes the control check, I would land it.

When you say step though, i think of this

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nAtNMq_VN-I/0.jpg

I THINK this is caused by the harness being rotated between the front and rear risers (one one side). Which means the canopy has a turn in it.

My malfunction was no where near as bad as the pic, the rig had been rotated through the middle of the two sets of risers. You could, in theory fix it by doing a backflip through your risers. I don;t think thats a great idea though.


aix2011  (B License)

Mar 4, 2011, 4:05 PM
Post #5 of 71 (2546 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mx19] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I've seen plenty landed and even landed one myself the other day! I've also seen a couple chopped, just depends on wether or not the pilot fells they can land it.

Thats what i thought too, but the other jumper's comment about the possibility of losing control (and then being too low to chop) i thought was insteresting.


DocPop  (C License)

Mar 4, 2011, 4:08 PM
Post #6 of 71 (2537 views)
Shortcut
Re: [aix2011] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

My malfunction was no where near as bad as the pic, the rig had been rotated through the middle of the two sets of risers. You could, in theory fix it by doing a backflip through your risers. I don;t think thats a great idea though.

Yep - yours was a step-though. The other one I would also call a step-through, but yours was the more "traditional" one for want of a better word.

1 - I agree that a backflip is a terrible way of fixing this! In fact I think there was an incident where someone got hurt doing this.
2 - Good that you figured out how to spot it on your continuity check next time.
3 - You proved that it was landable (in this case)!


mr2mk1g  (C 103449)

Mar 5, 2011, 3:21 PM
Post #7 of 71 (2349 views)
Shortcut
Re: [aix2011] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

Generally, passing a full control check should mean landable but not necessarily always. Some line overs for example, may on a lightly loaded canopy seem stable enough, fly ok and pass a control check... but who knows if that will continue to be the case? What happens if that changes at 200ft? Something to consider.

I've landed a jammed steering toggle and a pc caught in the lines (old spring loaded one). Stuck toggle was easy enough as at my loading I knew I was safe enough with a bit of a rough no-flare landing. With more exp. I could perhaps have elected for a rear riser flare if nesc (though this can have risks if you don't know what you're doing).

The tangled pc (as a student) I learned after landing that the drill my dz taught was half turns only so as to reduce the risk of the pc tugging the canopy into a bow tie (first I'd heard!). These don't tend to happen though with un-sprung pc's and I can't see it usually being a problem with a collapsable pc even if it did happen.

Many things like this some don't even consider 'mals' but nuisance factors... I'd say that's perhaps more of a question of semantics.

I'd simply say that the full question is not just 'does it pass a control check' but 'does if pass a control check and is it highly likely to do so throughout the rest of my flight?'. If you don't know, it might be better to err on the side of caution.

Bear in mind with a step through the pos of a brake becoming jammed 'on' by the lines twisted round, potentially causing a spin if you don't correct it or reducing your ability to flare. Otherwise I'd probably land a step through, in fact I have once before.


(This post was edited by mr2mk1g on Mar 5, 2011, 3:42 PM)


kawisixer01  (C 38984)

Mar 5, 2011, 6:41 PM
Post #8 of 71 (2301 views)
Shortcut
Re: [aix2011] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In my fresh off aff days I packed a step through once. I, like you, was pretty confused at first but them realized what was wrong. I did full controllability check and everything worked fine so I landed it. It's honestly up to you whether you did the right thing. I think opinions would be pretty much split down the middle. It's a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. Chalk it up to a learning experience. You do something like that once (and get away with it) and scare the shit outa yourself you prob won't do it again.


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Mar 5, 2011, 7:24 PM
Post #9 of 71 (2286 views)
Shortcut
Re: [aix2011] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

One thing to remember about having a strict "is it controllable" rule is blown cells. It may seem that it's controllable but without a good point of reference, you won't necessarily be able to tell if you're losing loads of altitude due to a lack of working material above your head. (there's a story about this happening on dz.com somewhere, it's not mine!)

I would probably have landed it too if I felt comfortable that it wasn't going to get worse, better off not packing a step through to begin with though... Tongue


brettski74  (C 3197)

Mar 5, 2011, 7:58 PM
Post #10 of 71 (2265 views)
Shortcut
Re: [aix2011] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The lines from my front and rear risers were twisted above the toggles but underneath the slider. spinning myself left or right would make no difference.

This is not what I would call a step-through, although I have heard people referring to it as that. This sounds more like what we call a flip-through in our packing lessons.

A step through usually results from someone stepping through the line groups while picking up their canopy after landing - hence the name. It generally results in something more like the photo posted above, with one or more lines wrapped around the line groups from the opposite side. This is generally not flyable ever.

A flip through is most often caused by a packing error such as from flipping the canopy through the lines when you take the rig off, or from rotation of the bag before you put it in the container. A flip-through *may* be flyable. I personally have landed one and in that instance, I believe the chances of it becoming problematic were negligible, since the tension on the lines and risers forced the twist all the way down to where the front and rear risers were stitched together.

In your case, you described the twists as remaining above the toggles. I'm not sure what would cause that, because you would expect the tension on the lines and risers plus the tendency of the canopy to want to inflate to force the twists down as low as possible. In any case, if the twists remained above the toggles, like your friend already told you, I would be concerned as to whether this could cause a problem later by preventing proper operation of the brakes. I believe it would also have complicated use of the rear risers as an alternative to toggle input.

In reply to:
Of course, i should have spotted this whilst i was packing. But, it isn't blatanty obvious when laid out on the mat as the twist in the lines is hidden as it passes through the grommet of the slider.

I realised that in my line check, i had been running my fingers through the lines to the slider, letting go and then starting from the other side of the grommet. So it is entirely possible to miss this rotation as it gets drawn up to the slider grommets, i have now changed my check so that i make sure the line i hold on one side passes through the grommet without twisting around another.

This has me a little confused. Is this how you were taught to perform a line check? The purpose of a line check, is to ensure that the lines are free and clear from the harness to the canopy. If you're doing your line check properly, a flip through at this point should be obvious. If you're not sure of this, I would suggest talking to a local instructor to walk you through some practice pack jobs where you have to clear a flip through and possibly a few other common entanglements. It sounds to me like perhaps a light refresher may be in order.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 6, 2011, 7:20 AM
Post #11 of 71 (2185 views)
Shortcut
Re: [brettski74] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This is not what I would call a step-through, although I have heard people referring to it as that. This sounds more like what we call a flip-through in our packing lessons.

Well, let's not confuse things for the young jumpers with semantics. "Step-through" has been around for ages and ages....so says an old fart.Tongue

"Step-through" is the generic term used for ALL those situations regardless of how it got there. It's the symptoms that we are concerned with and yes, the symptoms we see are dependent on which lines the "step-through" went through.

The last thing I want a young jumper doing is staring at it after opening trying to decide, is that a "step-through" or a "flip-through"?

The point on when it happened is a good one.
Landing? Packing? Both could cause a step-through.

I can see your idea of calling it a flip-through, though.
Flipping the rig at packing or flipping your body on landing....yep...flipping.
LaughLaugh
Same for "walk-through".

And yes, I agree, it's quite apparent that the packer, in this case, did not do a proper walk-up. After all, checking for the step-through is the major reason we do the walk-up.

Side note:
Have you ever observed packing lessons? How often is "step-through" even mentioned? I can't count the number of times I've had to interject into someone else's lesson. I can't count the number of students packing that have not even heard the term.

Even seen many students doing their walk-up and getting to the canopy with twists in only one side....student staring at it blankly not understanding what they are seeing.
Unsure


jsaxton  (D 26818)

Mar 6, 2011, 8:31 AM
Post #12 of 71 (2162 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

Meby an instructor could chime in here and explain the difference of a step-through BELOW the slider and a step through ABOVE the slider.


brettski74  (C 3197)

Mar 6, 2011, 9:25 AM
Post #13 of 71 (2138 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Have you ever observed packing lessons? How often is "step-through" even mentioned? I can't count the number of times I've had to interject into someone else's lesson. I can't count the number of students packing that have not even heard the term.

I have given packing lessons, and I make sure that I cover all the major types of entanglement and how to identify and correct them. It's a requirement to be able to untangle and pack a canopy with several different types of entanglement in order to get your main packing endorsement. As a coach, I won't sign off on those requirements unless I've seen them untangle such a canopy without help.

I agree with on the step-through/flip-through point. It is just semantics. They're just the terms we use.

In reply to:
Same for "walk-through".

We usually give students a packing walk-through in their first lesson. Tongue

In reply to:
Even seen many students doing their walk-up and getting to the canopy with twists in only one side....student staring at it blankly not understanding what they are seeing.

I've seen that a few times. I usually give them a few tries to see if they can figure it out for themselves, but if they seem really confused or if they continue packing like there's nothing wrong, that's usually the point I wander over and ask if they could use some help.


lauraliscious  (C 35895)

Mar 6, 2011, 11:50 AM
Post #14 of 71 (2082 views)
Shortcut
Re: [aix2011] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

I had a mal similar to this when I had about 70 jumps. I was demoing a canopy from the manufacturer. The manufacturer's rep hooked up the canopy to my rig (it was already packed, in the bag). When I opened, one set of lines was twisted and the other wasn't. Like one side was a step through but the other wasn't. I could turn both directions, but when I went to flare I swung side to side like a pendulum. I let go of the toggles, did some practice flares on my rears and decided I could land it on the rears. Maybe not the best decision, maybe I should have chopped it, but I landed fine and PLFed with no injuries.

Could another option in your situation have been to let go of the toggles (so they couldn't get stuck in the twists) and steer with your rear risers?? That might not have improved your situation any, or even made it worse, but it's just a thought. Regardless, I think it's a good idea to do practice flares and canopy control using rears up high....


DocPop  (C License)

Mar 6, 2011, 12:05 PM
Post #15 of 71 (2079 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lauraliscious] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

....and a good reason to practice landing with rears only.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 6, 2011, 2:40 PM
Post #16 of 71 (2047 views)
Shortcut
Re: [brettski74] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

I LOVE the way you guys are doing that with respect to the packing lessons.

Now get everyone you know doing that way, eh?

Notice the "eh"? I threw that in there just for you northern guys.
LaughLaugh


jumpsalot-2  (D 33093)

Mar 6, 2011, 5:57 PM
Post #17 of 71 (2006 views)
Shortcut
Re: [brettski74] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

 

I've seen that a few times. I usually give them a few tries to see if they can figure it out for themselves, but if they seem really confused or if they continue packing like there's nothing wrong, that's usually the point I wander over and ask if they could use some help. I saw a very young tandem packer once,( younger than 18 ) looking at the lines on one side ( Pro packing ) You could see he was wondering why they looked like they did. Then he brought the whole bundle up to finish packing, so I stopped him and asked if I could look at it (politely). Sure enough it was a step thru on one side....he had never heard of such a thing. I cleared it for him, did a complete line check, and went on my way. He would have packed it.


theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 6, 2011, 7:24 PM
Post #18 of 71 (1978 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Even seen many students doing their walk-up and getting to the canopy with twists in only one side....student staring at it blankly not understanding what they are seeing.
Unsure

I recently helped a couple of licensed jumpers unscrew their canopies from simple twists that they just had the deer in the headlights look.

At least they noticed it and didn't continue to pack it. I showed them how (I) to clear it and get it back to what they expect, and let them do it. Ya know, teach a man to fish?


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Mar 6, 2011, 9:21 PM
Post #19 of 71 (1949 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
....and a good reason to practice landing with rears only.
You have a reserve for a good reason. You don't have to land any ball of sh1t.


Rugby82  (D 705310)

Mar 7, 2011, 12:00 AM
Post #20 of 71 (1926 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

I had a step-through twice and in both cases the risers where twisted beneath the toggles. No problems controlling them and landed both just fine.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 7, 2011, 3:04 AM
Post #21 of 71 (1903 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rugby82] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I had a step-through twice...

Somebody's trying to tell you something...are you listening?
LaughLaugh


shropshire  (C License)

Mar 7, 2011, 3:22 AM
Post #22 of 71 (1892 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

Remember : All malfunctions are 'landable' ...

BUT NOT all are Survivable

Spring is in the air - Practise your EPs and be safe folks.


virgin-burner

Mar 7, 2011, 5:09 AM
Post #23 of 71 (1863 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
....and a good reason to practice landing with rears only.

not saying play with it up high; but i still think it's a BAD idea for you AND me to take that down to the ground.. just expressing my concerns! Wink


DocPop  (C License)

Mar 7, 2011, 6:18 AM
Post #24 of 71 (1848 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
....and a good reason to practice landing with rears only.

not saying play with it up high; but i still think it's a BAD idea for you AND me to take that down to the ground.. just expressing my concerns! Wink

Why should we not practice landing with rears? It is on BillVon's downsizing checklist and I have done this on every canopy I have jumped more that once or twice so far.


DocPop  (C License)

Mar 7, 2011, 6:19 AM
Post #25 of 71 (1845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Landable malfunction? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
....and a good reason to practice landing with rears only.
You have a reserve for a good reason. You don't have to land any ball of sh1t.

But reserves also malfunction. Landing a canopy on the rears is a useful skill to have and can avoid the need to use your last chance to live.


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

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)