Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Malfunctions below your hard-deck?

 

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

20_kN

Mar 7, 2018, 11:27 PM
Post #26 of 34 (1294 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] Malfunctions below your hard-deck? [In reply to] Can't Post

catfishhunter wrote:
Lots of good stuff but it really comes down to making a decision BEFORE your in the shit

.
My question was about a scenario in which you opened fine and then you had a canopy collision close to the ground. Say below 1800'. At what point do you transition from cutting away to just deploying the reserve without cutting away (or landing the main as is)? How low is too low to cut away form a low speed mal? That's really the question I am asking. The scenario assumes the rig has an RSL.


(This post was edited by 20_kN on Mar 7, 2018, 11:36 PM)


SethInMI  (A 47765)

Mar 8, 2018, 6:13 AM
Post #27 of 34 (1188 views)
Shortcut
Re: [20_kN] Malfunctions below your hard-deck? [In reply to] Can't Post

With canopy collisions there are a few variables that make it hard to get a firm answer, but it is definitely worth some thought. If you attend safety day and can find a CRW dog or dogs who is also attending, having them talk through the different scenarios would be a good idea, as dealing with canopy collisions is something they train for and deal with.

there are two kinds:
1. a wrap, where one jumper is covered in lines or canopy fabric and the other jumper is (usually) clear.
2. an entanglement, where the canopies are entangled but the jumpers are free, one jumper usually spinning around the other.

with canopy collisions, the 1st rule is to talk it out altitude permitting, but below 1k ft you altitude is NOT permitting, and that make it very hard to know what to do. Many wraps can clear themselves, what your descent rate is factors in. cutting away from a rapidly spinning / descending entanglement is different decision than in a wrap that is more stable.

If I was above 600 ft I would probably cut away if I was clear. I would probably have to get into a collision at 1000 ft because I would burn 400 ft trying to figure out what is going on.


gowlerk  (C 3196)

Mar 8, 2018, 6:42 AM
Post #28 of 34 (1175 views)
Shortcut
Re: [20_kN] Malfunctions below your hard-deck? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How low is too low to cut away form a low speed mal? That's really the question I am asking. The scenario assumes the rig has an RSL.

That makes a couple times this has come up in this thread. Let me make this as plain and simple as possible. RSL or no RSL makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in this decision.

RSL, even ones attached to MARDS, and AADS as well are strictly backup devices. Not to be relied on. This is an important principle not to be glossed over.

YOU NEVER LOWER YOUR EXPECTED SURVIVAL ALTITUDE BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN RSL.


(This post was edited by gowlerk on Mar 8, 2018, 6:43 AM)


catfishhunter  (D 28796)

Mar 8, 2018, 7:14 AM
Post #29 of 34 (1155 views)
Shortcut
Re: [councilman24] Malfunctions below your hard-deck? [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok fair enough. Wrong choice of words. We were talking about being under canopy not in freefall. I suppose a catastrophic failure at 1000' would have been better? :)


ghost47  (D License)

Mar 8, 2018, 12:53 PM
Post #30 of 34 (1041 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Malfunctions below your hard-deck? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That makes a couple times this has come up in this thread. Let me make this as plain and simple as possible. RSL or no RSL makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in this decision.

RSL, even ones attached to MARDS, and AADS as well are strictly backup devices. Not to be relied on. This is an important principle not to be glossed over.

YOU NEVER LOWER YOUR EXPECTED SURVIVAL ALTITUDE BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN RSL.
I understand this is the prevailing wisdom, but I am wondering if this idea should not be revisited.

If you're in a scenario where you're deploying a reserve into a messed up main, you're already in a very bad place. You're just trying to get more fabric over your head to increase your chance of survival.

If you cutaway, your RSL or skyhook might fail, and you might go in with nothing out. That would suck.

But it seems to me that you need to compare the chances of your RSL / skyhook failing to get a good reserve overhead in time, against the chances of you not surviving because you deployed a reserve into a messed up main.


kpitchford  (D License)

Mar 8, 2018, 1:43 PM
Post #31 of 34 (1029 views)
Shortcut
Re: [20_kN] Malfunctions below your hard-deck? [In reply to] Can't Post

At our DZ, we teach:
Never cutaway under 1,000'. If you find yourself with an unlandable main canopy at less than a grand, just add more fabric to the situation by deploying your reserve.
Above 1,000', you may cutaway at your discretion. (Your DZ may differ due to terrain or other hazards. Check with your staff)
This applies regardless if you are equipped with an RSL or MARD (skyhook) or not.
Never rely on your RSL. ALWAYS manually activate your reserve by pulling the reserve handle.
Try to make your decision by 2,500' though. :)


(This post was edited by kpitchford on Mar 8, 2018, 1:49 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2018, 1:53 PM
Post #32 of 34 (1019 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Malfunctions below your hard-deck? [In reply to] Can't Post

>Let me make this as plain and simple as possible. RSL or no RSL makes ABSOLUTELY NO
>DIFFERENCE in this decision.

I agree that RSL's are not 100% reliable and should not be relied on. However, they do reduce average time between cutaway and reserve opening - and that's something to consider.

(20kN said)
>At what point do you transition from cutting away to just deploying the reserve without cutting
>away (or landing the main as is)?

Depends on the incident and the person. If I had a canopy collision that resulted in a destroyed and spinning canopy at 500 feet I would likely deploy my reserve into the malfunction, since it's generally better to land under a large ball of crap than under nothing. If the reserve opened cleanly with the main separate from it (and there's actually good odds of that) I'd likely cut away the main at that point.


danornan  (D 11308)

Mar 8, 2018, 2:04 PM
Post #33 of 34 (1014 views)
Shortcut
Re: [20_kN] Malfunctions below your hard-deck? [In reply to] Can't Post

I was in a canopy collision at opening and ended up quite a bit below 1,000 feet with a good canopy above my head. The other canopy was wrapped around my risers and threaded between my lines. I hesitated to try and land what I had for fear that the cutaway canopy might inflate during my base-leg/final.

I cut it away. My Skyhook opened the reserve so quickly that I had time to unstowed my brakes, avoid the helicopter that was warming up below me and land with one arm. Each situation must be evaluated on it's own merit.

Thanks Bill Booth !!!!


(This post was edited by danornan on Mar 8, 2018, 2:08 PM)


JubalHarshaw  (A 74525)

Mar 8, 2018, 3:13 PM
Post #34 of 34 (965 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Malfunctions below your hard-deck? [In reply to] Can't Post

billvon wrote:

Depends on the incident and the person. If I had a canopy collision that resulted in a destroyed and spinning canopy at 500 feet I would likely deploy my reserve into the malfunction, since it's generally better to land under a large ball of crap than under nothing. If the reserve opened cleanly with the main separate from it (and there's actually good odds of that) I'd likely cut away the main at that point.

Frankly a little speed should get the reserve out, if under 1000 feet you have a giant hole rip your canopy in half, chop it, go to reserve. If you have a collision and get spun up in an entanglement or thrown into line twists I wouldn't just deploy my reserve as it could make the situation worse. The lower you get the more likely you deploy the reserve without chopping.

*I don't know shit but at least I'm not talking about a total mal under canopy with a D license (no offense). :D


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

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)