Jackpunx 0
Recommended Posts
MB38 0
Generally you only do a "controllability check" after the canopy has passed a few initial tests. For me, those tests were shape, no spin and float. If the canopy looked like a canopy, if it wasn't spinning and if it felt like I was floating rather than falling. A line-over fails the "shape" test, so it's a bad canopy.
Double check with your instructors on this one.
Double check with your instructors on this one.
I really don't know what I'm talking about.
Jackpunx 0
QuoteGenerally you only do a "controllability check" after the canopy has passed a few initial tests. For me, those tests were shape, no spin and float. If the canopy looked like a canopy, if it wasn't spinning and if it felt like I was floating rather than falling. A line-over fails the "shape" test, so it's a bad canopy.
Double check with your instructors on this one.
your absolutley right.. its just that simple..
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>yet it's hard for me to visualize packing one.
Next time you are packing, get to the step where you put the nose in the center. Now take the nose, shove it all the way back, through the lines, to the back. Now take the brake lines or C/D lines (all hanging there) and pull them in front of the nose. That's the setup for a lineover. (Then, needless to say, repack the canopy.)
Next time you are packing, get to the step where you put the nose in the center. Now take the nose, shove it all the way back, through the lines, to the back. Now take the brake lines or C/D lines (all hanging there) and pull them in front of the nose. That's the setup for a lineover. (Then, needless to say, repack the canopy.)
QuoteAnd I'd be interested to know what kind of damage there was to the canopy from riding it in like that.
Zero. Onsite rigger and several other sets of eyes inspected the canopy immediately after the landing and found no burns or other obvious damage to the canopy. The jumper, after several debriefs, then packed (albeit more carefully this time) and got on the next load.
tbrown 26
QuoteQuoteAnd I'd be interested to know what kind of damage there was to the canopy from riding it in like that.
Zero. Onsite rigger and several other sets of eyes inspected the canopy immediately after the landing and found no burns or other obvious damage to the canopy. The jumper, after several debriefs, then packed (albeit more carefully this time) and got on the next load.
Well I'm happy to hear that and happier still to have seen the guy roll and get up on his feet in the video. But I'm still going to sing along with the rest of the choir that he should've cutaway. He's really REALLY lucky to have got off so easily this time. And on the downside, he may now have a heightened degree of false confidence that he can "tough it out" in a marginal situation.
Reluctance to cutaway a marginal canopy is a very real feeling. I've had it myself and once dicked around with a flakey canopy all the way down to 1200 ft before I finally gave up and went to my handles (many years ago, with a round reserve, which opened just fine and quickly, by the way...). The comparatively slower falling malfunction is a real deciever, it can lull you into thinking you're okay when you aren't and it plays absolute hell with your sense of time passing and how close the ground is getting. As I mentioned earlier, my friend had a slider hung up near the line cascades on an otherwise open canopy. He told us later he thought he was alright and had no idea how fast he was coming down 'til the last couple hundred feet.
That's what a hard deck is for, if your canopy don't look like the one in the pretty brochures by your hardeck, LOSE it and give the other one a chance. It will not only save you a lot of pain & sorrow, but having a cutaway under your belt will help you feel a lot better about trusting your EPs in the future.
Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !
billvon 2,400
>That's what a hard deck is for, if your canopy don't look like the one in
>the pretty brochures by your hardeck, LOSE it and give the other one a chance.
I would disagree depending on the scenario. The primary criterion is - can you safely land it? If you can turn it and flare it, odds are you can land it. And if you are pretty sure you can land it, then it may well make sense to keep it rather than cut away a good canopy and get a potentially malfunctioning one. If the canopy is landable (i.e. it passes tests) and the problem isn't getting worse (i.e. the hole is not elongating) then it may well be a good idea to keep it. In this case, he kept it and walked away. He _probably_ would have been OK had he cut away, but because his main was landable he didn't need to take the chance of a reserve problem.
Reserves are generally very well designed, and most riggers do an excellent job maintaining and packing them. Nevertheless, they can sometimes fail. The idea "you should always trust your reserve 100%" has killed people; reserves are not 100% reliable (although they are very reliable compared to mains.)
>the pretty brochures by your hardeck, LOSE it and give the other one a chance.
I would disagree depending on the scenario. The primary criterion is - can you safely land it? If you can turn it and flare it, odds are you can land it. And if you are pretty sure you can land it, then it may well make sense to keep it rather than cut away a good canopy and get a potentially malfunctioning one. If the canopy is landable (i.e. it passes tests) and the problem isn't getting worse (i.e. the hole is not elongating) then it may well be a good idea to keep it. In this case, he kept it and walked away. He _probably_ would have been OK had he cut away, but because his main was landable he didn't need to take the chance of a reserve problem.
Reserves are generally very well designed, and most riggers do an excellent job maintaining and packing them. Nevertheless, they can sometimes fail. The idea "you should always trust your reserve 100%" has killed people; reserves are not 100% reliable (although they are very reliable compared to mains.)
How do you classify if a student is not following EP that has learnt?
Could have been collapsed easily in turbulent air?
Could have been collapsed easily in turbulent air?
goose491 0
Quote>That's what a hard deck is for, if your canopy don't look like the one in
>the pretty brochures by your hardeck, LOSE it and give the other one a chance.
I would disagree depending on the scenario. The primary criterion is - can you safely land it? If you can turn it and flare it, odds are you can land it. And if you are pretty sure you can land it, then it may well make sense to keep it rather than cut away a good canopy and get a potentially malfunctioning one. If the canopy is landable (i.e. it passes tests) and the problem isn't getting worse (i.e. the hole is not elongating) then it may well be a good idea to keep it. In this case, he kept it and walked away. He _probably_ would have been OK had he cut away, but because his main was landable he didn't need to take the chance of a reserve problem.
I thought even the controllability check came after "Is it there, is it square?" This jumper did some practice turns and flares and decided he could land it... He was right because he did land it.
When it's there but it's bowtie shaped, a controllability check won't tell you whether or not a) the lineover will clear itself at 100 feet causing your compensating inputs to screw you into the ground, or b) there is damage done which will destroy the canopy at 100 ft when it hits turbulence.
I was taught if it's a line over and you can't clear it by your harddeck, then you chop it.
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
FrogNog 1
Does anybody know who this person is? Has anybody talked to him or her?
I see a lot of people supposing this person had insufficient confidence in his/her EPs. Well, this person is alive, and ostensibly not even injured, so we should be able to talk to him or her and politely say "why, exactly, did you land that instead of chopping it?"
-=-=-=-=-
Pull.
I see a lot of people supposing this person had insufficient confidence in his/her EPs. Well, this person is alive, and ostensibly not even injured, so we should be able to talk to him or her and politely say "why, exactly, did you land that instead of chopping it?"
-=-=-=-=-
Pull.
rhino 0
QuoteWhen there's a "controllable" malfunction
It might be controllable until te wind blows from a certain direction, or a thermal or, or, or... Just an unecessary risk. I would have chopped that sucker..
tbrown 26
I would disagree depending on the scenario. The primary criterion is - can you safely land it? If you can turn it and flare it, odds are you can land it. And if you are pretty sure you can land it, then it may well make sense to keep it rather than cut away a good canopy and get a potentially malfunctioning one.
But that's the devil whispering in your left ear saying things like that. Does somebody with less than 100 jumps really have the experience and judgement to make that call ?
I'll admit this guy landed okay - and I'm HAPPY for that ! But the bottom line, especially for his experience level, is that he GOT AWAY with it. When I was a hundred jump wonder I got my ass chewed out for considerably less and I took it to heart because I knew the people chewing me out had my best interests (and theirs) at heart.
This wasn't like a pilot chute in tow, or a streamer or violent spinner. You get one of those and it's all business, "Oh I'm in trouble now, grab those handles and help me Jesus!". But the slower ones that give you too much time to think can kill you just as dead. Or cripple you. You're in a bad frame of mind because you want to hold onto that main and since you're already having trouble you don't feel especially good about trusting the other one either. I know that's true, because I've been there and done that.
Reserves aren't perfect and they're not magical. They can malfunction. But we HAVE TO trust them, or else maybe think again about whether or not we REALLY enjoy falling out of the sky for amusement. That's a tough call to make. But this guy was just plain lucky, end of story. In the old days he'd have been grounded. It's NOT a good example for others and he now has a false sense of confidence in his "ability" to beat the odds.
Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !
Deuce 1
I had one like that on a tandem. By holding the canopy in half brakes with more tension on the left brake, the canopy flew straight. I could even sort of flare it, but then it would stall. When the brakes were released it would spin. (I found this out over 5000 feet just trying to clear it) Then I chopped it.
It was the scariest of my chops because when it was in the sweet spot, it was flying. I have found chopping violent malfunctions to be pretty easy.
I could see where this person would be reticent to chop it, if they hadn't chopped before.
I think if you don't have full-range control due to a linover, full flight to full brakes, you should chop the canopy.
It was the scariest of my chops because when it was in the sweet spot, it was flying. I have found chopping violent malfunctions to be pretty easy.
I could see where this person would be reticent to chop it, if they hadn't chopped before.
I think if you don't have full-range control due to a linover, full flight to full brakes, you should chop the canopy.
billvon 2,400
>Does somebody with less than 100 jumps really have the
>experience and judgement to make that call ?
No one ever has enough judgement/experience to make a perfect call. But we expect first jump students to know how to tell a total from a PC in tow; surely after 100 jumps they have _some_ experience.
>Reserves aren't perfect and they're not magical. They can
> malfunction. But we HAVE TO trust them . . .
No we don't, not 100%. They malfunction. They are an excellent alternative to certain death under a mal, and even a good alternative to a hard landing. But as an alternative to a landable canopy?
Reserves malfunction at about the rate of 1 every 2 years. That means that the odds are in your favor if you cut away from a bad canopy. But cutting away from a landable canopy will only decrease your chances of survival, because that's not a 100% guaranteed canopy in that reserve container.
>But this guy was just plain lucky, end of story.
I would disagree. No more so than a jumper who deploys his reserve after cutting away is 'just plain lucky' that his reserve opened. Both people make decisions based on their best guess about the landability of their main and the odds of their reserve opening.
I have heard several times that you should never say anything bad about a reserve, because then people may hesitate when they need to use it. But I think that's doing skydivers a misservice. Sure, reserves are great - but they can malfunction. Sure, AAD's are great, too - but they can also malfunction and kill people. I think we should be honest about the chances of these things happening, because then people can make their own decisions about how to deal with emergencies and what gear to choose. Giving out slanted information, even with good intentions, makes it harder for skydivers to make up their own minds about what to do in emergencies.
>In the old days he'd have been grounded.
Again, no. Heck, in the old days, you were more likely to land safely under a controllable DC-5 with a lineover than under your 20 year old Navy conical.
>experience and judgement to make that call ?
No one ever has enough judgement/experience to make a perfect call. But we expect first jump students to know how to tell a total from a PC in tow; surely after 100 jumps they have _some_ experience.
>Reserves aren't perfect and they're not magical. They can
> malfunction. But we HAVE TO trust them . . .
No we don't, not 100%. They malfunction. They are an excellent alternative to certain death under a mal, and even a good alternative to a hard landing. But as an alternative to a landable canopy?
Reserves malfunction at about the rate of 1 every 2 years. That means that the odds are in your favor if you cut away from a bad canopy. But cutting away from a landable canopy will only decrease your chances of survival, because that's not a 100% guaranteed canopy in that reserve container.
>But this guy was just plain lucky, end of story.
I would disagree. No more so than a jumper who deploys his reserve after cutting away is 'just plain lucky' that his reserve opened. Both people make decisions based on their best guess about the landability of their main and the odds of their reserve opening.
I have heard several times that you should never say anything bad about a reserve, because then people may hesitate when they need to use it. But I think that's doing skydivers a misservice. Sure, reserves are great - but they can malfunction. Sure, AAD's are great, too - but they can also malfunction and kill people. I think we should be honest about the chances of these things happening, because then people can make their own decisions about how to deal with emergencies and what gear to choose. Giving out slanted information, even with good intentions, makes it harder for skydivers to make up their own minds about what to do in emergencies.
>In the old days he'd have been grounded.
Again, no. Heck, in the old days, you were more likely to land safely under a controllable DC-5 with a lineover than under your 20 year old Navy conical.
QuoteReserves malfunction at about the rate of 1 every 2 years.
How many reserves do you reckon get used in your average 2 years? Don't suppose there are any figures on this? Just curious.
Witelli 0
Here's an interesting review from USPA.org. 3,660 reported reserve rides by USPA members in 2004.
http://www.uspa.org/about/images/memsurvey04.pdf
http://www.uspa.org/about/images/memsurvey04.pdf
And how many reserve malfunctions reported?
Surely the event of a reserve malfunctioning is more likely to be reported than just a plain old reserve ride.
--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson
Surely the event of a reserve malfunctioning is more likely to be reported than just a plain old reserve ride.
--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson
MB38 0
One every two years, 3,660 reserve rides last year. So there's about a 1/7,000 or .014% chance of a reserve malfunction.
How many jumps are there every year? 3660/total jumps will give a good idea of the main malfunction rate.
How many jumps are there every year? 3660/total jumps will give a good idea of the main malfunction rate.
I really don't know what I'm talking about.
In reply to
"IMO he should've chopped it. We had one jumper on our DZ that landed a hybrid thriathlon with the crw bridle all knotted up so the topskin couldn't spread out. Now he didn't know THAT, but he knew SOMETHING was fishy. Only near the ground, at flare height, did he discover that a) the downward speed was pretty high after all and b) the canopy collapsed on him when he tried to flare, a + b = one hurt jumper."
I had a similar experience on an Interceptor 225 when I had 60 jumps. My retractable system got gangled up and my Pilot Chute and D-Bag were hangning over the nose of my canopy tangled in my lines. Therefore, the canopy was not fully expanded and was slightly distorted causing a slow right hand turn. The turn was corrrectable but when I checked the flare it would slowly go into a stall. I sensed that my forward speed was too slow causing the stall early in the flare and thought maybe my decent rate was fast so I thought it was best to cut-away and not risk busting myself up. I cut-away. Most folks on the ground (including instructors) agreed but there were others who said it was wrong. I think my decision was correct and would do it again.
In this line over that the person had, I would have chopped it.
"IMO he should've chopped it. We had one jumper on our DZ that landed a hybrid thriathlon with the crw bridle all knotted up so the topskin couldn't spread out. Now he didn't know THAT, but he knew SOMETHING was fishy. Only near the ground, at flare height, did he discover that a) the downward speed was pretty high after all and b) the canopy collapsed on him when he tried to flare, a + b = one hurt jumper."
I had a similar experience on an Interceptor 225 when I had 60 jumps. My retractable system got gangled up and my Pilot Chute and D-Bag were hangning over the nose of my canopy tangled in my lines. Therefore, the canopy was not fully expanded and was slightly distorted causing a slow right hand turn. The turn was corrrectable but when I checked the flare it would slowly go into a stall. I sensed that my forward speed was too slow causing the stall early in the flare and thought maybe my decent rate was fast so I thought it was best to cut-away and not risk busting myself up. I cut-away. Most folks on the ground (including instructors) agreed but there were others who said it was wrong. I think my decision was correct and would do it again.
In this line over that the person had, I would have chopped it.
I was taught that if you walk away from a landing, never let anyone tell you that you made the wrong decision. I also had a girlfriend who became scared during a flat spin and went into EP's. Pulling red and then silver without ever trying to throw the PC. Now she is under reserve with a masive line twist. Fortunately she was at 10grand and had time to kick them loose and walk away from a very nice stand up landing but in my opinon she made the WRONG choice. However I still see the point that she was able to walk away and learn from her choice so it must have not been all wrong, I guess.
With that said, during my EP course we were shown pictures, like huge flash cards, of different mals. The instructor would say 'this is a line twist, you should kick out blah blah blah and cut loose if not cleared by the hard deck blah blah blah' and so on down the list of pictures. Then he came to one and said "this is a line over, you cut this away" there was no blah blah blah about it, just reconize it and cut it away, at least that is what I was taught.
edit to add: And as so many of you have suggested, I listen to my instructors so I would have cut it away, with the quickness. But I am not a robot either and I have got alot from the post here, they all have some validity in my opionon
With that said, during my EP course we were shown pictures, like huge flash cards, of different mals. The instructor would say 'this is a line twist, you should kick out blah blah blah and cut loose if not cleared by the hard deck blah blah blah' and so on down the list of pictures. Then he came to one and said "this is a line over, you cut this away" there was no blah blah blah about it, just reconize it and cut it away, at least that is what I was taught.
edit to add: And as so many of you have suggested, I listen to my instructors so I would have cut it away, with the quickness. But I am not a robot either and I have got alot from the post here, they all have some validity in my opionon
Just a meaningless post 2 correct your statement, i landed on my butt!!!! It was not a nice stand up landing!!!!!
TomAiello 25
QuoteThere's a good video on SkydivingMovies of a cliff BASE in which the jumper has a line over. It wasn't spinning [thankfully] so he managed to get out his hook knife and cut the offending line.
If that's the video I'm thinking of, then the canopy was definitely spinning. You can see a complete rotation before the jumper gains control with toggle input. The canopy only flew straight with around 3/4 toggle input on the opposite side (which is why the jumper is using one hand and his teeth to manipulate the knife, and you never see the other hand--it was busy keeping the canopy flying away from the cliff). On a BASE jump, your very first priority is to avoid object strike, which is why canopy heading is addressed before issues with the canopy itself.
my AFFI tells me to do a controlability check if it passes to land it..
from what Im hearing here.. that its better to just cut and not gamble with it..
is that the bottom line?
he says that if Im 100% that I can land it safely then keep it.. if not cut away..
so.. with out the same experience of knowing if Im going to fast.. should i EP?
also..
say I do my controlability check and Im all good.. what is the possibility of something going wrong after that?
and would you just ride it in if something weird happend around 1k '? or pull silver on top of your main
thanks
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites