Should I have chopped?

[Hawkins121 0]

pulled at 4k. Slider got stuck 3/4 of the way UP. Was jumping a 220. Flared a bunch of times trying to get it down. No dice. My decent rate seemed pretty much the same as the T-10's i jumped in the army. I could turn the canopy just fine. About 15 feet from the ground the slider snapped all the way down. Stand up landing. Should I have chopped this? Was I just extremely lucky that the slider came down?

[Reginald 0]

Quote

pulled at 4k. Slider got stuck 3/4 of the way UP. Was jumping a 220. Flared a bunch of times trying to get it down. No dice. My decent rate seemed pretty much the same as the T-10's i jumped in the army. I could turn the canopy just fine. About 15 feet from the ground the slider snapped all the way down. Stand up landing. Should I have chopped this? Was I just extremely lucky that the slider came down?

What were you taught as a student about the minimum distance the slider needs to be down? Did you follow that information or deviate from it? And more importantly why?

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[riggerrob 558]

We teach our students that the slider must be 2/3 of the way down the lines (more is better) for a decent landing.
Waiting until 15 feet from the ground for a canopy to "correct itself" is a dangerous game.
I would have tried flaring that canopy moe aggressively - with rear risers - then, if the slider still refused to slide down the lines, I would have released it and pulled my reserve by 1,500 or 2,000 feet.
Again, the higher you make the decision the better.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

My decent rate seemed pretty much the same as the T-10's i jumped in the army.

I'd think that anywhere above 1,500 ft you might have trouble judging descent rate that accurately. By the time you're really low enough to guage descent rate accurately, it's too late to do much about it other than squeeze those feet, knees and buttcheeks together.

[pjc 0]

Quote

My decent rate seemed pretty much the same as the T-10's i jumped in the army.

How do you know your decent rate??

[Hawkins121 0]

Quote

Quote

pulled at 4k. Slider got stuck 3/4 of the way UP. Was jumping a 220. Flared a bunch of times trying to get it down. No dice. My decent rate seemed pretty much the same as the T-10's i jumped in the army. I could turn the canopy just fine. About 15 feet from the ground the slider snapped all the way down. Stand up landing. Should I have chopped this? Was I just extremely lucky that the slider came down?

What were you taught as a student about the minimum distance the slider needs to be down? Did you follow that information or deviate from it? And more importantly why?

I watched my altimeter and counted from 3500-2500 ft. It was only 4 seconds faster than the 2 times I had done that earlier in the day. Basically I thought the canopy was acceptable to land. I do not have much experience (65 jumps total) but i didnt seem to be decending faster than what a PLF wouldnt fix. If this happened again I would chop it.

[Orange1 0]

Low jump numbers but I would have chopped. I seem to recall being told that a slider too high up could possibly slide back up again, with disastrous results - maybe someone with more experience can comment on this?

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

My decent rate seemed pretty much the same as the T-10's i jumped in the army.

How do you know your decent rate??

In the old days we used the "spit test". The idea is that a wad of spit falls at a rate which represents the maximum you can land safely without getting hurt.

So, churn up a gob of fluid in your mouth and spit it out. Patooie! If the spit goes "up" relative to your descent rate, then you're descending too fast for a safe landing. If the spit goes "down" relative to yourself, then you're still okay, because you're falling slower than the maximum safe speed.

As for the decision to chop or not: the size of the canopy if a factor too. Since the person in question has low jump numbers, I'm guessing he also probably had a big, docile canopy. That helps you get away with such a landing safely. On a high-performance, heavily loaded canopy - forget it!

[tbrown 26]

I watched my altimeter and counted from 3500-2500 ft. It was only 4 seconds faster than the 2 times I had done that earlier in the day. Basically I thought the canopy was acceptable to land. I do not have much experience (65 jumps total) but i didnt seem to be decending faster than what a PLF wouldnt fix. If this happened again I would chop it.

[ncfitzge 0]

When I went through AFF they didn't really touch on slider problems. They say if it is stuck at the top, flare a couple times. If it doesn't come down cut away. So just for future reference, if the slider is only stuck 2-3 feet above the risers is it safe to land or should we cut away?

If the slider was much higher than that, wouldn't the end cells have a hard time inflating?

Sorry for the dumb questions, just want to make sure I got this right.

#148 Sonic Scrat
"Have you ever kissed a rabbit between the eyes?" Woodpecker pulling out his pants pockets to the waitress

[Tink1717 2]

Ask yourself these questions:
1. Is it there?
2. Is it square?
3. Can I steer it?
4. Does it flare?

If the answer to any one of those is no. Then chop it.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[billvon 2,433]

>So just for future reference, if the slider is only stuck 2-3 feet above
> the risers is it safe to land or should we cut away?

I teach "if it's most of the way down and the canopy is controllable, keep it." Most of the way down will vary from person to person. If it's stuck in the middle? Judgement call.

[speedy 0]

Quote

In the old days we used the "spit test". The idea is that a wad of spit falls at a rate which represents the maximum you can land safely without getting hurt.

I have also heard this one. Is there really any scientific basis behind it? Does it depend on the size of spit blob you can spit.

And I am asking seriously here.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[RossDagley 0]

Quote

In the old days we used the "spit test". The idea is that a wad of spit falls at a rate which represents the maximum you can land safely without getting hurt.

Thanks for that John - I'd not heard before. I'll bear it in mind as a 'backup' to my normal thought process! I'll give this a try on my next jump (hopefully with a fully functioning canopy however !)

[NelKel 0]

Hay man, I just read you post and wanted to let you know what works for me in that situation. Flare the canopy and hold the toggles down, than pump at the bottom of the stroke, about 1 ft. usualy brings the slider down faster than just pumping the entire stroke of the flare. Understand what I'm describing?

_________________________________________

Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan

[Hawkins121 0]

Quote

Hay man, I just read you post and wanted to let you know what works for me in that situation. Flare the canopy and hold the toggles down, than pump at the bottom of the stroke, about 1 ft. usualy brings the slider down faster than just pumping the entire stroke of the flare. Understand what I'm describing?

thanks bro.. I appreciate the advice. I will try it when it happens again.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

In the old days we used the "spit test". The idea is that a wad of spit falls at a rate which represents the maximum you can land safely without getting hurt.

I have also heard this one. Is there really any scientific basis behind it? Does it depend on the size of spit blob you can spit.

And I am asking seriously here.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The "spit test" works well with round military parachutes, but not relevant to modern ram-air parachutes.

[mdrejhon 8]

I stress talking to instructors in this case,

But personally if I had plenty of altitude and I wasn't descending remotely like a freefaller -- 4000 feet pull -- I know I'd try everything including everything that's said here including full toggle pump, deep toggle pump, pumping front risers, pumping rear risers, pumping opposite risers (left front/right rear), to attempt to stretch the slider in all kinds of orientations to get it to slip. One of these may put sufficient tension in the correct direction to undo a tension knot and get the slider to slide down. Assuming I had plenty of time and descent felt reasonably leisurely.

However, I won't be hesistant to chop if all else failed by hard deck and the slider was too high up for me to trust a good uneventful flare to...

I'm not an instructor though....I'm merely a 1-pie wonder....go talk to instructors...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

In the old days we used the "spit test". The idea is that a wad of spit falls at a rate which represents the maximum you can land safely without getting hurt.

I have also heard this one. Is there really any scientific basis behind it? Does it depend on the size of spit blob you can spit.

I recall a Meteorology class I took in college, studying weather. There was a chart in the book about the terminal velocity of various types of things like rain, snow and hail. The bigger the raindrops, the faster they fall. But even the largest raindrops were within the normal descent rate of a round parachute, which was at worst, oh, about 15 feet per second. So that's the scientific basis for the idea.

As riggerrob mentioned, whether or not that still applies to a ram-air chute, is another question. It could be argued, I suppose, that under a ram-air, your normal descent rate may be greater than a spit ball, but as long as you can still flare at the end, it doesn't matter. And your forward speed is going to make it more difficult to observe the spitball, because it's going to fall under your legs and behind you.

You might try the spit test under normal conditions for your canopy as a baseline reference point. Then if you ever have a minor problem in the future, you can spit again, and compare results to the ideal reference point in your memory. It might give you some input as to how much trouble you are in...

[chutem 0]

What did Dusty say about this? I'm assuming it happened while you were at Eloy.
James

[Hawkins121 0]

Not much really. Just that he was glad I didnt burn in and to really pump those toggles to get the slider down.

[CrazyL 0]

I like that kinda wisdom John, thanks! Haaack Tooooie!

[twibbles 0]

And if you spit and it comes back at you, you know you're flying into wind. Came up in a discussion i had about being in a bad spot and not seeing any references for wind direction.

Eugene

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of
people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

And if you spit and it comes back at you, you know you're flying into wind. Came up in a discussion i had about being in a bad spot and not seeing any references for wind direction.

Spit comes back to you, no matter which direction you fly in. Even when flying downwind, spit comes back to you.

Of course, you did include a smiley so I know you were joking....but newbies may not figure it out.