Reserve Video

[andreeb77 0]

Nothing too funky, just a cutaway due to a step through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpzIpvJ8Q-s

The facts:

Crossfire II 109 @ 1.9
Cutaway @ approx. 1600 ft
PD Optimum 126 @ 1.6
Skyhook equiped Vector Micron

Enjoy the video

• Quote

[SRI85 0]

i had a step through like that, the twists were only in the risers. i decieded to stick with it and landed fine.

[Cueb 0]

Quote

i had a step through like that, the twists were only in the risers. i decieded to stick with it and landed fine.

yeah well a wing loaded 1.9 is a bit different animal :) I suppose the reason for cutaway was the lack of altitude for controllability testing.

[popsjumper 2]

So I assume you had a deep heart-to-heart talk with your respective packers?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[MartinOlsson 0]

Is that a RDS? If so, why?

/Martin

[andreeb77 0]

You can bet But I have to admit that I did the same mistake a couple of weeks before. I must have routed the PC and bridle through the lines when the canopy was in the POD already. Looks absolutely normal until deployment

Back then I landed the step through. I had more altitude, a different canopy and I was able to visually and manually perform a control check above 1500 ft.

[andreeb77 0]

It's a removable slider. So, yes a RDS. Or half a RDS since POD, bridle and PC stay attached. There are several reasons for me to use one. The wing's plan form can develop better the further the risers are apart and there's no mess behind my head during canopy flight. Does that answer your question?

[cpoxon 0]

Quote

Quote

i had a step through like that, the twists were only in the risers. i decieded to stick with it and landed fine.

yeah well a wing loaded 1.9 is a bit different animal :) I suppose the reason for cutaway was the lack of altitude for controllability testing.

What altitude were you at? Can see you checking your altimeter but can't make it out. Has your hard deck changed with the SkyHook?

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[andreeb77 0]

When first checking my alti it read 540 m (1770 ft). Then I did a (twisted) rear riser turn to face towards the DZ and another alti check which burned maybe 100 ft or so. Chop was a bit above 1600 ft.

When talking theoretically about my hard deck I would say no, it hasn't changed since I got my skyhook. When I have the choice (i.e. no fast spinning mal, no high speed mal etc.) I would still chop by 1500 ft. But this experience gave me quite a bit of confidence with regard to the speed of reserve deployment. I would/could take it down a bit further if necessary.

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

Thanks for sharing the video!

I'm not trying to critique in this response, I'm honestly trying to learn/understand your reasoning behind chopping. You mentioned above that "landing a Crossfire loaded at 1.9 is a bit different animal and you had very little time to do a control check". While I understand that your hard-deck is exactly that, and you made a good choice, I'm curious since your canopy was flying straight and steady, I'd MUCH rather land a step-through, which has nearly no impact on the flight characteristics of the canopy, than to risk chopping it and maybe not having a good reserve.

Or, maybe let me say it this way. In this exact same scenario had you deployed a good canopy at that same altitude, would you still chop it because you were at your hard deck and didn't have much time to do a control check, or would you control check, then decide?

Again, don't take this as a flame, I'm just curious on the logic. Also, I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing on how a step through would affect landing capability.

Thanks!

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Thanks for sharing the video!

I'm not trying to critique in this response, I'm honestly trying to learn/understand your reasoning behind chopping. You mentioned above that "landing a Crossfire loaded at 1.9 is a bit different animal and you had very little time to do a control check". While I understand that your hard-deck is exactly that, and you made a good choice, I'm curious since your canopy was flying straight and steady, I'd MUCH rather land a step-through, which has nearly no impact on the flight characteristics of the canopy, than to risk chopping it and maybe not having a good reserve.

Or, maybe let me say it this way. In this exact same scenario had you deployed a good canopy at that same altitude, would you still chop it because you were at your hard deck and didn't have much time to do a control check, or would you control check, then decide?

Again, don't take this as a flame, I'm just curious on the logic. Also, I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing on how a step through would affect landing capability.

Thanks!

My thoughts as well...

From the video there didn't appear to be anything that would prevent the canopy from flying/landing without incident.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[normiss 752]

I'm curious about this as well.
Not saying the OP made a bad decision, but I think I would have released my toggles and checked it out.
Looked to be flying just fine...but I understand hard deck rules as well.

[andreeb77 0]

Absolutely true what the two of you you are saying.

When sitting in a comfy chair and watching the video the 10th time in slowmo, I maybe wouldn't have chopped either. In the situation I was in, I was not able to confirm that the steering lines were running straight and were working as designed. From my point of view it looked quite messy (again, there was no slowmo available ).

Of course, hadn't there been line twists and a fair amount of diving plus some more altitude I would have performed more of a control check.

P.S.: BTW, it wasn't me who said that a CF 109 is a different animal.

ETA: see my post no. 6: that pretty much was the situation I described above.

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Absolutely true what the two of you you are saying.

When sitting in a comfy chair and watching the video the 10th time in slowmo, I maybe wouldn't have chopped either. In the situation I was in, I was not able to confirm that the steering lines were running straight and were working as designed. From my point of view it looked quite messy (again, there was no slowmo available ).

Of course, hadn't there been line twists and a fair amount of diving plus some more altitude I would have performed more of a control check.

P.S.: BTW, it wasn't me who said that a CF 109 is a different animal.

Well at least in retrospect you see you did have the option.

Not saying you did anything wrong by chopping it, they use to say of the reserve, "when in doubt whip it out"...but on the other hand speaking as someone that's experienced a reserve malfunction, I tend to evaluate pretty hard before going to plan B.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

Figured as much, thanks for replying. Honestly, I can't say for certain what I would have done in the heat of the moment either, just wanted your thoughts. I suspect that you wouldn't have even considered chopping had it been opened correctly at that level, so I thought it odd, why not try a control check. Do you normally open at that altitude, or was this a bit lower opening due to the step-through etc..?

Sorry for misquoting you too, I totally thought you said that, but after re-reading I see that it wasn't you. My bad.

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[andreeb77 0]

I deployed around 1000 m (3300 ft). Canopy normally fully open by 750 m (2500 ft) at the latest.

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

Cool, so it definitely was a fair bit lower than you're used to due to the line twists.

Thanks again! I'm done my info gathering! haha

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[Beatnik 2]

I have no doubt that if you felt that the canopy was not in your control or unsure about it, you did the right thing with cutting it away. Things look different when they are happening in real time. You survived through the whole thing so it is all good. I probably would have handled it different, but that really doesn't matter in this situation.

I would ask you to reevaluate what you said in a earlier post.

Quote

But this experience gave me quite a bit of confidence with regard to the speed of reserve deployment. I would/could take it down a bit further if necessary.

Regardless of how fast it came out this time, it doesn't mean it will come out as fast or for that matter slower the next time. Saying that you would/could take it down a bit further is not necessary and will only build a false sense of confidence if you get away with it. Just my thoughts, take from it what you will.

[andreeb77 0]

With all due respect: That's a contradiction in my book. If you would have handled it differently then you would have had to take it down further as well. My hard deck is at 500 m. That's where I chopped. No time for pulling the toggles, checking the canopy and at the same time not sinking below my personal hard deck.

You are absolutely right that this reserve deployment was fine and fast and that this doesn't mean it will be the same the next time. On the other hand, such a control check that I described above would have taken, let's say, another 50 m, taking me down to 450 m which is below my hard deck but still enough to chop, especially with a skyhook (but please let us not start the discussion about who is responsible for reserve deployment )

Thanks for you input. I think it all comes down to making a decision in a timely manner

[format 1]

Just for the reference
I've cutaway my suspicious main at 500 m.
It was controllable, as yours seemed to be.
I've had a knife in my hand - didn't know what line to cut in order to inflate next-to-mid-cell.

I believe if there was no one watching - I would risk landing it (there was some wind gusting)

There's always a set of complex circumstances leading to decision to cutaway or not.

What goes around, comes later.

[ridestrong 1]

Holy shit I can't believe you didn't pull your reserve handle!

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[andreeb77 0]

I was waiting for that one

[MartinOlsson 0]

I ask because there is little to nothing to gain on that kind of canopy. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of problems involved in using one.

/Martin

[andreeb77 0]

With regard to swooping performance you are right (the most I do are 90 degree front riser turns anyway). But I still like the "free feeling" without all the stuff behind my neck. What problems do you mean? I didn't experience any yet.

[cpoxon 0]

Very similar discussion ongoing in Incidents at the moment

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live