intentional cut away

[davelepka 4]

Quote

So i was just wondering what people think about having an intentional cut away to prepare for a time when they are actually going to need to perform a cut away in an emergency.

You really think that an intentional cutaway will prepare you for the real thing?

You're going to put all sorts of time and effort into the planning and rigging for this jump. You're not going to be cutting away from a mal, it's not going to be an 'emergency', and it's probably all you're going to think about for 48 hours leading up to the jump.

The main difference between pulling your handles on an intentional cutaway, and pulling them hanging in a practice harness is that you might die doing an intentional, and the practice harness would be slightly less dangerous.

Let's remember, to come even close to the real thing, you would need a chest moutned reserve, so you can cutaway your main and pull your reserve. Adding a third canopy to your rig just gets you the cutaway, after that it a normal skydive. Pulling a cutaway handle while hanging from a canopy is one thing, and pulling a reserve ripcord while in freefall is another, so the extra harness/extra main canopy is only half of the battle.

How about this - spend your time and effort learning about rigging, proper gear maintenence, proper pakcing techniques, and developing a bulletproof gear check. This way you can avoid having a cutaway, and if you do, you know your gear will be ready.

Practice your EPs before every jump, and get yourself in the hanging harness a couple times per season to really go through the motions.

When you make a jump, try to land the first good parachute you get. How stupid would it look if you cutaway a good canopy, and then went in tyring to get another out? I'll tell you, real stupid.

[Ron 7]

Quote

You really think that an intentional cutaway will prepare you for the real thing?

If done correctly... yes.

If nothing else, it will give more confidence in the gear. Too many people are afraid of a malfunction, yet claim they will be able to handle it when it happens. Accident analysis shows this is not always true.

Quote

How stupid would it look if you cutaway a good canopy, and then went in tyring to get another out? I'll tell you, real stupid.

Any more stupid than riding a mal till impact, or riding it so long that when you do finally cutaway your hit before the reserve opens?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[tetra316 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think a cutaway should be required for a "D".

Done in the right environment, it can be done very safely. Done incorrectly, it can easily lead to a fatality.

Yes, that can present a whole new set of problems, including the need to train the jumper in the use of the tert. which is worn up front and requires a different body position for deployment. Now he must perform a cutaway and reserve pull and still be prepared to use a totally unfamiliar reserve system.

Not true. I have several intentional cut aways with a three canopies without a belly set. A local jumper had a manufacturer make a harness system with a three ring attachment system that you can cutaway. We wore that under out normal rig. Exited with the third canopy in a paper bag and deployed on exit. Just hold onto it for a few to clear the tail.

So, do you think that would be a better arrangement than the "normal" tertiary system for a low-timer to use for cutaway training purposes? All the handles in the correct places, etc.? I dunno.....just asking.

I don't know as I don't have any experience with the regular tertiary system. I do know on what we used the cut away handle for the third canopy was in the same place as your cutaway handle on your rig. So you had to be careful which one you grabbed when you cut away.

[billvon 2,435]

>You really think that an intentional cutaway will prepare you for the real thing?

Yes, it is good preparation. It's not perfect (of course) but it's about the best practice you can get.

[Halfpastniner 0]

Even so, do we really want new jumpers getting in the airplane with unpacked parachutes in plastic bags??

The best practice for NEW jumpers is a hanging harness, because it is the exact same procedure as you would do in the air. (Only my opinion of course.)

BASE 1384

[dragon2 0]

Quote

Even so, do we really want new jumpers getting in the airplane with unpacked parachutes in plastic bags??

The best practice for NEW jumpers is a hanging harness, because it is the exact same procedure as you would do in the air. (Only my opinion of course.)

I agree.

I did 2 intentional cutaways myself with an extra harness + round reserve (which I luckily didn't have to use). The first one was after a FXC fire and 1/2 year after a real cutaway (time for repack), and it didn't feel anything like the real thing. The point of the first intentional was flying that exact reserve (after a small problem with it the previous cutaway), so another rig etc wouldn't have helped. In one way it WAS the real thing though and that is the chance you could have a problem with your reserve and you now have to deal with it, a situation you just brought on yourself, for no real good reason.

If you want to practice a cutaway, use a hanging harness. You can also pull your own handles on the ground when it's time for a repack. If you want to fly a reserve (and everyone should demo their reserve, same model and size if possible IMO) demo it as a main.

I think intentional cutaways should be reserved for special jumps (for tandem instructors to be or manufacturers etc), or do them when you got a few hundred jumps for any other reason, but there are risks involved (the exact risks depend on the system you use but may include different handles, more handles, a round reserve, a reserve you cannot cutaway should you want to, extra harness, plastic-bagged canopies etc), that I personally don't think a newbie should face when not necessary (ie, not a real emergency).

If you don't believe you'll pull your handles you shouldn't be skydiving

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[Sletzer 3]

UPT does have a Tert rig, and I've jumped it before. I believe they required a minumum of 100 jumps, and then there is a period of training on the new system. The system is more complicated than a regular rig (obviously), but they kept the handles in the same places with a few additions. Let me see if I can remember how it went: Regular handles on the rig with the addition of a cutaway handle for the "reserve" parachute immediately behind the reserve deployment handle. The tert canopy that cannot be cutway is a bellymount reserve with a ripcord handle.

I hope that made sense.

I will be kissing hands and shaking babies all afternoon. Thanks for all your support! *bows*

SCS #8251

[jayrech 0]

I agree there are tonnes of handles in funny places, But, it was a suggestion, Pardon me for the insult?

D.S 174.2

Be careful what you say. Some one might take it the right way.

[BMichaeli 1]

Quote

Even so, do we really want new jumpers getting in the airplane with unpacked parachutes in plastic bags??

i would agree with that i don't feel comfortable being in the door with a canopy in a plastic bag. but if it is a controlled cut away with an instructor is it really that bad. plus just trying to add to the discussion, what if you purposely packed a mal one that has a low probability to put you in a spin (don't know enough about them to pick one out). knowing that you have a mal before you pull and know that you will be forced to cut-away. but then again someone with a low amount of jumps (like me) may panic and not cut away.

personally i am confident in my "save my life" instinct to keep me alive. but i don't feel that the hanging harness gives a real enough representation of what is going to happen during a mal.

i am not suggesting anything particular i'm talking more hypothetically to get some more feed back because these baggy and tri rig approaches don't seem any more realistic.

[Sletzer 3]

If the cutaway is intentional you must have a third parachute on your person. So no matter what you call the system, there has to be a tertiary canopy.

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I will be kissing hands and shaking babies all afternoon. Thanks for all your support! *bows*

SCS #8251

[dragon2 0]

Quote

but if it is a controlled cut away with an instructor

What instructor? If you want to do an intentional cutaway, you're gonna have to do it all on your lonesome.

Quote

what if you purposely packed a mal one that has a low probability to put you in a spin (don't know enough about them to pick one out). knowing that you have a mal before you pull and know that you will be forced to cut-away. but then again someone with a low amount of jumps (like me) may panic and not cut away.

1) if you're even THINKING about packing a mal intentionally, IMO you shouldn't be in the air. Because that is just plain stupid and dangerous.

2) if you even THINK you "might panic and not cutaway" you REALLY have no business being in the air and you should find another hobby pronto. This is no game, a timely cutaway might be required ON YOUR NEXT JUMP to keep your name out of the incidents forum. So better be ready for a cutaway, each and every jump.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[dragon2 0]

Quote

If the cutaway is intentional you must have a third parachute on your person. So no matter what you call the system, there has to be a tertiary canopy.

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

You're right, it's just that a bellymounted terts/tersh is sometimes used in CRW and although that is not a proper reserve (it's more of a big drogue to slow you down than a real, big enough round reserve), that is what most people would think of as a "tertiary canopy", I think.


As a sidenote and not aimed at you, all this discussion just reinforces my belief that intentional cutaways should NOT be done by newbies

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[NovaTTT 1]

Quote

Quote

but then again someone with a low amount of jumps (like me) may panic and not cut away.

I hope you're better prepared than this on any jump. Jump #1 or #1000 - the ability to breakaway and perform EPs is requisite. The panicky, deer-in-the-headlights sort really isn't one who is cut out for skydiving.

Quote

Quote

personally i am confident in my "save my life" instinct to keep me alive.

That's not a winning bet. Practicing your EPs repetetively and visualization drills will prepare you. Rely on your skill, knowledge, judgment and preparedness to keep yourself alive.

Quote

Quote

but i don't feel that the hanging harness gives a real enough representation of what is going to happen during a mal.

That's right - it's not a representation of a malfunction. It's a method to actually train for dealing hands-on with a malfunction. The malfunction doesn't matter - it can be a lineover, severe line twists, broken steering line, whatever.

What matters is hanging in the harness, looking at, grabbing and pulling the actual handles and getting actual results. It's building muscle memory.

Frankly, there are very few unintentional cutaways. Every cutaway ought to be and should be intentional. Practice EPs, get in the harness, use repetetive drills and visualization to be current in your thinking and quick in your responses.

The Boy Scouts have it right: Be Prepared.

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[JerryBaumchen 1,068]

Hi Sletzer,

WARNING - WARNING: The information below is not for newbies, noobs or whatever we are calling them these days.

Quote

If the cutaway is intentional you must have a third parachute on your person. So no matter what you call the system, there has to be a tertiary canopy.

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I sent a PM to one of the more learned posters on this site asking him what I am asking you: Show me anywhere in the FARs that this issue is addressed. If and when you find it, I will admit to being incorrect. Simply: The FARs do not address this issue.

That means that there is no FAA req'ment that you wear a 3rd parachute.

In fact, every TSO standard since 1949 has had a req'ment to perform at least one live jump on the equipment being tested. Those standards only allow that the harness can be modified for the addition of another parachute. They do not require the installation of another parachute.

If I am wrong on this, I will readily stand at the front of the line and admit so.

Now, would it be intelligent to not have a 3rd parachute: H*** NO!!!!!

In fact, for my one & only intentional cutaway I had a gut pack hooked up to the harness. I like to at least think that I am somewhat smart.

JerryBaumchen

[DocPop 1]

I am planning to do an intentional cutaway because my friend has a Velocity 96 that is at the end of it's life and I want to fly it (but have nowhere near the experience to land it!).

I am going to be wearing an old harness with the container cut off underneath my own rig and the plan is to do a direct bag deployment from full altitude.

I can't wait!

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[muff528 3]

Quote

I am planning to do an intentional cutaway because my friend has a Velocity 96 that is at the end of it's life and I want to fly it (but have nowhere near the experience to land it!).

I am going to be wearing an old harness with the container cut off underneath my own rig and the plan is to do a direct bag deployment from full altitude.

I can't wait!

Sounds like fun! Make sure you pull the correct cutaway handle! Don't forget to post the video.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Hi Sletzer,

WARNING - WARNING: The information below is not for newbies, noobs or whatever we are calling them these days.

Quote

If the cutaway is intentional you must have a third parachute on your person. So no matter what you call the system, there has to be a tertiary canopy.

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I sent a PM to one of the more learned posters on this site asking him what I am asking you: Show me anywhere in the FARs that this issue is addressed. If and when you find it, I will admit to being incorrect. Simply: The FARs do not address this issue.

That means that there is no FAA req'ment that you wear a 3rd parachute.

In fact, every TSO standard since 1949 has had a req'ment to perform at least one live jump on the equipment being tested. Those standards only allow that the harness can be modified for the addition of another parachute. They do not require the installation of another parachute.

If I am wrong on this, I will readily stand at the front of the line and admit so.

Now, would it be intelligent to not have a 3rd parachute: H*** NO!!!!!

In fact, for my one & only intentional cutaway I had a gut pack hooked up to the harness. I like to at least think that I am somewhat smart.

JerryBaumchen

First off, I hate to argue with you, Jerry, because you so often show me the error of my thinking.

I don't particularly like some of the regulations we have, but when I can be convinced that they exist, I usually try to follow them.

FAR 105.43 calls for a rig with at least one main parachute, and one approved reserve parachute -

Quote

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:

(emphasis mine)

Reading 105.3 Definitions, a reserve parachute is defined as -

Quote

Reserve parachute means an approved parachute worn for emergency use to be activated only upon failure of the main parachute or in any other emergency where use of the main parachute is impractical or use of the main parachute would increase risk.

(emphasis mine)

An intentional cutaway can hardly be called a failure of the main parachute.

So when you chop the intentionally chopped main, the next parachute you deploy is clearly used intentionally, unless you are contemplating suicide by skydive.

But the definition of a reserve parachute is that you only use in the case of a failure of whatever you were using before it.

So, in the case of an intentionally chopped main parachute, there must be another parachute, that is not your reserve parachute, that you intended to use. The reserve can only be used in the event of a failure of that parachute.

Count them up. That makes 3 total. The one you intended to chop. The one you intended to use after the chop. And the reserve that you didn't actually intend to use.

I eagerly await your response! (Honest!)

-paul

[pchapman 262]

Thanks for the "chapter and verse", Riggerpaul, which helps clarify the role of the reserve parachute.

One might get around the need for a 3rd parachute by creating an emergency. E.g., line twist yourself with a toggle held down, causing the emergency from which you have to chop. Or hook the main up backwards and then decide you don't want to land it after all. Or try to pack a mal.

All this leads to the question of whether one is allowed to deliberately (or semi-accidentally) create an emergency!

[wolfriverjoe 1,353]

Quote

First off, I hate to argue with you, Jerry, because you so often show me the error of my thinking.

I don't particularly like some of the regulations we have, but when I can be convinced that they exist, I usually try to follow them.

FAR 105.43 calls for a rig with at least one main parachute, and one approved reserve parachute -

Quote

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:

(emphasis mine)

Reading 105.3 Definitions, a reserve parachute is defined as -

Quote

Reserve parachute means an approved parachute worn for emergency use to be activated only upon failure of the main parachute or in any other emergency where use of the main parachute is impractical or use of the main parachute would increase risk.

(emphasis mine)

An intentional cutaway can hardly be called a failure of the main parachute.

So when you chop the intentionally chopped main, the next parachute you deploy is clearly used intentionally, unless you are contemplating suicide by skydive.

But the definition of a reserve parachute is that you only use in the case of a failure of whatever you were using before it.

So, in the case of an intentionally chopped main parachute, there must be another parachute, that is not your reserve parachute, that you intended to use. The reserve can only be used in the event of a failure of that parachute.

Count them up. That makes 3 total. The one you intended to chop. The one you intended to use after the chop. And the reserve that you didn't actually intend to use.

I eagerly await your response! (Honest!)

-paul

Perhaps this is splitting hairs, but...

To look at it a slightly different way -

Wouldn't an open canopy be considered an aircraft?

And the skydiver under it the "pilot in command"?

It's been discussed that way in regard to airport access and the legality of landing on runways.

That would make an intentional cutaway from a properly functioning canopy a "parachute operation from an aircraft", wouldn't it?

Which would require two parachutes (main and reserve) to do so legally.

Or I could be overthinking it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Thanks for the "chapter and verse", Riggerpaul, which helps clarify the role of the reserve parachute.

One might get around the need for a 3rd parachute by creating an emergency. E.g., line twist yourself with a toggle held down, causing the emergency from which you have to chop. Or hook the main up backwards and then decide you don't want to land it after all. Or try to pack a mal.

All this leads to the question of whether one is allowed to deliberately (or semi-accidentally) create an emergency!

The definitions I found for "emergency" included words like unexpected, or unforeseen. A couple were a bit broader, and said generally unexpected, and usually unexpected. Some also included the word sudden.

In the strictest sense, it would seem that a dire situation that was created intentionally is not an emergency.

It still comes down to the notion that a reserve parachute is expected to be held in, well, reserve, and not used as a matter of course.

[Andy9o8 0]

My lawyer's lizard-brain thinks your interpretation is correct. If you intend to cut away - and never intend to land - Canopy #1, it does not count toward the mandatory 2. Thus, by default: at least 3.

[riggerpaul 1]

I don't mean to challenge your way of thinking. If it gets you to the same conclusion, go with it.

But, as I see it, the definition of "reserve" parachute includes the idea that you do not intent to use it at the outset of the jump.

A reserve is a certified parachute that will be held in reserve for the unusual condition that you need it.

Anything that you intend to use at the outset of the jump does not meet the that requirement, and so cannot be your reserve parachute.

[JerryBaumchen 1,068]

Hi Andy,

I am choosing you to respond to simply because you are a lawyer. I am interested in your opinion; which I may or may not agree with.

Note: I have my opinions and other have their opinions; they do not need to be the same.

It is not the role of the government to tell me which I can do; however, it is the role of the government to tell that which I cannot do.

I am of the opinion that this cite that Paul has noted does not prevent me from creating an intentional emergency. It simply does not make any reference to how or why the emergency came into being.

I contend that I can intentionally cutaway, using a normal skydiving rig with one harness & two canopies, and once I have cutaway I have then intentionally created an emergency that then allows me to use my reserve parachute.

From a pragmatic approach: This is how it should be. Otherwise we would have the FAA defining for us what is an emergency. That is a road that I believe none of us want to go down; and I think that the FAA does not want anything to do with that concept.

If I were to do an intentional cutaway on a 2-parachute rig and the FAA tried to violate me, the above is what I would use to counter their argument. To bolster my argument I then would also cite FAR Part 21 which includes the TSO standards which require cutaway jumps ( on non-certificated equipment ) in which a 3rd parachute is not req'd.

My position in all of this is mine & only mine. I do not ask anyone to agree with me; and if 87.3% of the people reading this do not agree with me, I am quite OK with that. My life will not change because anyone does or does not agree with me.

In my nearly 30 yrs of being a Technical Contracts Manager ( I was on the other side of this fence ) we were told by our General Counsel that:

1. Only the party(s) that write any law, reg, rule, etc can interpret it.
2. If any law, reg, rule, etc is vague then the courts will rule against the writer(s).
3. Anyone who writes a law, reg, rule, etc cannot say, 'Well, this is what we intended . . . '

Am I splitting hairs on this: You bet.

However, that is how things work in this US of A of ours.

This IMO what keeps criminal defense attorneys employed.

JerryBaumchen

PS) Paul, I am a believer that reasonable people can reasonably agree to disagree.

PPS) There is a woman in the southern Oregon town of Ashland that likes to ride her bicycle in the nude on nice sunny days. There is no, law at the state level, in Oregon that says that she cannot do this. Some cities have chosen to enact local laws preventing this; some have been successful and some have been unsuccessful and those laws have been over-ruled. This is about you, me, all of us being able to do whatever we want until such time that the gov't. tells us that we cannot.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I contend that I can intentionally cutaway, using a normal skydiving rig with one harness & two canopies, and once I have cutaway I have then intentionally created an emergency that then allows me to use my reserve parachute.

Lawyers, judges and government agencies would all contend that if you jumped a 2-canopy rig and intended all along (i.e., before and at the time you exited the plane) to cut-away your first canopy, and then did so, you've busted the reg. You wanna do that and claim that you only formed the intent to cut away after you deployed your main? - knock yourself out; then find out if The Man chooses to believe it.

Look, instead of torturing the language and testing the tensile strength of the logic, let's keep in mind the agenda of the OP- when he's talking about "intentional cutaways", he's talking about jumping with the pre-formed intent - existing at the time of exiting the aircraft - of cutting away one's first canopy. Thus, I stand by my earlier post (that Paul's interpretation is correct).

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

JerryBaumchen

PS) Paul, I am a believer that reasonable people can reasonably agree to disagree.

Jerry, of course we can disagree.

And, to be sure, I am not taking the position that I think the regulations as written are the only way they could or should be.

But you said -

Quote

The FARs do not address this issue.

That means that there is no FAA req'ment that you wear a 3rd parachute.

My intent is only to show the forum why I believe that the issue is addressed in the FARs.

I make no attempt to say if the regulation should be that way.

My only goal is to show that the regulation exists.

I have said before and I will say again, if you choose to do what might not be allowed by the regulations, you should at least know what regulations you might be bending or breaking.

We certainly agree that there is no regulation that simply says that you need a third parachute to do an intentional cutaway. The regulation is much more open-ended than that. The regulation says that you need "at least one main parachute...". So you are free to have more than one if you choose.

But, no matter how many main parachutes you have, you must still have a reserve parachute, and the definition of "reserve parachute" includes the notion that you do not intend to use it at the outset of the jump. Maybe there are ways you can argue that the regulation doesn't really say that. But just looking at the definition shows that there has been an attempt to address the issue of what constitutes a legal reserve parachute.

The way I read the definition is that whatever you choose to call your reserve parachute, it must not be your intention to use it at the outset of the jump.

If you or anyone else wants to disagree with my interpretation of the definition, that's fine.

But anyone who wants to make an intentional cutaway with a two parachute rig should certainly read that definition and decide for themselves if it covers the situation or not.

You or anyone else have the freedom to interpret the definition differently from the way I do. But you cannot claim that the definition makes no attempt to address the issue.

It would be irresponsible to proceed without considering that definition and deciding for yourself what that definition means.

-paul