Should I of cutaway?

[shropshire 0]

yoink

***No sure if this at all relevant on a skydive canopy BUT a Paraglider 'can' be 'parachutal' (essentially a stall) ... a flight 'mode' that has low (or zero) forward speed but is clearly flying (fully open) but falling.

You would experience this as feeling no relative wind on your face.

Is this flight mode even possible on a smaller canopy?

I've never seen one do it. We need a CRW dog....

The only straight down stalls I've seen on a small canopy result in a ball of washing above you. We used to do it to get down quicker...

Cheers mate.. maybe I'll go play

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jimjumper 25]

The practice flare can clear problems but again, even if the canopy is visually perfect and flying as it should, a practice flair should still be performed as a test of the landing performance. In the event of some types of canopy problems flaring the parachute may clear those problems but that is not the specific purpose of the practice flare as part of a canopy control check. A canopy control check consisting of a left turn, right turn, and a full flare should be performed AFTER clearing any problems that flaring the canopy or pumping the brakes corrected.

[tristansdad 0]

Don’t ever second guess YOUR decision to cutaway, and don’t let anyone else second guess you. You were flying the canopy, something didn’t feel right and you choose to go to your reserve. If you second guess yourself now what are you going to do the next time you are in the air with a bad main? Second guess yourself into the ground with a good reserve still in the container?

[skydivecat 3]

that's the thing, he didn't cut away.

THIS TIME it worked out, but I agree with everything else you put and think he was lucky that it did turn out the way it did.

[Andy9o8 0]

skydivecat

that's the thing, he didn't cut away.

THIS TIME it worked out, but I agree with everything else you put and think he was lucky that it did turn out the way it did.

While I generally agree with the "when in doubt, whip it out" philosophy, in this particular instance - very new student, student canopy, details of the OP post being what they are - are you entirely convinced there was anything wrong with that canopy at all?

[skydivecat 3]

What I think doesn't matter and I have no idea what, if anything, was wrong with the canopy. The fact that the student thought that something may be wrong and continued to mess with it past the point of instruction is why I think he should have chopped.

The Instructors tell you "if you have a low speed malfunction, 2 practice flares. If by then it's not fixed, check alti then cut away."

In this case, all turned out fine, but I don't think a good end result necessarily means the actions and thought process were correct. I agree that as you gain experience there is a little more gray area as in what to do/try in different low speed mals. For a low jump number student, I think it is dangerous to go against what you were taught to do.

[Andy9o8 0]

skydivecat

What I think doesn't matter and I have no idea what, if anything, was wrong with the canopy. The fact that the student thought that something may be wrong and continued to mess with it past the point of instruction is why I think he should have chopped.

The Instructors tell you "if you have a low speed malfunction, 2 practice flares. If by then it's not fixed, check alti then cut away."

In this case, all turned out fine, but I don't think a good end result necessarily means the actions and thought process were correct. I agree that as you gain experience there is a little more gray area as in what to do/try in different low speed mals. For a low jump number student, I think it is dangerous to go against what you were taught to do.

I don't disagree with you; and perhaps we're talking past each other a bit. You're addressing a student not screwing around when he thinks he has a mal and doing EPs promptly. That's fine.

I'm addressing a separate issue, which is de-constructing the facts of what actually occurred. That analysis, here in this thread, has its own separate merit, which is not mutually exclusive with your point.