Side-By-Side:Do you induce a downplane and cut away?

[onlyood 0]

I've heard the thoughts from many at my local DZ and was wondering if you would consider inducing a downplane from a side-by-side situation and cutting away (given sufficient altitude)? And, most importantly, why?

DZ.com Gems:
1) In a two-out situation, anything you do or don't do can make the situation better or worse.
2) Remember: high performance canopies can give you not only high performance openings, bu

[CanuckInUSA 0]

If altitude and a decent landing area would permit it, I would consider it as my main and reserve canopies are often not compatible. But it's easy to say "what if" down here where it's safe. The question is would you do it in the heat of the moment? Then again my main and reserve are likely to go into a downplane no matter what. So I better be ready to chop it.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[packerboy 3]

Can't say what I would do... No matter what the ultimate decision may be, that situation scares the hell out of me, so I am going to do everything in my power to prevent it from happening.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[BIGUN 1,097]

Dependant on altitude - yes.
Why - in order to ensure I don't get a downoplane when it's too late to do anything about it.
The vid of the two-out, low cutaway at WFFC was too low (IMO) and the resulting lack of injuries was luck.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[riggerrob 561]

Why mess with something that is working?

I teach my students that if the two canopies are playing well together and they are aimed towards ANY open field, to just land that configuration.


I have only enjoyed one biplane, but they played well together as long as I only did very small toggle inputs. My attitude was: the less I mess with this the better.

[simplyputsi 0]

Quote

Dependant on altitude - yes.
Why - in order to ensure I don't get a downoplane when it's too late to do anything about it.
The vid of the two-out, low cutaway at WFFC was too low (IMO) and the resulting lack of injuries was luck.

ahh yes, I have a picture of this. One second I'm taking a picture of two out and then next I'm taking a picture of someone cutting away very very low.
Here is picture. I have a Second one where he was cutting away is blurry and uninteresting since only I know the tent and ground are just out of the frame.

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[BIGUN 1,097]

Quote

only did very small toggle inputs.

Rob,

On a side-by-side:
What's your thoughts on nudge turns - just using the riser of one canopy to nudge turn the other. i.e., Need to go right, use the right risers of the left canopy to nudge the right canopy?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[peckerhead 0]

This may not be the answer you are looking for but the smartest thing to do is avoid putting yourself in a two out situation to begin with.

With proper gear checks and due diligence the most common cause of two outs in this day and age is lack of altitude awarness and AAD activation.

That said, this subject has been debated many times and my best advice to you is have a plan and stick to it. Discuss this with your instructors.

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

Why mess with something that is working?

I teach my students that if the two canopies are playing well together and they are aimed towards ANY open field, to just land that configuration.


I have only enjoyed one biplane, but they played well together as long as I only did very small toggle inputs. My attitude was: the less I mess with this the better.

I borrowed gear once and it was a mistake. Turns out the gear had a baffed out PC and I was under a PC in tow during a low hop n pop. if it happened to me again I would reach around and grab the bridle and pull the bag off my back - in this way avoiding two-out. As it turns, out I dumped the reserve (opted NOT to cut away first) and had a tempo120 and jedei120 out in a biplane. VERY unstable but the last thing on my mind was to cut away the main. like you said, I had something that was working and did not want to change the situation into (potentially) a tangled death spirol. It was the one and only time I wanted to be on the ground, anywhere on the ground....key is to avoid the situation, if you have an aad do not get even close to the firing altitude in freefall. know your gear. replace the PC before it is crap. don't borrow gear...

rm

[rocketdog 0]

sort of on the same note: which canopy do you grab to induce the downplace?

* the canopy on right (that way you can cutaway with your free left hand)?
* the reserve?
* the main? (i think of my arm getting caught )

how do you know? what would you do/have done? this scenario has always perplexed me

~hollywood

see the world! http://gorocketdog.blogspot.com

[cocheese 0]

It's a good thing i don't even know how to induce a down plane on a two-out situation..... or i might try it because my reserve is due.

[KindredSpirit 0]

PD did a test in the early 90's with different 2 out scenarios. Read about it here:
http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/dualsq.pdf

This is what they say about a side by side:

For the most part side-by-sides formed in this manner seemed to be a
configuration that was easy to fly with gentle toggle input from the dominant
(usually the larger) canopy. It is not recommended to fly this configuration with all
four toggles. On one such test jump a flare was tried with all four toggles which
immediately turned the two canopies into a nose to nose fighting match. This was
not a desirable result.
In addition, flaring with the outside toggle of each canopy will turn the dual
square into a downplane. This also is not a desirable result. It must be stressed
to only fly the front, or larger/dominant canopy in a dual square scenario.
The side by side seemed to be more susceptible to instability than the biplane
when faced with mismatched sizing and shape. Sometimes with mismatched
sizes, the larger canopy wanted to out fly the smaller canopy. The result would
be a twisted-up, partial biplane with the smaller canopy partially in back. The
stability of the mismatched combination is marginal in this twisted-up partial
biplane, and requires very cautious control input.
Cutting away from a side-by-side that does not want to return to a biplane seems
to be a safe action as long as no equipment problems exist, and the canopies are
not entangled. It must be noted that RSL's were not used in any of these tests.
Great caution must be used when cutting away in that scenario due to the varied
styles and applications of RSL's.

"Kicking gravity's ass since 2003!"

[DJL 232]

My fear of the cut riser snagging the reserve is too great. I've done lots of CRW with lots of downplanes. I've had a two out situation that I cut away from and I'd still not cut the main if the two were flying side-by-side. I think it's better to understand how to control them and keep them from going into a downplane to begin with.

By the way, in my two-out, I cut the main before the reserve came over my head. I still cringe a bit looking at the video as the main riser barely misses the outside A line of the reserve.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,463]

Stick with what will save your life. If you have a stable side by side - leave it alone! Don't trade it for a fouled reserve by trying to cut away the main, and don't assume you can easily force (and hold) a downplane unless you have some CRW training.

[Reginald 0]

Quote

I've heard the thoughts from many at my local DZ and was wondering if you would consider inducing a downplane from a side-by-side situation and cutting away (given sufficient altitude)? And, most importantly, why?

Why induce a downplane? Best practice is to confirm the risers are not tangled and then if a person chooses they can cut away. Inducing a downplane (which is going to most likely be at or below 750 feet) serves little purpose, although some people advocate it. If the risers or lines are entangled trying to induce a downplane is not wise and if they aren't then cutting away should not be a problem.

The key thing to look for on a side by side is if the risers or lines are entangled. If not a person has options, if so they don't.

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

[onlyood 0]

Quote

... don't assume you can easily force (and hold) a downplane unless you have some CRW training.

It is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) that a downplane is not a "self-correcting" situation (i.e. a downplane does not naturally tend to go to a bi-plane or side-by-side ... rather, it will stay a downplane until it hits the ground). If this is indeed the case, does one need to "hold" it as described above?

KindredSpirit: Thanks for the great link (dualsq.pdf ). Very informative!

DZ.com Gems:
1) In a two-out situation, anything you do or don't do can make the situation better or worse.
2) Remember: high performance canopies can give you not only high performance openings, bu

[L.O. 0]

Does anyone here have a lot of CRW time ? I have a bunch of serious CRW and if I had two out in a side by side I am sure I would be fine. If you don't though I would do anything I could to get rid of the main. A SBS with two med performance or worse yet two high performance canopies could develop into a DP simply from harness input. So as you crane you body around to look to your side and your canopies go DP welcome to your funeral. I have seen side bys flows to the ground. I have seen people die because they tried to make a little toggle input at 100ft to avoid a tree. and that was with a Manta and a Raven. I would not try to inniciate a DP if you don't know how but get them clear and cut away. If you can't get them clear and you have to land them make your body silent fly were the s#$t takes you don't do anything to agitate them. And promise god you will start your CRW training as soon as you land safely. Now its time for the CRW soap box. Doing CRW makes you a better safer skydiver. You learn things about you conopy and yourself that you never dreamed. It is so fun and so crazy. I did some sub 100Sq (89-96) this weekend now thats scary. Doing CRW at 2000fpm decent rate and 60mph ground speed wow. everyone should do it the Fatality numbers would go down a lot.

HPDBs, I hate those guys.
AFB, charter member.

[L.O. 0]

The only real inputs needed in a DP are for heading changes or if you want it back in the SBS. Other then that, your ground bound for the rest of your life.

HPDBs, I hate those guys.
AFB, charter member.

[L.O. 0]

This post appears to have been very timely. Read about two out at Couch Freaks boggie. Of Five two canopies out, one landed SBS, one cut-away before reserve inflation, one cut-away after reseve inflation and the other two are in for a long hospital stay and an even longer recovery.

So take a look at your odds. Three people chose to try and land the SBS, Two will regret that move possibly for the rest of there life.

If you have no choice but to land it, then land it but if you can get rid of the main do it.

HPDBs, I hate those guys.
AFB, charter member.

[Reginald 0]

Quote

So take a look at your odds. Three people chose to try and land the SBS, Two will regret that move possibly for the rest of there life.

If you have no choice but to land it, then land it but if you can get rid of the main do it.

I personally would cut away a side by side if there were no entanglement. But in all fairness two of the "side by sides" at Couchfreaks were actually downplanes, which should be a no brainer to chop.

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

[billvon 2,463]

>>but if you can get rid of the main do it.

> But in all fairness two of the "side by sides" at Couchfreaks were
> actually downplanes, which should be a no brainer to chop.

Right. But based on the opinions espoused here and elsewhere on DZ.com, they may have started out as side-by-sides, then been downplaned by jumpers attempting to cut them away. At 500 feet you have very little time to try such things.

If it's going to land you survivably - keep it, especially after a cypres firing (which is what causes 90% of two-outs nowadays.) 500 feet is no place to try a downplane for the first time.

[Hooknswoop 19]

I tried to take seveeral side-by-sides into downplanes. They would eitheerr come back up into a SBS or come back up facing the otheer way in SBS. Think about the riser attachment points. To get a downplane one canopy must be in front and thee other in back. One or both has to have at least one line twist. I think the only to force a downplane would be to aggresively make a toggle turn with one of the canopies, trying to force it into line twists and dive behind you. Sounds like a great way to cause an etanglement.

Derek

[Reginald 0]

Quote

But based on the opinions espoused here and elsewhere on DZ.com, they may have started out as side-by-sides, then been downplaned by jumpers attempting to cut them away.

Sorry Bill, I haven't seen those opinions and I’m pretty read up on this comedy of errors. Are you saying the jumpers intentionally induced a downplane prior to chopping?

It is beyond my humble knowledge as to how pulling a cutaway handle would cause a simple side by side to go into a downplane; honestly, I have never heard such a thing.

Someone trying to force a side by side into a downplane before chopping sounds like a particularly bad idea! It is not known to be necessary and is probably a really bad idea particularly after a Cypres induced two out due to the low altitude. That said some people think prompting a downplane before cutting away is it is the thing to do. Personally, I think it is a bad tradeoff of risks.

The whole question is a matter of risk assessment. What is the risk of an entanglement with a side by side cutaway, under normal circumstances (no obvious line entanglement prior to chapping) vs. the risk of inducing a downplane and chopping vs. the risk of landing a side by side (particularly it turning into a downplane low to the ground but also the risk of obstacles in any potential landing area).

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

[billvon 2,463]

>Are you saying the jumpers intentionally induced a downplane prior to chopping?

In this case - I don't know; no one has stated what the jumpers did after their cypreses fired.

However, in discussions here on DZ.com, several people have stated that they would "force a downplane" so that they could safely cut away their main canopy in that situation. Since most two-outs begin between 700 and 1000 feet, and are often not noticed for a few hundred feet, that puts someone beginning a downplane at 500 feet. This probably isn't a great idea.

[Reginald 0]

Quote

However, in discussions here on DZ.com, several people have stated that they would "force a downplane" so that they could safely cut away their main canopy in that situation. Since most two-outs begin between 700 and 1000 feet, and are often not noticed for a few hundred feet, that puts someone beginning a downplane at 500 feet. This probably isn't a great idea.

Very much agreed!

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