Andy9o8 0 #51 November 25, 2005 QuoteAnd as an example of why we shouldn't second-guess the person who was there, is the post about how the knot could have come loose at flare time. Gemini had thought of that, and decided that the knot was secure enough that slippage wasn't going to happen. So we're here with second-hand speculation, while he was in the air with first-hand observation. Agree in part; disagree in part. First of all, we didn't know that Gemini made the affirmative decision, under canopy, that the knot wouldn't slip, until he mentioned that in a subsequent post; his first post didn't mention that. Second, he made that decision, but it might still have been the wrong one, even if it still worked out in the end. That was why he invited our commentary, for which I commend him. QuoteHe made the right decisions. Well, maybe, or maybe not. I also don't believe that a good outcome necessarily means the right procedure was followed in every case. Again, that's why he invited out commentary. I can tell you that I used to subscribe to the philosophy that in the case of a "minor partial mal", it's better to land the canopy you've got, since it's survivable, because your as-yet undeployed reserve just might malfunction, and "better the open canopy you've got, instead of the un-open canopy you don't yet have." But now, I'm beginning to question that philosophy, as I hear more and more stories of how seemingly "minor and manageable" partial mals sometimes can suddenly turn to shit below 500 feet when it's too low to chop. I'm still sorting out the issue in my head, but it's more of a grey area to me than it used to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #52 November 25, 2005 QuoteI also don't believe that a good outcome necessarily means the right procedure was followed in every case. I'm not saying that because he walked away unhurt, that this constitutes proof that he reacted properly. That would be false reasoning. I'm saying he acted properly based upon his description and thought processes, and he had a good outcome as a result of that logical process. He had a problem, he kept his brain working, evaluated the problem, came up with a plan, tested his canopy control, and decided to land it. I see nothing bad to say about that. QuoteI can tell you that I used to subscribe to the philosophy that in the case of a "minor partial mal", it's better to land the canopy you've got, since it's survivable, because your as-yet undeployed reserve just might malfunction, and "better the open canopy you've got, instead of the un-open canopy you don't yet have." But now, I'm beginning to question that philosophy, as I hear more and more stories of how seemingly "minor and manageable" partial mals sometimes can suddenly turn to shit below 500 feet... I've landed a lot of minor malfunctions; broken lines, torn skin, jammed steering lines, etc. Never had a big problem with them. I've also cut-away from a few that I might have been able to land safely, but were too "iffy". Those kinds of malfunctions are subjective, and the best person to decide how to handle them, is the one person that it affects: the guy hanging under the canopy whose life is in jeopardy. We should not adopt some rule advising everyone to always cut-away from minor malfunctions. We should use our brains and experience to decide what is best for each of us, considering all the pertinent circumstances. We must also recognize that what might be best for one person, is not necessarily what's best for another person. For a low-experience skydiver a cut-away might be appropriate for some minor problems, but an experienced jumper with the same problem might be perfectly comfortable riding it down. For a person with a high performance canopy and high wing-loading, a 16-inch toggle differential, as in this story, might be a death spin, but for another jumper with a big docile canopy, that might be just a minor inconvenience. Gemini, in this story, evaluated his problem, made his decisions, and executed it for a safe landing. I see no problem with that! Suppose he had decided to cut-away. To do that, he would have had to drop the toggle he was using to keep the canopy flying straight. So he would have been spinning during cutaway, which could have wound-up his reserve lines. And that could have presented yet more problems that could have caused a bad landing. Had all that happened, perhaps the arm-chair quarterbacks would be in here saying; "Hey man, you should have kept the canopy you had and rode it down!" To those that disagree with me, that think he should have cut-away, please list specifically what you think he did wrong and why. Lay it out for us to critique. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HydroGuy 0 #53 November 25, 2005 I dropped a toggle once mid flare on a 169 @ a 1.1 / 1 WL...maybe 8 feet high?!? Obviously comes as no surprise to most of you, but I personally was absolutely amazed how that canopy picked up speed/dove in only that short amount of distance. I would have gone to my reserve because I'd be too apprehensive of that knot freeing itself. But hey, maybe with a couple thousand more jumps I'd give you a different answer.Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #54 January 15, 2006 Had another toggle tied in a knot at Spaceland today! Thanks to all of you and the discussion that included things I should have done, I was able to stabilize the canopy using one hand, wrapped the brake line around my free hand to release the tension, and cleared the knot all above my cutaway altitude. I had tested the uneven flare technique again and knew I could land it, but there was no wind on the ground and I didn't want to fast land a plf if it could be avoided. Got to find a better way to stow those suckers. Thanks everyone! Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
