bomb420 1 #1 November 7, 2003 I want to get peoples opinion on what to do if you have two out side by side. I know there two philosophies on this and I would like to finally come to a consensus for myself. Before the tragic events at coolidge this weekend, I had planned, if altitude permits, force a downplane and then chop the main. Obviously, now I'm re-thinking this philosophy. Would flying them all the way to the ground and pray not for a downplane be a better solution. I know this is sort of a gray area, but I would like to hear peoples experiances and such. I currently have a slightly bigger reserve(180) then main (170). Can someone give me some insight. ThanksHYPOXIC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lazerq3 0 #2 November 7, 2003 I know for me I'mgoing bythe break away video where if its a stable side by side and I have directional control...maintain altitude awarenes.. fly using gentle toggle input on the main canopy and NO flare on the landing!!! Not an exact quote but pretty darn close!! jasonFreedom of speech includes volume Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScratchTX 0 #3 November 7, 2003 I chose to land the side-by-side I had around jump 40. Reasons: I'd read the PIA report and thought/talked about various two out situations. My side by side plan was to land it if stable, to cutaway if they started to downplane. The risers were crossed and one was in front of my neck and I wasn't sure what was what, what was clear from each other and what was clear from my neck. Things as is were fine, and cutting away seemed dicey with the unknowns. I didn't have the needed combination of experience, presence of mind, and altitude to assess the crossed risers (once I'd removed my fist from under my tucked chin when I happily realized I was not going to be strangled), how to separate the canopies and the possible cutaway outcome AND deal with avoiding obstacles and landing in the clearest area I could get to, so I focused on the landing "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," -- It was flying very stable -- I watched the canopies bump end cells as the reserve inflated and the energy moved them slightly apart but they immediately pulled back together into the side by side. So it didn't seem *likely* it would go into a spontaneous downplane with no reason or input. (I know it could happen) I did NOT release brakes on either canopy. I knocked the wind out of myself on landing. I made a few good decisions, but luck played a huge role too -- I realize that now more ever. If I had one again (phtthbt phtthbt phtthbt over my shoulder, as my grandma used to do to ward it off) I would do basically the same thing. If I had the altitude and they were completely clear and they seemed to have any desire to separate, I might try to separate them and then cut away. But even though I've been in a CRW downplane I didn't initiate it and that's a lot to think about doing in real life -- considering that downplanes use up more altitude, fast. And I really would not want my main risers anywhere near my reserve lines when I cut away, so I would not want to chop unless I could get the canopies pretty damn separate. If they seemed to want to stick together and fly together nicely as they did before (similarly sized 7-cell squares), I would leave them alone. (FWIW, I had mine because of almost the same circumstances as the Coolidge fatality -- pull-out PC, still in freefall, ended skydive with reserve pull, main deployed before reserve.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #4 November 7, 2003 I teach what USPA recommends. With the latest S&TA newsletter, they added to the First Jump Course, the cutaway alternative to a side-by-side configuration. Previously, it was recommended to land this, gently steering with the outside risers, or if one set of toggles were released, gently steer with those toggles, maintaining both canopies together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #5 November 7, 2003 ***I'm not going to advise anything here Check out this article on the British mag's website.... http://www.bpa.org.uk/skydive/pages/articles/aug03/canopiesout.html Its got some good stuff to consider and help you prepare your procedures accordingly. One thing to watch out for though..."If the side-by-side develops into a biplane, fly it as recommended to the left." instead of 'left' it should read "as described above for Biplane". Somethings don't translate directly from the printed page to a website.See also the PIA report on two out tests from the PD website...http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/dualsq.pdf-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cam 0 #6 November 7, 2003 thanks for the link. this is probably really obvious but I can't figure it out: why does the author say to disconnect the rsl before cutting away? since the reserve is already out (presumably loop cut by cypres), what difference is it going to make if the rsl pulls the reserve ripcord? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masher 1 #7 November 7, 2003 It's one less thing hanging out that could tangle with something. When you're chopping a two-out, you want as little as possible of everything touching anything.-- Arching is overrated - Marlies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #8 November 7, 2003 "why does the author say to disconnect the rsl before cutting away?" Masher got it. "(presumably loop cut by cypres)" Cypres isn't the only reason you could be looking at more nylon than you expected....although it is arguably the most likely cause.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ihateskydivers 0 #9 November 7, 2003 Semi same size canopies and stable as hell, i'll fly it in. Not, or unstable, force the downplane and chop (altitude permitting) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bluewaterstream 0 #10 November 7, 2003 I actually just had this conversation with one of my JM's a few weeks ago, and he advised that in the event of a two-out/side by side if it doesn't downplane and it appears to be flying stable to steer gently using the rear risers on the main and not to even think about releasing the toggles. The logic behind not releasing the toggles was that a steering line could possibly break upon releasing and end up further complicating the situation, for example the broken steering line could potentially wrap up and tangle a few other canopy lines and cause a hard turn and ultimately end up twisting up both canopies into one big mess - in which case would probably result in a bounce. Another possibility is that only one toggle may fully release properly and you could essentially end up with the same problem as described above - a hard turn that may end up twisting the canopies. I've heard a few other suggestions at my DZ but I happen to agree with this guys logic 100% and I'm quite certain that those toggles would stay put if I ever found myself encountered with a landable two-out/side by side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #11 November 7, 2003 I recommend not releasing the brakes on either canopy and to steer with the rear risers of the main. Determine if it is flying stable and/or if the main would clear if you cutaway. then decide to either land what you have or cutaway the main. Releasing the brakes on either canopy (you can't release both canopy's brakes at the same time) may take a stable side-by-side into a downplane or spinning, uncontrollable-able entangled mess. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bluewaterstream 0 #12 November 7, 2003 Yup, that's the other point he made that I forgot to mention. Thanks Hooknswoop. If you were to release the brakes on the main it would slow the main down a bit, but the reserve canopy would continue flying at its original speed and could cause the reserve to spin back around the main and twist up the two canopies. Stupid malfunctions!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #13 November 7, 2003 Quotesince the reserve is already out (presumably loop cut by cypres), what difference is it going to make if the rsl pulls the reserve ripcord? It is precisely BECAUSE the reserve rip cord is still there (as a potential "anchor" now for the RSL) that you would want to do this. Because both canopies are out & you are suspended by your reserves risers, your body is no longer going to "fall away" from your main. Instead the primary "pull" force is going to be from your main leaving, which is, most likely going to be a lot less than what your body wieght (falling away under "normal" circumstances) would have been. This lowered "pull force" on the reserve ripcord can cause hesitation, or at worst case scenario, can even instead bind up, in effect now "anchoring" your (now trash) main to you! (can you now spell virtually assured entanglement?) At the very least, it will cause the RSL to have to come to some sort of "stretch" before it is capable of leaving (swinging loose as it remains *leaves with the main risers) ...giving just one more opportunity for something to potentially entangle either with your non-choppable reserve risers, or reserve lines. A bad scenario either way! If you disconnect your RSL first, it removes any of these (even if remote ...which differs from rig to rig) potential possibilities! Does this (apologies for being long-winded) explaination help answer this for you? Blue Skies, -Grant Edited for some really bone-head otherwise, spelling! coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nullified 0 #14 November 7, 2003 QuoteI want to get peoples opinion on what to do if you have two out side by side. I know there two philosophies on this and I would like to finally come to a consensus for myself. Before the tragic events at coolidge this weekend, I had planned, if altitude permits, force a downplane and then chop the main. Obviously, now I'm re-thinking this philosophy. Would flying them all the way to the ground and pray not for a downplane be a better solution. I know this is sort of a gray area, but I would like to hear peoples experiances and such. I currently have a slightly bigger reserve(180) then main (170). Can someone give me some insight. Thanks I asked Rusty Vest about this recently, and his opinion is, side-by-side or biplane, as long as it's stable, land it. Flying CRW, I know that it takes considerable input to transition a biplane to a downplane, and I asked Rusty if there would be anything in play in a 2-out situation that would cause the canopies to downplane more easily than an intentional CRW downplane. He said no. While there are plenty of field reports of this happening, he said that when asked if there was any information regarding pilot input transitioning to the biplane, USPA could only answer, "We don't have that information." If it's stable, be gentle and land it. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #15 November 7, 2003 Quote If you were to release the brakes on the main it would slow the main down a bit Maybe its a brain typo, but if you realease the breakes on the main, the main will speed up, not slow down.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bluewaterstream 0 #16 November 7, 2003 Yeah, it's Friday and about 1:00 here in Colorado so my brain is just about to shut down for the week. It's slowly switching over to weekend mode, good catch on that brain-fart typo Remster... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #17 November 7, 2003 Question: If you have, for example, a 190 main and a 150 reserve, what are the odds that it would NOT end up in a downplane? It seems like with the reserve probably being in front of the main, it would fly a lot faster forward, and the main would drag and downplane behind you. Is this a correct assumption? Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nullified 0 #18 November 7, 2003 QuoteQuestion: If you have, for example, a 190 main and a 150 reserve, what are the odds that it would NOT end up in a downplane? It seems like with the reserve probably being in front of the main, it would fly a lot faster forward, adn the main would drag and downplane behind you. Is this a correct assumption? Kelly http://performancedesigns.com/docs/dualsq.pdf Sorry, I don't know how to make this clickable, but this is the link to the PD Dual Squares Report. Pretty much everything is covered. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #19 November 7, 2003 http://performancedesigns.com/docs/dualsq.pdf ~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #20 November 7, 2003 Thanks so much for your help! That was a great publication, and it made me feel a lot better. I'm trying to store everything away, and I think my head's going to explode. But seriously, thanks! Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reginald 0 #21 November 7, 2003 Hmm, now I'm worried after reading the opinions above. I'm an AFF student but I was taught that if the lines are not tangled to cut away the main. If they are tangled to NOT cut away. The majority of opinions above differ...."We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #22 November 7, 2003 Did you read the article mentioned two posts above? It was very helpful, and it actually helped to ALLEVIATE some of my concerns, even though it does have different suggestions based on the type of two-out mal you have. Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #23 November 7, 2003 Quote Hmm, now I'm worried after reading the opinions above. I'm an AFF student but I was taught that if the lines are not tangled to cut away the main. If they are tangled to NOT cut away. The majority of opinions above differ.... Reginald, Speak to YOUR instructors about this. They can give you more than the advice and opinions here. Regards, Shark AFF-I Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nullified 0 #24 November 7, 2003 QuoteQuote Hmm, now I'm worried after reading the opinions above. I'm an AFF student but I was taught that if the lines are not tangled to cut away the main. If they are tangled to NOT cut away. The majority of opinions above differ.... Reginald, Speak to YOUR instructors about this. They can give you more than the advice and opinions here. Regards, Shark AFF-I Definitely speak with your instructors, but please do one additional thing; Print out the dual squares report and bring it to them when you ask them. I by no means am trying to disrespect anyone's instructors or to cast doubt in anyone's mind regarding their instructors. Simply, this report may contain information that they aren't yet aware of. There are still some instructors out there teaching the 45 degree angle rule regarding exit separation because that's what they learned. I don't think that it's ever inapropriate to present anyone, including an instructor, with information that they may or may not be aware of. Stay safe! Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #25 November 7, 2003 QuoteThere are still some instructors out there teaching the 45 degree angle rule regarding exit separation That's what I was taught-- is there a better way to determine exit separation? Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
