0
rasmack

Looking for video of bad student exits/pulls

Recommended Posts

In Denmark we have used BOC-placed ripcords for SL students for many years. AFF students are generally taught using throw-out pilot chutes. We are, however, considering allowing the use of throw-out pilot chutes to be used also for SL students from their first freefall.

I have been in contact with skydiving organizations from a number of different countries to gather statistics and experience, and it seems that there is as of now no proven case against making this transition.

As any SL instructor will know, these first freefall jumps can be scary to watch, and a lot of instructors (myself included) will be thinking of entanglement situations arising from bad exits and lazy throws. Avoiding those is why we have ripcords in the first place.

Therefore:

Do any of you have videos of bad student exits and pulls that you are willing to share with me (and with those who will ultimately make this decision)? I want to see the videos where you were sitting in the plane, thinking "If he's not dead, I'm gonna kill him myself.". We all know that the good student can be taught to use BOC throw-out with no problems. It is the life of the less-than-perfect student we are out to safeguard here.

Side note: If you happen to sit on statistics with large numbers for this situation or for IAD which should be comparable, please send me a PM.
HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just remember to have correct lenght velcro.

When we had SL we had one that was a little bit shorter.
As long as we had the spring PCs it was never a problem.
But on the first jump with throw away and that little shorter velcro the student got freefall :)
But we never had problem with lazy throws.
In my opinion it is a teaching problem if you get them.
If you teach them to throw hard it shouldn't be a problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canadian dzs converted to hand-deploy pilot-chutes for all students starting 30 years ago (early 1980s).
All first-jumpers used Instructor /assisted /deployment, then they did a few practice pilot-chute throws (with instructor still holding their pilot-chute), then their first freefalls were done with the student tossing his own pilot-chute.
The greatest advantage of IAD is that it lifts the d-bag too quickly for a clumsy student to interfer with deployment. Clumsy IAD end up with lie-twists. IAD also reduces clutter in the airplane with nothing for the instructor to fumble with after the last student has exited.
Equipment-wise, the only difference is that IAD student containers have an extra pilot-chute pouch sewn vertically on the left side flap. This extra pouch reduces clutter in the airplane and allows us to stuff in simulated pilot-chutes before take-off.
Early on, we used pilot-chute pouches sewn to belly-bands, but gradually converted to pouches on the back of leg straps and eventually bottom of container. We teach students to lay the palm of their fright hand on their right buttock, then slide it up to the lower corner of the container, wrapping their fingers around the pilot-chute handle, etc. BOC has the advantage of starting with the student's handle at the correct angle to the wind.
One set of gear simplifies packing, manifesting, transitions, etc.

I am not quite sure what the Norwegian is mumbling about??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds interesting, and I really could use a large statistical sample to give a sharper analysis in the end. Can you point me to someone in the CSPA who would be sitting on stats like that?

Other than that, all the places I have looked seem to indicate no strong case against the switch. That will, however, meet some resistance from hypothetical what-if scenarios. I really would like some videos of some of these situations to tell us what happens. Some Canadian student must have made a lazy throw. Some Canadian student must have botched a poised exit. Video would really help.
HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want mega-statistics, ask CSPA Headquarters. They will probably ***pass your question on to CSPA's Coaching Committee ... or maybe the membership committee can tell you how many first-jump
students jump in Canada every year.
Most Canadian IAD students do hanging exits from Cessna struts. Yes, hanging exits require a few practice climb-outs on the ground. The big challenge is training old instructors to climb out with their students.
Hah!
Hah!

I have dropped hundreds of S/L, IAD and accompanied freefall students from a wide variety of aircraft. I have also done 4,000 tandems. IAD is by far the best way to drop solo students. Teaching them to throw their own pilot-chutes (from BOC) prevents a dozen transition problems as they progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riggerrob

Canadian dzs converted to hand-deploy pilot-chutes for all students starting 30 years ago (early 1980s).
All first-jumpers used Instructor /assisted /deployment, then they did a few practice pilot-chute throws (with instructor still holding their pilot-chute), then their first freefalls were done with the student tossing his own pilot-chute.
The greatest advantage of IAD is that it lifts the d-bag too quickly for a clumsy student to interfer with deployment. Clumsy IAD end up with lie-twists. IAD also reduces clutter in the airplane with nothing for the instructor to fumble with after the last student has exited.
Equipment-wise, the only difference is that IAD student containers have an extra pilot-chute pouch sewn vertically on the left side flap. This extra pouch reduces clutter in the airplane and allows us to stuff in simulated pilot-chutes before take-off.
Early on, we used pilot-chute pouches sewn to belly-bands, but gradually converted to pouches on the back of leg straps and eventually bottom of container. We teach students to lay the palm of their fright hand on their right buttock, then slide it up to the lower corner of the container, wrapping their fingers around the pilot-chute handle, etc. BOC has the advantage of starting with the student's handle at the correct angle to the wind.
One set of gear simplifies packing, manifesting, transitions, etc.

I am not quite sure what the Norwegian is mumbling about??????




You don't have to go to IAD.
You can still use hand deployed PC's with static line. This means you don't need the extra PC pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys! I have plenty of rigging information and statistics from Norway and Sweden. Please don't hijack with those discussions. What I need is video to show when the what-if scenarios pop up, which they will.
HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Rasmack,

My point is that unstable exits and malfunctions are so rare with IAD and hand-deployed early freefall that it is difficult to find damning video.

As for the Norwegian suggesting combining soft pilot-chutes and static-lines: that is doing it the hard way, with lots of extra fiddly bits and an extra second or two for the student to interfere with deployment. The greatest advantage of IAD is that the canopy reaches line-stretch before the student can tumble enough to interfer with deployment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riggerrob

My point is that unstable exits and malfunctions are so rare with IAD and hand-deployed early freefall that it is difficult to find damning video.


Ah... got it. :)
HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riggerrob


My point is that unstable exits and malfunctions are so rare with IAD and hand-deployed early freefall that it is difficult to find damning video.



Yet at the same time, there must be some bad exits. Whether a static line student has done a few good exits with practice pulls, or an IAD student has done a few good exits with practice pulls, either way, there will be people who get nervous and screw up one of their first freefalls. A 5 second delay is sometimes just enough for them to get over on their back.

And since you're supposed to pull when you're supposed to pull, you'll have pilot chute pulls with the jumper on their back rather than ripcord pulls with the jumper on their back...

I think I have a grainy video somewhere of someone deploying their BOC on their back, after kicking and rolling on their back on one of their first freefalls. These things USUALLY work out OK despite it looking really scary...

So I can understand what the original poster is looking for.

After all, tandem instructors usually get shown a few scary videos during their training...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No video, but strong memories of lines shooting between my legs as I flipped backwards from a SL exit from the step of
Quote

a C182. Next jumps, I learned to look at the door as I exited and it never happened again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be good to see. Thank you.

It is also not uncommon for me to sit in the door looking at a student doing a 5 second delay like "1... 2... 3... Flip... Pull". On those occasions a spring loaded PC does its job very well. Statistics seem to indicate that throw-out works just fine but seeing how these situations actually resolve themselves would be nice.
HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pchapman



A 5 second delay is sometimes just enough for them to get over on their back.




Sounds like you were watching my first freefall - although from memory it was a 3 second delay!

After 3 perfect DPs in a day, went out without the rope, freaked out, backflipped out of the door and deployed on my back. [:/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rasmack

***My point is that unstable exits and malfunctions are so rare with IAD and hand-deployed early freefall that it is difficult to find damning video.


Ah... got it. :)
.........................................................................

Plenty of IAD students try to e it unstable, but the main canopy opens so quickly that they barely have enough time to roll, pitch or yaw 30 degrees before line stretch.
Similarly, freefall students often get unstable, but once they have tossed the pilot-chute to arm's length, it catches the wind and pulls the main deployment bag off their back. No matter how badly they are tumbling, they rarely open with more than line twists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rasmack

In Denmark we have used BOC-placed ripcords for SL students for many years. AFF students are generally taught using throw-out pilot chutes. We are, however, considering allowing the use of throw-out pilot chutes to be used also for SL students from their first freefall.

I have been in contact with skydiving organizations from a number of different countries to gather statistics and experience, and it seems that there is as of now no proven case against making this transition.

As any SL instructor will know, these first freefall jumps can be scary to watch, and a lot of instructors (myself included) will be thinking of entanglement situations arising from bad exits and lazy throws. Avoiding those is why we have ripcords in the first place.

Therefore:

Do any of you have videos of bad student exits and pulls that you are willing to share with me (and with those who will ultimately make this decision)? I want to see the videos where you were sitting in the plane, thinking "If he's not dead, I'm gonna kill him myself.". We all know that the good student can be taught to use BOC throw-out with no problems. It is the life of the less-than-perfect student we are out to safeguard here.

Side note: If you happen to sit on statistics with large numbers for this situation or for IAD which should be comparable, please send me a PM.

The reason you can't find a proven case against this is because there isn't one. We don't have rip cords because of bad exits and lazy throws. We have rip cords because that's the way it has always been done. The only reason NOT to use throw-outs is because "we have never done it that way" and change is dangerous and bad.
We got rid of rip cords three years ago, same thing with spring loaded pilot chutes. We use regular pilot chutes for our S/L jumps with a double velcro assist and have had zero problems.
Spring loaded pilot chutes have their own problems (burble) and are more prone to wrap around a leg or arm than the throw-outs.

The "if he's not dead I'm going to kill him myself" crap makes me question whether you should work with students.
That attitude is as old school as rip cords.
This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ufk22

The reason you can't find a proven case against this is because there isn't one...



You misread my intention. As you say: "This is the way it has always been done.". This move will run into all kinds of hypothetical killer scenarios from old instructors, so videos of lazy throws by students lying on their back resulting in a fine main canopy would be really nice to have.

ufk22

The "if he's not dead I'm going to kill him myself" crap makes me question whether you should work with students.
That attitude is as old school as rip cords.



I'd never let a student know I was upset. I was just trying to make people remember the jumps where they'd been really scared on behalf of the student. You know, when a 5 second delay turns into 11 seconds...
HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes as rasmack is saying, he isn't the one doubting using throwouts for students, but he wants more ammunition to defend it.

rasmack

so videos of lazy throws by students lying on their back resulting in a fine main canopy would be really nice to have.



Heck, you can get videos of AFF students doing that sort of thing too.

AFF students may be less likely to pull unstable than gradual progression students, but it still happens.

There was a time 20+ years ago where Canada had moved to allowing throw out pilot chutes for AFF/PFF style jumps, but when the USPA still insisted on having spring loaded pilot chutes. But the USPA has long ago decided any possible extra risk was acceptable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know where to find the video. But the air force academy.students do a first jump course where they have an aad on both main and reserve
( set to two different altitudes) and they do a solo clear and pull on their first jump. :o the video i have seen have some exciting exits and pulls. But this may not be helpful they use ripcords and spring loaded pilotchutes.
i have on occasion been accused of pulling low . My response. Naw I wasn't low I'm just such a big guy I look closer than I really am .


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rasmack,
The primary reason I dislike Velcro-assist (on any type of static-line) is that it is long enough to allow students to tumble enough to interfer with deployment. OTOH direct-bag or IAD lifts the d-bag beyond as-reach before they can interfere with deploring. only allows them tumble 30 degrees before line stretch starts to straighten them out.
The greatest advantage to giving all students BOC, hand-deploy, pilot-chutes is that it vastly simplifies work for riggers and packers. After one season (using only one system) your ground crew will flatly refuse to pack anything else.

Back during the 1980s and 1990s I participated in the conversion from military surplus rounds to piggybacks containing squares and hand-deploy. At times it was amusing listening to old instructors fiercely defending their favourite system.

IAD was invented shortly after Bill Booth invented hand-deploy pilot-chutes. Parachutist magazine published an article about IAD circa 1975. Then USPA treated IAD the same way they treated Accompanied Freefall: stubbornly refusing to approve it.
By 1979, a single Canadian DZ (Gananoque, Ontario) had converted to IAD. They also equipped all their freefall students with hand-deploy pilot-chutes and did buddy-jumps.
Circa 1980 the North American military quit selling airworthy surplus parachutes, so as civilian DZs wore out student gear, they replaced it with piggyback containers, etc.
Several more Canadian DZs adopted IAD until it became the national norm by the end of the 1980s.
Meanwhile USPA stubbornly resisted hand-deploys for students.
By the mid-1990s Roget Nelson (near Chicago, Illinois) started equipping his AFF students with BOC hand-deploys. Then American DZs raced to convert their student year to BOC. One of my last (2001) rigging jobs in Perris, California was converting all their student gear to BOC. That winter (2001) I attended a USPA IAD instructor course in California City and (course conductor) Bob Celaya said "Rob, you probably know way more about IAD than me."
After seeing how gracefully the conversion process went in Canada, it was most entertaining watching USPA flip from stubbornly resisting hand-deploys for students to rushing to make it the national norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0