Dealing with Two canopy out - Was Incidents: Multiple locations

[Remster 24]

Quote

Was that downplane induced by trying to bring his main to the front?
It looked pretty landable before the riser-work.

Well, except for the full line twist on the main.

Remster

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Was that downplane induced by trying to bring his main to the front?
It looked pretty landable before the riser-work.

Well, except for the full line twist on the main.

Would a single line twist on one canopy of a two-out mean it's not landable though? You still have plenty of nylon over your head.

[Remster 24]

I dunno... I would view it as an inherently unstable configuration since the twist "wants" to get undone, and would probably result in a downplane (as I think happened here with some sort of input).

Then again, even being a reformed dirty low-puller, never had the opportunity to have a 2 out, so it's all very theoretical for me at this point.

Remster

[likearock 1]

Quote

I dunno... I would view it as an inherently unstable configuration since the twist "wants" to get undone, and would probably result in a downplane (as I think happened here with some sort of input).

Then again, even being a reformed dirty low-puller, never had the opportunity to have a 2 out, so it's all very theoretical for me at this point.

I guess the point I'm making is that you probably wouldn't want to "encourage" the untwisting of a single line twist by pulling on the riser. Or do you disagree? It would be good to have procedure to follow if we find ourselves in such a situation.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

I dunno... I would view it as an inherently unstable configuration since the twist "wants" to get undone, and would probably result in a downplane (as I think happened here with some sort of input).

Then again, even being a reformed dirty low-puller, never had the opportunity to have a 2 out, so it's all very theoretical for me at this point.

I guess the point I'm making is that you probably wouldn't want to "encourage" the untwisting of a single line twist by pulling on the riser. Or do you disagree? It would be good to have procedure to follow if we find ourselves in such a situation.

I think a good procedure in that instance is to leave well enough alone when down that low...

It obviously had the look of a high potential for doing something unstable...if it's flying right and the landing judged to be survivable, leave it & PLF.

Why would you make any control inputs down low that you haven't tried (a lot) higher first??

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Bluhdow 31]

Were the two canopies never far enough apart to justify cutting the main away?

Wouldn't that have been a feasible option...or am I missing something?

Apex BASE
#1816

[stratostar 5]

Quote

Were the two canopies never far enough apart to justify cutting the main away?

Wouldn't that have been a feasible option...or am I missing something?

How about you tell us when you would cut away from two out and we'll tell if you if got it right or not.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[Bluhdow 31]

Quote

Quote

Were the two canopies never far enough apart to justify cutting the main away?

Wouldn't that have been a feasible option...or am I missing something?

How about you tell us when you would cut away from two out and we'll tell if you if got it right or not.

Sorry for asking a question. Your smartass reply has made me a much more educated skydiver. Thanks.

Apex BASE
#1816

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Were the two canopies never far enough apart to justify cutting the main away?

Wouldn't that have been a feasible option...or am I missing something?

I think it might have been an option up high, but that guy had lots going on...the free-bag etc. was wrapped and had to be cleared.

I'm guessing he hung onto it, 'understandable' but it's something else to dick with when cutting the main if that's the way you're going. If there were to be a problem releasing the main during a side by side I wouldn't want the extra crap flapping around.

The twist also presents a question, will it bind the release in any way? If the release were 'staged' - as in one side before the other, there is a real potential for significant problems.

It looked to me like the jumper was attempting to make a minor correction left that would have kept him the the flatter field.

It also looked to me (could be wrong here) that he was trying some harness input to get heading that way but it either didn't work, or wasn't working well enough.

You can see from the video he gave it some thought and didn't just grab a riser or pop a toggle...he (from what I can tell) went with an outside of the dominant canopy control attempt. The two canopies were just way to different in flying.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Bluhdow 31]

Thank you for your helpful reply!

My first thought always seems to default to "how can I get down to just one canopy," but it might not always be so simple.

Apex BASE
#1816

[DSE 3]

Quote

It looked to me like the jumper was attempting to make a minor correction left that would have kept him the the flatter field.

It also looked to me (could be wrong here) that he was trying some harness input to get heading that way but it either didn't work, or wasn't working well enough.

If you look closely at the field, you can see an irrigation ditch that is in the flight/landing path.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

Were the two canopies never far enough apart to justify cutting the main away?

Wouldn't that have been a feasible option...or am I missing something?

How about you tell us when you would cut away from two out and we'll tell if you if got it right or not.

Hi SS

I had two out once

Biplane
The DZO had a pic over the craper of the side by side and the biplane . Keep the biplane, chop the side by side.

Scratch head scratch butt The idea of choping a biplane and having the risers leave in a random fashion with the potential of messing with my reserve didn't make any sense to me.

Slow easy turns, nice standup close to the peas.
A few month's later we had a very nice guy (Bob) in the local area a different DZ that decided rather than risk landing his biplane he would chop his main just before landing.He died.

I saw what I had and what happened , I only heard what happened to Bob second hand.

The GK's did a study of what to do under both conditions. Check it out. if your interested.

Time to take a nap.

One Jump Wonder

[billvon 2,394]

>Were the two canopies never far enough apart to justify cutting the main away?

In general the only conditions you want to cut away the main are:

1) Canopies will not entangle during the cutaway AND
2) The configuration of canopies above your head will not land you safely.

If it will land you safely - leave it alone. Minor inputs only. You're going to land going quite slowly under two parachutes.

[Bluhdow 31]

Quote

>Were the two canopies never far enough apart to justify cutting the main away?

In general the only conditions you want to cut away the main are:

1) Canopies will not entangle during the cutaway AND
2) The configuration of canopies above your head will not land you safely.

If it will land you safely - leave it alone. Minor inputs only. You're going to land going quite slowly under two parachutes.

This is good advice, and easy to remember. Thanks!

Apex BASE
#1816

[PigsInSpace 0]

Quote

The idea of choping a biplane and having the risers leave in a random fashion with the potential of messing with my reserve didn't make any sense to me.

Right. And the same thing can happen with a side-by-side. If you chop the main, the remaining reserve immediately jumps to the center above you, to restore the center of gravity - and that is toward the risers of the departing main. The departing main risers can then entangle with the side of the reserve, like the three-rings in the lines, causing it serious problems. Especially if the main is somewhat inflated and has some drag to it. I've seen a video of this in the long ago past. Might have been from the Gold Knights two-out test jumps.

[stratostar 5]

I did not answer you for a reason, your comments raise red flags for some one with a B and two yrs in the sport, according to your profile. Instead of Bill Von answering the questions for you, I was hoping you would have stepped up and answered the questions in your own words, yea more or less a test to see how you answer.... Why, see that red flag comment above, kind of hard to help someone if you don't know or understand their thinking patterns on a subject, you might have simply been using the wrong wording, but knew the proper actions, or not?

Instead we have now lost that opportunity to better understand your mindset when you asked, the questions were answered to you. The fact of the matter is, all of this info should have been covered in great detail in your FJC and again in additional continued education as you progressed to your B license, on safety day as well, on your licensing review before the tests. When such basic life saving info seems to be lacking it makes one wonder how you got so far along in the sport, to then reply the following:

Quote

This is good advice, and easy to remember. Thanks!

Again sounds like that is the first time you've ever heard this, like some kind of "news flash"... again huge red flag! I hope you take advantage of this up and coming safety day to spend some time in the hanging harness and getting drilled on ep's and when you are done there go have a talk with an instructor or an S&TA.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

Quote

>Were the two canopies never far enough apart to justify cutting the main away?

In general the only conditions you want to cut away the main are:

1) Canopies will not entangle during the cutaway AND
2) The configuration of canopies above your head will not land you safely.

If it will land you safely - leave it alone. Minor inputs only. You're going to land going quite slowly under two parachutes.

In general, a good plan. Here's the bottom line:

-if you have a two-out situation then you are generally well below your decision altitude (on civilian AAD's anyway). It's ALWAYS your fault if you have two out. I challenge anyone to show me evidence of a two out situation above 2500 feet.

-if you have two out the FIRST thing you must do is determine if your two canopies are entangled AT ALL. If you were tumbling when you threw your PC and your AAD fired then it's entirely possible that you threw your PC through your deploying reserve risers or that your reserve PC fired through your main risers.

-if you can POSITIVELY determine that your canopies are NOT entangled, then the smartest thing to do is pull on the LEFT rear riser of the LEFT canopy with your LEFT hand in order to separate your canopies and cut away. If your canopies are flying straight ahead in a stacked formation and not giving you any problems, then feel free to ride it in using small inputs with the front canopy or small corrections with the inside riser of the inside canopy in order to turn. I can't believe that there is anyone out there teaching that it's smart to unstow brakes in this situation..

-if your canopies are entangled in ANY WAY, then it's NEVER OK to cutaway and you have the rest of your life to keep both canopies over your head until landing. If one dives away and starts to down-plane, then pull on the inside rear riser and get the canopy back over your head. You will NOT walk away from a downplane under sport canopies.....Period. You cannot cutaway from entangled canopies in a two-out scenario.....Period.

The old GK two-out testing was a great project back in the day. Mike Mayo ran it. All of that was done on Fort Bragg behind a truck on the 82nd parade field. There were not any tests done in that project where the canopies were deployed through the risers of the other canopy though, nor were there any tests done where any of the canopies were intentionally setup in a line-twist.

When I was a young instructor and dual squares became a possibility, we always trained that it was NEVER OK to chop if the main was flying in front of the reserve in a two out "stack" configuration because it would most likely entangle with the reserve, but it WAS OK to chop if the main was in the rear as it was unlikely that the main would entangle with the reserve flying up front. Oddly, it was not uncommon at all for very-experienced jumpers of that era to do "canopy transfers" when there reserve repack was due. They would fly into the wind with their fully-functioning mains, dump their reserves behind them, then cutaway just as the reserve caught air Who thinks that's a joke? It's not.

Chuck Blue, D-12501

[Deyan 31]

Quote

I challenge anyone to show me evidence of a two out situation above 2500 feet.

What about some PC in tow that ends up as two out? I've seen it once. It was way above 2,5k.

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[piisfish 135]

Quote

[-if you have a two-out situation then you are generally well below your decision altitude (on civilian AAD's anyway). It's ALWAYS your fault if you have two out. I challenge anyone to show me evidence of a two out situation above 2500 feet.

premature AAD fire/AAD malfunction. The only fault of the jumper in that case is to jump with an AAD. It DID happen. Several times.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[hcsvader 1]

Quote

-if you can POSITIVELY determine that your canopies are NOT entangled, then the smartest thing to do is pull on the LEFT rear riser of the LEFT canopy with your LEFT hand in order to separate your canopies and cut away.

Yeah... That just killed someone in Australia.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[pchapman 261]

Quote

Quote

-if you can POSITIVELY determine that your canopies are NOT entangled, then the smartest thing to do is pull on the LEFT rear riser of the LEFT canopy with your LEFT hand in order to separate your canopies and cut away.

Yeah... That just killed someone in Australia.

Unless you know more about the accident than has been presented on this site, that's a very misleading attribution of blame and useless critique of Skymonkey's method. Your statement is like saying that "Cut away when you have a malfunction" is wrong, because it is wrong at 200 feet.

The APF Statement of Facts says about the accident in Australia on 18 Dec 2012 says, "At approx 500-700ft his reserve deployed, the opening of which had been initiated by an AAD activation. The canopies then went into a side by side formation and shortly after, it appeared that the deceased had separated the canopies, which then in turn at approx 200ft went into a down plane. The deceased’s right hand was observed to be in the vicinity of his chest area, at which time he impacted the ground. "

Sounds like there wasn't any issue about which riser to grab, nor any problem with cleanly separating canopies for a cutaway. It sounds like the problem was all about the altitude at which this occurred, not the technique in general. Let's keep things in context.

[hcsvader 1]

Yes altitude was the issue, he had a survivable configuration until he tried to change it at a low altitude.

Similar to what you see in the wingsuit video where he had a stable configuration until he made inputs that put it into a down plane at a low altitude.

Skymonkeys method can be used if altitude permits, which he didn't mention as a factor. Kind of an import one. In most 2 out scenarios altitude is one thing your not going to have much of.

If its a 2 out due to an AAD fire your already below 750' plus the time it takes for the reserve to open and you to become aware of what is happening, check to insure the risers are in a safe configuration to perform a cutaway then induce a down plane to cutaway.
What altitude do you think that this will put you at? Do you still think this is an acceptable technique?

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[pchapman 261]

We're probably in reasonable agreement overall. I thought the context of sufficient altitude was obvious, while you wanted it to be explicitly clarified -- because that's important given that many two outs are the result of snivelling into normal AAD firing range.

(You just took a shot at Skymonkey's advice without being detailed either, so I took a shot at that!)

[hcsvader 1]

Quote

We're probably in reasonable agreement overall. I thought the context of sufficient altitude was obvious, while you wanted it to be explicitly clarified -- because that's important given that many two outs are the result of snivelling into normal AAD firing range.

(You just took a shot at Skymonkey's advice without being detailed either, so I took a shot at that!)

Ya that'll happen
I was at at the dz where the two out fatality happened shortly after the incident for the Christmas boogie there.
They did a great safety seminar on 2 outs. What I got out of it was if you have a 2 out due to an AAD fire, your going to be low, if its flying in a stable configuration and where your going to land isn't going to kill you (power lines, building, etc) don't mess with it and end up making this worse.
The guy in the wingsuit video is a great example. He had a stable side by side, was going to land on some uneven terrain, tried to turn it and caused a down plane. Sure the landing on the rough terrain might have hurt, but I bet landing that down plane hurt a lot more.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[popsjumper 2]

There seems to be a lot of discussion saying, "Disregard the GK testing and go with "XXX".

The USPA including the riser flight in the SIM doesn't not negate the validity of toggle flight. There is no information saying risers are safer than toggles.

From USPA:

"The landing with both brakes stowed option was added as an option in the SIM based on personal observations by some Board members of uneventful landings with brakes stowed on both canopies, and test jumps performed by Jim Cowan. The test jumps were not as extensive as the PIA dual square, but provided enough information that the Board wanted to include the information as an option."

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239