Dual cutaway system?

[ernokaikkonen 0]

This caught my eye on the Incidents forum. I had never heard about this system, is it something new? It was said that at least Sunpath and Sunrise rigging offer this option.

Is the system in wide use?

So there is another pair of cutaway cables routed from the reserve handle to the risers. How does this work? I assume there would have to be double ended loops like the ones found on tandem drogue releases?

What advantages does this system offer when compared to more traditional systems? The only one I can think of now would be avoiding two-out situations... Those usually occur when the main is deployed too close to AAD activation altitude, and this system wont help against them.

What disadvantages come with it? Obviously the fact that you can't go for the "More nylon to the mess to save my ass"-option. And there's nothing you can do if your canopy stops flying under your no-cutaway-altitude.

Could someone post pictures of the system?

[weid14 0]

Quote

This caught my eye on the Incidents forum. I had never heard about this system, is it something new? It was said that at least Sunpath and Sunrise rigging offer this option.

Is the system in wide use?

So there is another pair of cutaway cables routed from the reserve handle to the risers. How does this work? I assume there would have to be double ended loops like the ones found on tandem drogue releases?

What advantages does this system offer when compared to more traditional systems? The only one I can think of now would be avoiding two-out situations... Those usually occur when the main is deployed too close to AAD activation altitude, and this system wont help against them.

What disadvantages come with it? Obviously the fact that you can't go for the "More nylon to the mess to save my ass"-option. And there's nothing you can do if your canopy stops flying under your no-cutaway-altitude.

Could someone post pictures of the system?

I'm a little confused, are you refering to the single operating system? where one handle does all? If so, they've been around on student gear for quite a while.

[Spy38W 0]

The student gear at Skydive Smoky Mountains had an SOS system. My rig was out for a reserve repack (big surprise) when I had to fly up there for work. I noticed the lolon cables on the reserve handle when I was doing a gear check and asked the staff what it was. This was on their new student Javelins (IIRC). Other than that I have never seen the system.

--
Hook high, flare on time

[annaandbob 0]

I think this system is used for student gear. So if they accidently pull the reserve handle before the cutaway it will ensure that the main releases before the reserve comes out

[dbattman 0]

Quote

I think this system is used for student gear. So if they accidently pull the reserve handle before the cutaway it will ensure that the main releases before the reserve comes out

That's my understanding as well. Monroe had the rental/student gear rigged up this way. The concern here was a new jumper/student freaks out and grabs the reserve first. Normal pillow-handle cutaway procedures are still taught and I don't think they even mentioned the reserve/cutaway setup to the students.

Just my $0.02

[billbooth 10]

The dual cutaway system has two basic problems. First, it is more complex, and therefore more subject to rigging errors. For instance, it utilizes double ended locking loops on the three ring risers, just like some tandem drogue releases. When the Relative Workshop went from single to double ended closing loops on tandem Vectors, our drogue release failures went up by a factor of ten. So basically, the system lowers the reliability of the three ring system.

Secondly, because the reserve handle is now also attached to 2 three ring release cables (as well as the normal ripcord cable), the reserve ripcord pull force is increased, especially if the three ring cables are not well lubricated. This leads to the most important drawback, which should be obvious: If your three ring cables jam for any reason, you can't pull your reserve at all.

It's a question of risk vs. gain. Kinda like RSL'S. However, I have always been against protecting the idiots, at the expense of the people who are properly trained, and do everything right.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The dual cutaway system has two basic problems. First, it is more complex, and therefore more subject to rigging errors. For instance, it utilizes double ended locking loops on the three ring risers, just like some tandem drogue releases. When the Relative Workshop went from single to double ended closing loops on tandem Vectors, our drogue release failures went up by a factor of ten. So basically, the system lowers the reliability of the three ring system.

Secondly, because the reserve handle is now also attached to 2 three ring release cables (as well as the normal ripcord cable), the reserve ripcord pull force is increased, especially if the three ring cables are not well lubricated. This leads to the most important drawback, which should be obvious: If your three ring cables jam for any reason, you can't pull your reserve at all.

It's a question of risk vs. gain. Kinda like RSL'S. However, I have always been against protecting the idiots, at the expense of the people who are properly trained, and do everything right.

So would it be fair to say you are against SOS?

I think that SOS should not be used for student training.

If only riggers were assembling the main w/ the dual cutaway system, I wouldn't think there would be an increase in the failure rate of the release system.

You have pointed out 2 serious points against the use of a dual cutaway system, any thought of improving the idea to make it work?

Hook

[gale 0]

Do you know if these systems can be changed over to a regular system where the reserve handle just pulls the reserve? I don't like the idea of not being able to even have the option of a canopy transfer if it is required at a low altitude.

Gale

I'm drowning...so come inside
Welcome to my...dirty mind

[markbaur 0]

Quote

The dual cutaway system ... is ... more subject to rigging errors.

My guess is that the most common rigging error would be to pass both right-side cables through both ends of the right-side loop (or both left-side cables through both ends of the left-side loop), requiring both handles to be pulled in the normal sequence. In most cases, you'd be no worse off than you'd be with the standard handle configuration.

Quote

Secondly, because the reserve handle is now also attached to 2 three ring release cables (as well as the normal ripcord cable), the reserve ripcord pull force is increased... If your three ring cables jam for any reason, you can't pull your reserve at all.

In a properly designed and assembled SOS system, the 3-rings release before the slack is out of the reserve ripcord cable, so there is no additional ripcord pull force. The 3-ring cable jam issue is more serious, but these dual-handle systems are found on student rigs, typically with standard (not mini) rings, where even spinning malfunctions are relatively low-g. The likelihood of a cable jam on a dual-cutaway rig has to be balanced against the likelihood of an out-of-sequence handle pull on a standard system. Have there been reports of cable jams on student rigs?

Mark

[markbaur 0]

Quote

I think that SOS should not be used for student training.

I like SOS for students. It simplifies emergency procedures for students. Don't like the canopy you've got? Pull the red handle! No need to decide if this is a one-handle or two-handle malfunction, no possibility of pulling handles out of sequence. [Like most AFF instructors, I've seen plenty of students do normal PRCTs, then attempt a cross-pull at pull time. I don't know what handle sequence they would try under the stress of a high-speed malfunction.]

The immediate consequence of simplified emergency procedures is that there is more room in the FJC student's brain for detail in other FJC topics, like canopy control and landings. (Please don't suggest I make my FJC longer. Once their brains are full, any extra info, no matter how important, just overflows.)

The obvious drawback is the higher-risk period when the student transitions to a two-handle system, around jump number 10 or 15. Since most students make exactly one jump, and most of the rest make fewer than ten, that's a trade-off I'm willing to make.

Mark

[Hooknswoop 19]

It has been proven that people tend to revert back to their initial training in a high strees enviroment. "Just pull this handle" could kill them w/ a two handle system. I have never had or even heard of a student being killed by a two handle system. Of course, to be honest, I haven't heard of a student killed by SOS or a new jumper killed because they were trained on SOS.

I have heard of jumpers trained on ripcord not throw the throw-out PC (seen this first hand), and pull their reserves, ending up w/ 2 out.

I believe throw out, 0-P mains, and two- handle system is the way to go for student training. Teach them on what they will jumping for the rest of thier skdiving career.

Hook

[PhreeZone 15]

In one of the fatility reports from several (5+??) years back they speculated that SOS vs 2 handle was partly the cause of the death. Something about the person going straight to the reserve with a mal'd main out I think. The person was trained on SOS and it was'nt far after their swap they went in.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[markbaur 0]

Quote

In one of the fatility reports from several (5+??) years back they speculated that SOS vs 2 handle was partly the cause of the death. Something about the person going straight to the reserve with a mal'd main out I think. The person was trained on SOS and it was'nt far after their swap they went in.

Fair enough. But this sort of anecdote is only meaningful by comparison to the alternative. During that same period of time, were there any incidents attributable to out-of-sequence handle pulls, for students trained on a 2-handle system? (I say student because there have been tandem incidents involving out-of-sequence handle pulls.)

Mark

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>Do you know if these systems can be changed over to a regular
>system where the reserve handle just pulls the reserve?

I have never seen this system, so I'm only guessing:

Probably yes. You'd have to change the risers to the regular model, as well as the reserve handle/ripcord. The only thing left would be the housings for the additional cutaway cables. Again, this just speculation on my part.

But in what situation would you have to do this? The system is an option on (I think mostly) student gear, If you're ordering new gear, don't get the option, if you're buying used, don't buy a rig with it. Simple as that...

[riggerrob 558]

This thread reminds me of an original Talon that Parachutes Australia built back in the mid-1990s. They shipped the modified rig to Rigging Innovations to have it "blessed" by Sandy Reid (the guy who designed the Talon, Telesis, Voodoo, Genera, Aviator series of harness/containers). I took one look at it and said "way too many moving parts!"

P.A. was trying to solve a problem with students who started out on static-line with SOS, then converted to a 2-handle system. The problem was that it was too easy for them to panic and revert to original training when they had their first malfunction. P.A.'s goal was to build an idiot-proof cutaway system. While the system may have been idiot-proof in the air, it was far too easy to mis-route on the ground.
I understand that P.A. also built a few Pigmee rigs with this system, but the one picture I saw had a veritable snake's nest of reserve ripcord cables!
Fortunately, most of this is behind us. Now that the dumber students can be quietly routed to tandem, we don't need SOS nor re-training junior jumpers on 2-handle systems.