Flying a Biplane or side by side

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I do not disagree with keeping it simple. However a student with 12 jumps could easily (at a progressive dropzone), be downsizing to a 1:1 wing-loading and to say that they should continue to think that they can land a biplane (IMO) borders on negligent.

.deletia.


My point is that there are far too many different size parachutes out there for students and to tell anyone to land a bi-plane with the performance of parachutes these days is probably going to end up with serious injury - regardless of the possibility of negligence.

I'm just not seeing this. Is there a long line of students (or experienced jumpers, for that matter) being injured landing bi-planes?

Landing a bi-plane is the way I was taught, and it's the way I teach. Granted, this is a poor rationale for not changing, but so is change for changes sake.

Are skydivers really being hurt landing side-by-sides? I see no evidence here in the incidents forum, or in parachutist.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

According to the article, it says that you have to disconnect your RSL before cutting away. Why do you have to do that when both canopies are out?

Because even though it isn't going to do anything, it is probably still around the reserve ripcord, and will still need to be pulled out.
It probably will pull free without a problem (if the rig isn't a Racer), but disconnecting it eliminates any chance of it snagging or hanging up or anything.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[tkhayes 125]

Quote

I'm just not seeing this. Is there a long line of students (or experienced jumpers, for that matter) being injured landing bi-planes?

I do not know, that's also part of my point. We are publishing document stating that THIS is the way to do it, yet I am suggesting that the data is 20 years old. I am NOT INTERESTED (and nor are you I expect) in landing a biplane with a navigator 240 and a Raven reserve.

And I am not convinced that this is what I want to teach my student.

so convince me.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I am NOT INTERESTED (and nor are you I expect) in landing a biplane with a navigator 240 and a Raven reserve.

Actually, I don't know that's true at all. I certainly wouldn't land my Velo that way, but should I find myself in such a situation under a big Nav, I probably would try to land both - just for giggles. To be honest, I'm not sure why I wouldn't.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[tkhayes 125]

again, reinforcing my point. No one knows what the right answer is. We know for a fact that when you have a mal, you pull the handles. When you are at 5000', you pull, no matter what. When you have final approach, you should be on level flight prepared to land.

example. No one says "what do you do if you are NOT at level flight at 200' or suddenly I do a massive hook turn? what do I do?" The answer is "Don't do massive hook turns and BE ON level flight at 200'"

You might land the biplane but I would choose to not do that. Therefore there is no 'right answer' for the bi-plane or two-canopy out scenario. The best we can do is to probably explain the possible options and consequences, and I thin publishing that landing a biplane is not always the best course of action.

"Well land it but you will probably get fucked up" does not sound acceptable to me.

Fine if everyone has 260+ sq ft canopies. Student with 5 jumps or student with small body size flying a sub-190 sq ft canopy has a different answer to that.

And the bottom line? No stats, no data, no reliable information except for that of 20 years ago. not good information today.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

"Well land it but you will probably get fucked up" does not sound acceptable to me.

Well, I just don't think that's true. Earlier, you talked about an instructor being negligent if they taught landing. And I just don't think that's true either. These are awfully big concepts you're throwing around, and only because the data is 20 years old?

The data was good 20 years ago. Student canopies haven't changed that much - a big Navigator is not that different than a big Manta or a Raven. Moreover, we have 20 years of students NOT dieing. Why is this a bad thing?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Not too many years back on a cloudy day at Couch Freaks...
High speed low pass, 4 jumpers decided to take a 4 way out the door w/out checking altitude. 4 cypress fires putting 2 into a down plane and 2 into side by sides. The two landing the side by sides said they had the softest landings ever with little trouble controling the canopies. The two who landed the downplanes sufferd life altering injuries.

Side by sides can easily turn into downplanes. So, if you're going to land a side by side, easy on the controls. If your thinking of landing a down plane, DON'T!

Having done some CRW, I've stated in other threads how I'd handle these situations. It's part of my EP thought process. Have a plan and stick to it. If you're a student, use the plan your instuctors gave you.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[riggerrob 558]

I have landed both biplanes and side-by-sides and biplanes are much easier to land.

Most of my biplanes were deliberately done with a buddy (planned canopy formations with other experienced jumpers.) The bottom guy tends to land hard, but otherwise they are easy to steer, etc.

I have landed on accidental, solo biplane 250 reserve and 290 main) ... after I scared an AAD. That solo biplane was decending so slowly that I did not even try to flare, just slid out the landing on damp grass.

OTOH I have only landed one side-by-side (210 and 200 mains). Again, it was with another experienced Canopy Formation jumper, but we chickened-out and released grips about a hundred feet up. We both swung outboard - under our canopies - and had just enough time to flare before touchdown.

Lesson learned: flaring a side-by-side requires very careful timing, while flaring a biplane is unneeded.

[tkhayes 125]

Quote

Student canopies haven't changed that much - a big Navigator is not that different than a big Manta

I respectfully and fundamentally disagree with this statement. I stated that earlier. Canopies are different; and we provide a WIDE variety of sizes for students, not one large size for everyone.

I fundamentally disagree with your statement.

And again, we, nor you, have any reliable data BECAUSE it is 20 years old.

No students are not "dying" - but how many of them are landing biplanes with no flare? Again, no data, no analysis, therefore no conclusion.

[obelixtim 100]

Quote

And again, we, nor you, have any reliable data BECAUSE it is 20 years old.

Even 20 years ago, this data was not reliable, simply because it was based on too small a test sample to draw any definite conclusions.

I remember the discussions back then and views were never consistent on the "right" way to do things.

The variation in canopy sizing was also much less of a factor, compared to today. The only consistent attitude was if it was stable and flying nicely, stick with it, but be gentle with it. If things were going haywire, chop.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[popsjumper 2]

-Keep in mind we are talking about young jumpers.
-The OP is a young jumper asking for input on why he sees published recommendations for one procedure and is getting opposing info from his instructor.
-Keep in mind that we are discussing, not arguing, and the purpose of this thread is to help out the OP and other young jumpers.
-Keep in mind we are addressing only two specific 2-out situations.

The idea here is to get something solid that justifies procedures that differ from the testing publication. What we've have so far is a lot of opinion and little fact-based information for the OP.

The platform is:
The procedures have been tested and best-practice recommendations published.

To those who are questioning the reliability of the testing because of the age of it...

First question:
-Did you, at the time of testing and publication of the recommendations, teach those guidelines to young jumpers?

Second question:
-Did you, at the time of testing and publication of the recommendations, follow those guidelines yourself?

Applying to both questions:
If no...
1. On what foundation, at the time, did you base your non-recommended procedures?

If yes...
1. At what point in time did you change your methods to something other than what was recommended?

2. What, specifically, caused you to make those changes?

3. What, specifically, regardless of the age of the tests, is the justification for doing something other than those recommendations today?


(Note: Again, keep in mind we are talking about young jumpers here who typically have similar-sized main/reserve canopies.)

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

[tkhayes 125]

thanks for the support. I think we need a real study on the effects of flying two parachutes out of varying sizes and typically wing loading that students have. And no one except perhaps large manufacturers or the military has the resources to do that study.

Some of the given "conclusions" that disturb me:

1. Landing a bi-plane with no flare. Maybe with a Manta and a Raven III reserve with a 170lb student yes. But a 200lb student with a Navigator 240 and a PD 235 reserve?

2. Side by side cannot be cut away safely. I think it can and with probably zero or near-zero probability of entanglement

3. Bi-plane cannot be cutaway with the main in front. It sounds totally logical to everyone, even me, but the fact is that we have no data to support the number of times it might result in a main/reserve entanglement.

We have had a million jumps at Skydive City since I arrived here in 1995. A handful of 2 canopy out situations. Never had one with a student. EVERY TIME, the person cutaway and landed their reserve. I do not remember anyone ever landing two canopies.

So our experience is cutaway - no matter what, but the sample is still too small to make a conclusion, so I do not make that conclusion.

But I MOST DEFINITELY question the logic behind "landing a bi-plane with no flare".

TK

[tkhayes 125]

thanks for the support. I think we need a real study on the effects of flying two parachutes out of varying sizes and typically wing loading that students have. And no one except perhaps large manufacturers or the military has the resources to do that study.

Some of the given "conclusions" that disturb me:

1. Landing a bi-plane with no flare. Maybe with a Manta and a Raven III reserve with a 170lb student yes. But a 200lb student with a Navigator 240 and a PD 235 reserve?

2. Side by side cannot be cut away safely. I think it can and with probably zero or near-zero probability of entanglement

3. Bi-plane cannot be cutaway with the main in front. It sounds totally logical to everyone, even me, but the fact is that we have no data to support the number of times it might result in a main/reserve entanglement.

We have had a million jumps at Skydive City since I arrived here in 1995. A handful of 2 canopy out situations. Never had one with a student. EVERY TIME, the person cutaway and landed their reserve. I do not remember anyone ever landing two canopies.

So our experience is cutaway - no matter what, but the sample is still too small to make a conclusion, so I do not make that conclusion.

But I MOST DEFINITELY question the logic behind "landing a bi-plane with no flare".

TK

[obelixtim 100]

Quote

The idea here is to get something solid that justifies procedures that differ from the testing publication. What we've have so far is a lot of opinion and little fact-based information for the OP.

The platform is:
The procedures have been tested and best-practice recommendations published.

My point was simply that the best practice recommendations are not based on a comprehensive testing programme, and the number of test jumps done was not enough to give a solid basis to those recommendations.

My problem was simply, in the absence of anything more comprehensive, these morphed into THE way to do things. Having said that, they generally go along the right lines.....

I am simply saying that any two out situation is a unique event, with its own potential complications. What saves your bacon one day can kill you the next.

The only acceptable advice that could be said to be definite, is simply to treat any two out with caution. Stay cool, assess the situation, and use very small (if any) inputs if the canopies are stable and flying well. Cutting away a good canopy is not a good idea if its not necessay.

In fact a lot of opinion on the matter came from experienced CRW pilots, who did have a lot of experience flying with multiple canopies, and the basis of my training for two outs was influenced quite a lot by CRW experience.

I trained that with a two out biplane, it was best to take both sets of toggles and fly both canopies right to the ground, including flaring on touchdown. I saw this work well in several two out situations where a bi plane developed.

A couple of side by sides developed into downplanes, and the drill in that situation was simply to chop the main when the two canopies started flying apart from each other. I also saw this scenario several times.

What was not allowed for back then was the great disparity in size and speed of main and reserve parachutes we see in use today.

Thus each jumper has to assess what they have and make a decision based on what is happening. It is a question that every jumper should have pondered, particularly when downsizing or jumping new gear.

Review of procedures should be a constant process....

We did a lot of CRW back then, and had a lot of experience with multiple canopies, wraps and the behaviour of canopies in close proximity to each other. One thing for sure that we learned, things can go pear shaped very quickly, so there is a definite need to stay ahead of the game...

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[sundevil777 93]

Perhaps an underappreciated risk of entanglement comes from the RSL shackle.

I would definitely keep a stable biplane, and slighlty/gently flare the front canopy. I do not think there should be enough altitude
for anything bad to happen,

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[airtwardo 6]

I have a question~

Is this the data from the Golden Knights testing?

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

[tkhayes 125]

Quote

Perhaps an underappreciated risk of entanglement comes from the RSL shackle.

perhaps, but perhaps not.

[jimjumper 25]

I know I'm replying to the wrong person but for the sake of putting out information, the 2009 PIA Symposium had a lectue by Jim Cowan titled "Dual Canopy & Entanglement Emergency Procedures." If I recall he was researching this very topic and was planning on doing some 100-200 dual canopy jumps to get some data on dealing with this type of problem. I will try to find the actually lecture notes later (sorry but I'm taking my wife to lunch and a movie today.) If I find it I'll post later the data that it contains. Maybe someone with those notes will reply before I can. I think all attendees were given a disc with all the lecture outlines on it.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I have a question~

Is this the data from the Golden Knights testing?

Yes.

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

[fcajump 153]

(not aimed at PopsJ, just using his post to jump in here)

_VERY_ small sample to include -

Witnessed: 1994ish, scared Cypres two larger early ram-air. Landed stable bi-plane. Almost couldn't put his feed down for the slow decent rate.

Personal: 2008, main slamed me just as I was getting ready to go to plan B. Got both. No RSL. (front) Main - Spectre 230, (back) Reserve Fury. (exit weight ~254) Long story short, choose to chop from biplane. While the risers slapped the underskin of the main, it cleared fine. I can see how during that slap, it could have snagged a line. Decent rate under biplane was very slow and I expect a no-flare landing would have been OK.

This is one of a long list of reasons I like bigger, more docile canopies.

A few years ago, while some of us were attending a dual-out seminar at PIA, Glenn Bangs had a two-out turn to instant down-plane. If I recall correctly he chopped/flared/landed. Might be useful if those with bad outcomes were to post their details.

JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

We have had a million jumps at Skydive City since I arrived here in 1995. A handful of 2 canopy out situations. Never had one with a student. EVERY TIME, the person cutaway and landed their reserve. I do not remember anyone ever landing two canopies.

'Not remembering' is a long, long way from being able to say 'EVERY TIME'.

Which is it?

I can tell you EVERY TIME is the wrong answer.

-I personally witnessed one landing on the other side of the hangar from the packing tent close to the spectator area over there.

-I personally witnessed one landing in the field across the street from the old Sun Path building.

...and that was on only two of my visits to Z-hills.

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

[MRNUTS1960 0]

For additional information on this subject you can read the "Skydivers Survival Guide 2nd edition" By Pier Media. The did several test jumps for the Break away series I believe. Their conclusions are found on page 150 where they do not agree with the SIM and advise "Do not cut away a stable side-by side or a stable bi-plane". They give an in depth explanation of why they feel that way in the chapter. It runs almost identicle to the report from PD. It does not say exactly how many jumps they did in their testing that I can see or recall from reading the book. At least it is one more source of printed test data to add to the source information when you try to decide. It was published in 2004.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

For additional information on this subject you can read the "Skydivers Survival Guide 2nd edition" By Pier Media. The did several test jumps for the Break away series I believe. Their conclusions are found on page 150 where they do not agree with the SIM and advise "Do not cut away a stable side-by side or a stable bi-plane".

SIM agreement: Yes and no....SIM gives two options with the caveat of "no tangles":

"b. Side-by-side (two alternatives)

side-by-side alternative one
If the two canopies are not tangled, cut away
and fly the reserve to a safe landing

side-by-side alternative two
(1) Steer the dominant (larger) canopy gently
using toggles or leave the brakes stowed and
steer by pulling on the rear risers.
(2) Leave the brakes stowed on the other canopy.
(3) Make a parachute landing fall on landing."

Quote

They give an in depth explanation of why they feel that way in the chapter. It runs almost identicle to the report from PD. It does not say exactly how many jumps they did in their testing that I can see or recall from reading the book. At least it is one more source of printed test data to add to the source information when you try to decide. It was published in 2004.

Good stuff, MrNuts. Thanks for providing additional resource info.

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

• Quote

[MRNUTS1960 0]

I should have been clearer in my explanation of the books Section two "Deviations from the USPA" as it is not only on the cutting away of side by side but also they have a recommendation for the pilot chute in tow. They also do not recommend releasing the brakes on either a side-by-side or a bi-plane. They have a complete section of the book where they explain why they feel that a deviation should be considered because of their test. I did not explain that very well in my first post.

[stayhigh 2]

I thought we teach students this because this procedure because they have two almost identical sized and shaped main and reserve, and this is the most simplest ways to teach first jump course student.

Two canopy out not a big deal, just fly carefully, away from obstacle, try to land into the wind, and PLF, and do not cutaway unless it turns into down plane and try to kill you, that is what USPA teaches.

Ofcourse these aren't the only rule, as the jump number progresses, individual jumper needs to revise what they were taught.

We also teach students to do EP with two hands, and we also teach students to spread riser and kick in a event of line twist. If I would've followed that to the T, i would've had way more cutaway and lost handles. Spreading does not help in linetwist, squeezing the risers together helps out way more.

I've seen handful of two out landings, I've seen two down plane, which both of the jumper walked away. (one had over 600ft of material and the other was sub 400ft)

I've also seen two bi-plane landings, One of them did not flair and did PLF and landed fine(400ft of canopy), the other guy try to flair at the last 20ft and that turn into a down plane and broke his wrist.(300ft of material)

One landing I saw was side by side and the jumper had over 400 ft of material over the head and old dude did a PLF and walked away.

and last but not least, I've seen one two out, where reserve was flying upside down underneath the jumper. what the fuck do you do than???

Bernie Sanders for President 2016