0
CloudyHead

Two canopy out.. to release or not release?

Recommended Posts

Quote

i was taught by one instructor that in a side-by-side, you use one rear riser from each canopy (maybe this advice was specific to my set-up, two comparable seven cells, a PR-R 175 and a Triathlon 175) and basically steer gently and backwards,
.
.
.
Ah... semantics. Lol, sometimes things have to be phrased a certain way for my brain to process them. Sounds like this IS being taught anyways, and the logic is sound. Thanks guys!

R



Yes, you'd want to keep them together.

Playing with risers and talking about "opposites" sounds like somebody trying to re-invent the wheel. Has that method been thoroughly tested? I think not. Personally, I think it's best to stick with the tried and proven true methodology. Dreaming up new/different techniques has gotten more than one person in trouble that could have been avoided.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

i was taught by one instructor that in a side-by-side, you use one rear riser from each canopy (maybe this advice was specific to my set-up, two comparable seven cells, a PR-R 175 and a Triathlon 175) and basically steer gently and backwards,
.
.
.
Ah... semantics. Lol, sometimes things have to be phrased a certain way for my brain to process them. Sounds like this IS being taught anyways, and the logic is sound. Thanks guys!

R



Yes, you'd want to keep them together.

Playing with risers and talking about "opposites" sounds like somebody trying to re-invent the wheel. Has that method been thoroughly tested? I think not. Personally, I think it's best to stick with the tried and proven true methodology. Dreaming up new/different techniques has gotten more than one person in trouble that could have been avoided.



LOL-- backwards/opposites... I think I am confusing people... basically what you want to be doing is steering the canopies so they move together/towards each other in side by side and don't downplane on you... so technically you are "steering in reverse- i.e. the left-hand canopy is used to turn right (BUT it is indeed the RIGHT rear riser) and the right-hand canopy is used to turn left (but again, it is still the LEFT rear riser) Yes??

Sorry for the confusion! Maybe I did not phrase it well- but this is indeed the proper technique, yes?
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Sorry for the confusion! Maybe I did not phrase it well- but this is indeed the proper technique, yes?



I understood what you were saying, yes.

Proper technique? Not according to USPA recommendations. Have you read the SIM? has your Inst4ructor? Maybe he can shed some light on why he would recommend something counter to USPA guidelines.

Trying to re-invent the wheel should be scrutinized very, very carefully before action is taken. Sometimes questionable logic can lead to major unforeseen problems.

Personally, I would never recommend that technique to a young jumper. I don't see anywhere that it has been tested and/or approved by USPA whereas their listed technique has. Canada can do whatever they like just as other countries can. Maybe it's something that needs to be tested here, who knows until then?

Does that mean to say that the technique may not or does not work? No. However, I'm not about to test it should I ever have another two-out.


As and aside, you'll see in here some people recommending that we force a two-out into a downplane so that we can cut the main away. Again, not very smart in my book. Has it been done successfully? Yes. Has it made a bad situation worse? Yes. Not every attempt to force the issue has worked. Not every downplane gets cut away successfully. Throw the dice at your own peril. But then, to be fair, not every side-by-side or biplane has been flown successfully either.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if a side by side is a shoulder width apart, we teach to cut away. If a side by side down planes, we teach to cut away. Aside by side is prone to down plane and is much more unstable than a bi-plane. We also teach to fly as gently as possible a bi-plane so as not to create a side by side. All consistent with SIM, and we have seen these procedures work in practice.
Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the video i am about to link from youtube shows 2 skydivers lurking a tandem. tandem deploys and the 2 lurkers mess around and then after not checking their altis til 2 grand deploy. skydiver 1 has a stable biplane, skydiver 2 downplanes at 800 ft- full video here :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8BbPtNbT3U&list=FL5Zs55Q03Skg&index=116

NUTS!!!!
Dudeist Skydiver #170
You do not need a parachute to skydive, you only need one to skydive again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...basically what you want to be doing is steering the canopies so they move together/towards each other in side by side and don't downplane on you... so technically you are "steering in reverse- i.e. the left-hand canopy is used to turn right (BUT it is indeed the RIGHT rear riser) and the right-hand canopy is used to turn left (but again, it is still the LEFT rear riser) Yes??



No. Steering alternate canopies via the inside-most riser of each, TOWARDS/into the other, as you are suggesting with this, is not at least the conventional (and published/well-tested) wisdom.

If you HAVE to make a turn(s), selecting ONE canopy ("the most dominant ...usually the main") and applying GENTLE inputs, so that the other canopy then "follows" it, rather - is.

Andy understood what you were saying the 1st time, and has now replied to it TWICE:
Quote

Playing with risers and talking about "opposites" sounds like somebody trying to re-invent the wheel. Has that method been thoroughly tested? I think not. Personally, I think it's best to stick with the tried and proven true methodology. Dreaming up new/different techniques has gotten more than one person in trouble that could have been avoided.



+1.

Re-wording it, then repeating still basically the same thing again - disregardig the response(s) you are being already given, does not then make it right. I also, would not reccommend the method you are coming up with, no matter how semantically you word (and then re-word) it. FWIW.
coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question about the SIM part below:

Side-by-side procedure 2:
Land both canopies.
(1) Release the brakes of the dominant canopy (larger and more overhead) and steer gently with the toggles.
(2) Land without flaring and perform a parachute landing fall.

If the 2 are flying relatively stable together, why would you want to release brakes on one and thus allow it to start flying faster, as opposed to leaving brakes stowed (thus maintaining their speeds relative to one another) and steering with rear risers?
As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Question about the SIM part below:

Side-by-side procedure 2:
Land both canopies.
(1) Release the brakes of the dominant canopy (larger and more overhead) and steer gently with the toggles.
(2) Land without flaring and perform a parachute landing fall.

If the 2 are flying relatively stable together, why would you want to release brakes on one and thus allow it to start flying faster, as opposed to leaving brakes stowed (thus maintaining their speeds relative to one another) and steering with rear risers?



Bottom line:
Because it works quite well. Tested, tried and true.

You have more positive control with toggles.
You have more range of control with toggles.
You have less likelihood of stall with toggles.
You have more experience with toggles.

What...are you thinking that releasing the brakes will make one canopy fly circles around the other?
Maybe pulling away from the other and leaving it behind?

Nah....ain't a-gonna happen.

Key point with any two-out is:
FLY IT VERY GENTLY MAKING MINIMUM INPUTS.

This is a time for survival, my friends.
We're not doing steerability/control checks.
We're not trying to make it to the DZ.
We're not flying landing patterns.
We ARE finding a safe landing place in front of us that we can make it to using minimal inputs. Simple as that.

You start getting radical with any two-out that is flying well and all kinds of things could happen....and they are all bad.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Re-wording it, then repeating still basically the same thing again - disregardig the response(s) you are being already given, does not then make it right.



To clarify some more: The new CSPA manual's description DOES match what she was taught (steer side by sides gently into each other instead of away)-- and it says that it was based on the work of various US jumpers & groups. (I wish I knew more about the background research!)

But as others say the USPA SIM says something different.

However to be picky:

Steering the canopies towards each other DOES NOT actually conflict with the USPA SIM. If the instructions are to release the dominant canopy's brakes and steer gently with that -- nothing says you can't steer one canopy away from the other, versus towards each other! The SIM makes no recommendation either way (based on what was quoted in this thread).

And I bet some DZ's won't teach to the SIM, and will do things like suggest leaving brakes set if everything is copacetic.

I'm not arguing for any one set of instructions, because I'm not absolutely sure there is one perfect proven method yet.

Anyone got an appropriate British manual downloaded to see what they suggest? The BPA stuff is usually pretty detailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What...are you thinking that releasing the brakes will make one canopy fly circles around the other? Maybe pulling away from the other and leaving it behind?

Nah....ain't a-gonna happen.

Key point with any two-out is:
FLY IT VERY GENTLY MAKING MINIMUM INPUTS.

This is a time for survival, my friends.
We're not doing steerability/control checks.
We're not trying to make it to the DZ.
We're not flying landing patterns.
We ARE finding a safe landing place in front of us that we can make it to using minimal inputs. Simple as that.

You start getting radical with any two-out that is flying well and all kinds of things could happen....and they are all bad.




No, I wasn't thinking it would fly circles around the other or anything that drastic, but as you state, in that situation gentle input, and as little as possible, is likely best. It just seems to me that if they're flying about the same speed with brakes stowed, why mess with that. I DO understand that the testing has been done, etc. ... Just so I could understand their logic I'd like to see what their results were in that situation (meaning, with 2 similarly sized canopies flying well together), for both leaving brakes stowed and not. To me, the logic is there for in a biplane, but a side by side? It just seems that keeping the speed of the 2 as similar as possible would be a good thing, and assist toward the goal of minimal input? I hope to never find out firsthand!
As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting that this particular video is now being used as 'examples' of something in 2 entirely unrelated (issues) threads.

My opinion is that it obviously worked for him, in this instance. But that does not necessarily make it either smart, or "right". I also would NOT recommend others doing this (or what got him into this in the 1st place - but then, that is the OTHER thread ;)) - or trying it, certainly based off of this, as it is my opinion that it just very fortunately happened to (LUCKILY) NOT F him up in this case. THIS TIME ...The scenarios where it COULD HAVE though, versus just leaving it alone in a stable bi-plane - as opposed to what he did here, and those odds as such became much worse (in every aspect) by doing what he did, via what you see here. The fact that he "got away with it" notwithstanding.
coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Way back in the last century when I had about 200 jumps I had 2 out.
8 way, it went great. On break off I went all Skygod and cleared everyone and started doing barrel rolls. (maybe this should be in the stuoopid things i have done thread.)
I looked down and damn, those cars looked really big! I tossed my PC while I was coming out of a roll and it went right between my butt and rig. I arched really hard and smacked my container. Still going 120! F this and I pulled silver. This was on a Javelin with no AAD.
Out comes this big lovely yellow Raven 2. Sweet, I lived! Then oh Shit! Here comes a scary blue Sabre 190.
The main was fully inflated behind the reserve. They flew pretty well together. A guy on our jump was flying around me yelling to cut away.
My heart was beating pretty fast and my mind was spinning. I just had this conversation with Jim Wallace about pilot chutes in tow and two out situations. His advice, stay calm and work through it. So I tried to stay calm.
I looked at the wind sock. I slowly put the main into a side by side with the reserve. I grabbed the main risers with my left hand and cut away. I toggle turned my reserve into the wind and released my main.
I landed about 30 seconds later.
I had long discussions with every instructor at the DZ that afternoon, including Jim.
Being an idiot at break off almost killed me.
Staying calm saved me.
I probably could have landed both in the configuration they were in.

I haven't done a barrel roll since, that was 1992.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

You should match the brakes on both canopies. If you have unstowed the brakes on one, unstow the brakes on the other. You want the relative speed of the two canopies to be as close as possible.



No you shouldn't.



That's not helpful unless you explain the reason for your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

You should match the brakes on both canopies. If you have unstowed the brakes on one, unstow the brakes on the other. You want the relative speed of the two canopies to be as close as possible.



No you shouldn't.



That's not helpful unless you explain the reason for your opinion.



I'll take a shot at it if you don't mind, Andy.

Two canopies flying full speed ahead is more chancy than two canopies flying in partial brakes. Landing two canopies flying at full speed may be more hazardous than landing two in partial brakes.

Are you sure that both canopies will fly at the same speed with the brakes released on both of them?
I might be concerned with that on my 175 main and my 218 reserve.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

...basically what you want to be doing is steering the canopies so they move together/towards each other in side by side and don't downplane on you... so technically you are "steering in reverse- i.e. the left-hand canopy is used to turn right (BUT it is indeed the RIGHT rear riser) and the right-hand canopy is used to turn left (but again, it is still the LEFT rear riser) Yes??



No. Steering alternate canopies via the inside-most riser of each, TOWARDS/into the other, as you are suggesting with this, is not at least the conventional (and published/well-tested) wisdom.

If you HAVE to make a turn(s), selecting ONE canopy ("the most dominant ...usually the main") and applying GENTLE inputs, so that the other canopy then "follows" it, rather - is.

Andy understood what you were saying the 1st time, and has now replied to it TWICE:
Quote

Playing with risers and talking about "opposites" sounds like somebody trying to re-invent the wheel. Has that method been thoroughly tested? I think not. Personally, I think it's best to stick with the tried and proven true methodology. Dreaming up new/different techniques has gotten more than one person in trouble that could have been avoided.



+1.

Re-wording it, then repeating still basically the same thing again - disregardig the response(s) you are being already given, does not then make it right. I also, would not reccommend the method you are coming up with, no matter how semantically you word (and then re-word) it. FWIW.



Uhh.. I respect the advice given and now understand. I have never had a 2-out, have no dog in the fight, but simply want to know what is being discussed and recommended and not get confused. The fact of the matter, while yes we should follow the SIM, is that this thread discusses several countries recommendations, and those can differ-- so there is not always one "right" answer. That said, jumping in the US and at USPA dzs, I consider the USPA SIM to by my ruoles to live by, along with my I's advice.

That said, I am always interested in learning the LOGIC behind things, and why, when the SIM recommends multiple options, or USPA and CSPA differ, or whatever, some jumpers may argue for one or the other. I was also trying to get clarification as to whether what I had most recently been told was also what was being advised here and if it was backed up by other jumpers and/or by USPA, CSPA, studies/tests, etc. Just trying to learn and clarify.

That's why I was ASKING. FWIW. Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed today or something, but you make it sound like I am sitting here asking if it is okay to start jumping a Velocity 96 and badgering everyone until I get the answer I want. I have no "desired" answer, and I am sorry (actually I'm not really, but ya know) that I don't have as much experience in the sport to "get" certain terms or discussions without further clarification.

I thought I had phrased it strangely, thus confusing Andy, and so to you both, my apologies for wasting your time trying to help a new jumper understood the language being used to discuss this. I have read the relevant SIM sections and had thought that I was initially taught in FJC that no matter the config (except downplane) you steer the dominant canopy with gentle inputs. Then at another dz, I hear someone talking about using the farthest outside risers, one on each canopy for a side-by-side, so asked back at home, and (if I understood correctly) was told that this technique was NOT to be the outside riser, but the INSIDE riser, but still one per canopy if side by side. I realize this is NOT the SIM, especially after clarification. But I also realize that not all DZs teach by the SIM.

So in conclusion- thank you Andy and others who take the time to clarify to newer jumpers, and apologies to any and all for misunderstanding and wasting your time by misunderstanding certain concepts. I don't plan to have a two out (most people don't I presume) but want to learn as much as I can in case the unplanned occurs.

Please don't assume that I am on here trying to stir up shit. I am on here trying to learn. Your tone implied otherwise. I did not "come up with" this method, it is simply the most recent of about five different methods people have tried to tell me are "right" or "acceptable." Again, no dog in this fight, other than avoiding two-outs and not fucking up if I have one, and I defer to the SIM and up-jumpers.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming. 'Night...
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks much for the link ... a good read! I noted one thing about it near the top, that the PIA Technical Committee concluded ... "Both of these studies, while encouraging, were felt to be inconclusive" ... basically saying that more thorough testing should be done. After reading through it all, I think the results are likely pretty accurate for the combinations tested, but do agree that I'd like to see a wider variety of combinations tested. I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet that more HAS been done, just maybe not by the same group?
As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mentioned how the CSPA PIM acknowledged sources including Jim Cowan for two out info. He's a manager for CPS it appears, and an S&TA. I contacted him and he offered some advice in another two out thread that was just started.

That is at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4166515;

But since this is the longer, older, but still recently updated thread, I'll copy what he wrote in that thread here:

(But I'm leaving a Word document he attached, in that other thread only. It contains a little bit more info.)

tsurfer69 wrote:
Quote

ok, peter chapman has requested I clarify what I state in my seminar on the subject. I have a 3 page word doc that explains the procedures for all 5 configurations and their correct response, attached. In essense here are the most important highlights;
1. keep the brakes set on both canopies
2. if brakes have been released on one, go to 1/2 brakes to simulate brakes set
3. check for entanglement, risers crossing thru risers instead of compressing against one another is the most difficult and important thing to look for, other entanglements such as deployment devices or suspension lines are fairly easy to identify
4. if above 1k feet, certain of no entanglement, separate the canopies using the left hand on the left rear riser of the left or rear canopy, into a downplane, cutaway and let go of the riser
5. if entangled, not sure, or below 1k feet, use the inside rear risers of each canopy to steer them together, keep them touching overhead, push the other canopy in the desired direction if control can be safely maintained, most importantly is to produce horizontal flight instead of downplane, accuracy may have to be sacrificed for rate of descent
6. steer the front canopy of a biplane if it must be landed, all dual landings require plf and no flare
7. it is always better to separate and cutaway if alti and entangle allow, only land them if you must
8. if main is open and reserve is hanging in the bag, attempt to gently lift the bagged reserve in hand, hold the bag closed, don't worry about pulling in the pc, just hold onto the bag with your hands instead of trying to put it between your legs or in your suit, steer with occasional rear riser or harness input, but hold onto the bag, at 15 feet, drop the bag and do a rear risers flare and plf
9. most rsl designs do not need to be released prior to cutaway of the main once both containers are open, however, a 2 sided rsl (racer) must be disconnected because of the possibility of the reserve deploying before the main, some cable pulling ring type rsl (javelin) can also hang onto the main if the rigid ripcord pin gets positioned between the 2 ripcord guide rings, check with your rigger or experienced instructor to see if yours fits either description
10. all of this information was derived from previous studies and my own experience flying and landing main and reserve canopies together
11. higher wing loadings and radically different planforms can make controlling 2 canopies pretty tricky, but if the canopies are lightly loaded or similar in design, it is easier than most would imagine
12. how you teach a new student and how you teach a jumper that has 20 flights, will probably need to be different because of the tmi syndrome



Nobody has the final word on how to deal with two outs, but more opinions from experienced jumpers are always welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmmmmm.

CPS itself focuses on military applications.

I don't understand why CSPA would elect to implement Mr Cowan's opinion as standard procedures.

I don't understand how two entities could be so diametrically opposed on these issues.

I choose to go with tested and proven methodology. Mr. Cowan offers no testing data...only opinion.
I would never teach anyone, student or experienced, the procedures outlined by Mr. Cowan.

Enough from me. You guys can do as you need to do to comply with CSPA standards.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this is an old thread, but I was searching for 2 canopy out scenarios as we were discussing it at the DZ today.

Anyway, I was wondering, if you have a relatively stable bi-plane I have been told you aren't supposed to monkey with it too much. My question is though should you be concerned about flying level and finding an open/safe area to land with as little toggle input as necessary? Or are you okay to do some minor turns (non-aggressive, no spirals, etc.) to ensure you land at your field?

I guess I'm just wondering if doing turns would be detrimental to the stability of the bi-plane...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0