Hooknswoop

I don't think PD or PA want to get involved, with the legal atmosphere in this country. If they where interested, they would have done the jumps, and if they have done the test jumps, they would have released the information. I did it to prove what I already knew, in a 2 canopy out situation, the closer the canopies are in performance, the more behaved they will be and vice versus. Some people that jump a small main/large reserve combination are well aware that a 2 canopy out situation would be bad, but feel that they are more likely to land unconcious under there reserves, or want the added safety margin that a big, slow reserve affords them. I did this to demonstrate to those with the small/large combo that didn't believe that the canopies wouldn't fly together that they won't. Besides, it was one hell of a ride, and I finally got to fly that Furry 220R. Nice reserve. Freebag was less tha 100 ft away when the reserve was fully open and flying. Derek

170/193 combo should be pretty compatible. As for handling two canopies out, best advise is: Bi-plane - For the canopies to stay in a bi-plane the main would have to be in front, don't release the brakes on either canopy, stear the lead canopy using rear risers, plf for landing. Cutting away the main may result in an entanglement. Side-by-side - If you can determine if the main will clear or it's not stable and not flying nicely with each other, cut-away. Otherwise, steer the main (or dominate canopy) with the rear risers gently, and plf for landing. Down-plane - Cutaway. The reason we taught you to land the side-by-side is because all the student gear would fly a side-by-side ok and we didn't want a student to cutaway from a side-by-side and have it entangle. We wouldn't expect a student to determine if a side-by-side could be cutaway cleanly. Derek aka. Hook

Riggerrob- your'e right about the Sabre, thanks. As for "operating under a popular misconception", I know that the Safire 189 is not a great represenation of a reserve because it flys faster, but it made for a more stable configuration than a PD-176R or a Tempo 170 would have, so I think the results would have been even worse w/ a real reserve. If the Safire had been been replaced w/ a canopy flying slower and steeper, there would have ben a larger disparity between canopys and they would have entangle faster/worse. So the test data still stands, Little main/Large reserve=big trouble in a 2 canopy out situation. Anyone have a larger reserve they will send me for another test jump? I would be willing to test ALMOST any configuration. Derek

Sorry, I wasn't very clear, I meant when it has worn through 10% of its thickness, and still has 90% of it's strength left. So using your numbers that would leave a 495 lb closing loop when it is due for replacement. Derek

Actually, I was saying that the Safire with the brakes still set was probably only a little slower than a reserve (at the same wingloading) in full flight. I think the results would have been even worse w/ the Pd-170 replacing the Safire 189. The Stiletto was surgining, stalling, collapsing, entangling, and re-inflating while they where in the side-by-side. It caused a continual right turn, which increased my decent rate to the point that I couldn't have safely landed in that configuration. Derek

I couldn't say that "as long as your main are within XX # of square feet of each other, they will be OK". Only that the closer in performance they are, they more stable a 2 canopy out situation will be and the larger the difference in performance between the two, the less stable. For hard #'s the Safire 189/PD-170 combination workes out great and the Stiletto 97/Safire 189 combination did not. Anywhere in between and your guess is as good as mine. Ya great experiement, now I have mount parachute sitting on the floor next to me. At least Kelli untangled everything for me :-) I inspected everything, no damage. But it will take a bunch of work to get everything back to the way it was.:-) Derek

The rule I use is 10% of it's original thickness or whenever I re-pack the reserve. 99% percent of the time I re-pack a reserve I was the last rigger to pack, it still has the closing loop in it I replaced the last time I re-packed the reserve. It definately should be replaced more oftern than every 120 days for the average jumper. I think 50 juumps per loop or 10% of the original thickness, whichever comes first is a pretty good guideline. They are cheap and easy to replace, but could cause a big problem if they break in freefall, so replace them early and oftern. Derek

The Safire is semi-elliptical, has a higher spect ration than a 7 Cell reserve, and has thinner end cells than center cells. I think a Sabre 170 ios a PD 170 made of 0-P and having jumped both, the Sabre is faster in braked stowed, forward flight. In my experience, I can blow through brand new F-111, not a lot, but it does let air through. I can't blow through brand new 0-P, not even a little. So i think the Safire in brakes is faster than a same sized F-111 reserve in brakes. Derek

The Stiletto has shorter lines than the Safire. Generally the smalleer the canopy, the shorter the lines. I left the brakes stowed on both canopys. Releasing the brakes on the Safire would have probably helped, but it is 0P, so it was probably flying close to the speed of an F-111 in full flight with the brakes stowed. I was origanally going to switch out the Safire for a PD-170 for a closer Main/Reserve dual deployment simulation, but that would have involed changing several sets of risers. As it was it took a little while to set up and will take even longer to clean up. Derek

Yes, I could have cutaway the main cleanly during the initial downplane. Derek

Report from a 2 canopy out test jump w/ disproportionately sized canopies w/ a Stiletto 97 playing main and a Safire 189 playing reserve. The Stiletto was deployed first. Deployed a Stiletto 97 (got buzzed by the otter) and left the brakes stowed. Deployed a Safire 189 (would be a 174ish if measured the same way as the Stiletto) Switching the Safire for the PD-170 would have been a pain in the butt and I got lazy. They immediately downplaned, with the stiletto in front. I let it go at that, thinking I would ride that for a while, but after 4-5 seconds of downplaning, the Safire came around so that they were in a side by side configuration w/ the Safire on the left. The Stiletto immediately tried to eat the Safire, turning into the Safire and collapsing the left side of the Stiletto. It was turning to the right, at a decent clip, with no input from me. It was definitely not in a stable configuration as the Stiletto kept turning and collapsing the left side, backing off and running back into the Safire. Then it got worse. The Stiletto wrapped around the right side-lines of the Safire and the whole mess started a VERY fast spin to the right, all w/o input from me. I rode this configuration for quite a while at a very high decent rate. Eventually as the Stiletto got more entangled w/ the Safire, it got worse, w/ the Stiletto collapsing and re-inflating "explosively" it was loud and uncomfortable. At that point I became concerned that the canopy(s) would be damaged, so I released the Stiletto and it entangled w/ the lines of the Safire on the right side, causing a fast turn to the right. I then released the Safire. I have flown a Safire 189/PD-170 combination twice. Once in a side by side for several thousand feet with absolutely no problem and on the second time I attempted to put them in a downplane. I could get them to downplane, but as soon as I released the riser, they would go back into a side by side, whether the brakes were set on either canopy or not. The similar sizes resulted in a land-able, stable 2 canopy out situation. Conclusions: This was only 1 test, but I believe it is obvious that two canopys that are so dramatically different will not be stable enough to land. The canopys behave as I expected them to (except for the initial downplane, which wasn't land-able either). At no point past the inflation of the Safire, was the two canopys out situation land-able. I am defining land-able as being able to land w/o injury or death. For most of the test, I believe the landing would have been fatal. I believe a two canopy out from a low pull with the AAD firing is a more likely scenario than being unconscious, the AAD firing and landing unconscious under the reserve. I have seen 7 or 8 2 canopy out situations from low pulls and have only heard of 1 jumper landing unconscious under her reserve, but she did not survive the incident either way, either from being killed from the initial impact or hitting a rock on landing. There was an incident of a jumper landing unconscious under canopy from a riser choking them, but I don't know if it was their main or reserve. I think everybody thought the person was dead and almost a minute later the person sat up and took a deep breath, scaring the hell out of everybody and was OK. I think a small main/large reserve combination is not the way to go. If you do not want a small reserve, don't get the small main. That is the price you pay for a small main, or be willing to accept that in a 2 canopy out situation will have a good chance of killing you. If you do have a small main/large reserve combination and an AAD, be aware that a low pull/AAD misfire will put you in a dangerous situation and cutaway the main immediately to prevent an entanglement, as the situation will get worse. All this rambling is not set in stone, and is definitely not meant to offend anyone. I would hope this post generates a discussion that is informative and sticks to the topic. I will answer any questions from any details I may have left out. The end goal is for everyone to learn. Derek

Makes sense to me. Derek

Lisa, slow down. Everybody here respects your opionon. Not everyone will agree with you, even when you are without a doubt, 100% right. Very frustrating, i know. It is difficult to believe that I have to get hurt or killed skydiving. I was much more likely to get injured when I was a full time instructor because i couldn't pick my days and had to do Tandems to pay the bills. Now, if I am tired, recovering from a cold, the weather isn't good, I can sit on the ground. I can call the shots. I know skydiving is a risk, and that knowledge helps keep me safe. I don't let my guard down. I maintain my gear w/ a vengance. I conciencesly and continually observe conditions and risk factors and make good judgement calls based on experience and common sense. I beleive that as long as I continue this vigilance I have a very small chance of being injured or killed skydiving. Flying in airplanes is not considered dangerous, but take a look at the NTSB's web site. There are 3-10 incidents/crashes everyday, mostly due to pilot error ( this catagory encompasses a lot of things like flying into weather they shouldn't have= bad decisions)or mistakes in maintenance. rarely does big airliner crash, because the pilots and crew are very well trained, fly well maintained aircraft, excersice good judgement (helped in part by company policy, and hindered by company policy in some cases, i'm sure) and plan their flight in detail, taking into account contigencies. is flying dangerous? It can be, if you do not do the things necessary to keep it safe. I believe it is the same thing in skydiving. Most of the little accidents I've seen, the jumper did not do at leat one of the 4 things that can make skydiving safe: pre-planning, good judgement, proper equipment, and special training. There isn't a right or wrong answer to this one, just peoples perceptions and opinions. Take care, Derek

I thought it was "Running out of air sucks!" Derek

"If you jump out of airplanes you're bound to get hurt eventually; it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when and how bad." I'm sorry, I have to disagree w/ this one. Why do i have to eventually get hurt? I accept that yes it is possible, but not inevitable. If the odds were that high, I would have been injured a long time ago. It is likely that someone that drives for a number of years will be involved in an accident. It is possible, not inevitable. Derek

From the SIM's As with all phases of skydiving, night jumping is made safe through: a. special training b. suitable equipment c. pre-planning d. good judgement Are hook turns "safe"? No. Is jumping out of an airplane "safe"? No. They are both more dangerous than sitting on the couch watching the Flinstones, eatin Captain Crunch. But you can reduce the risk of both activities using a-d. I have about 2000 hooks turns the majority on an FX-70 loaded at 2.6 and a VX-60 loaded at 3.1 and I have never hit the ground. the closest I have gotten is on two occasions afterr my swoop I lost my footing and slipped and fell down. No femurs, no hip-checks, no tumbling through my lines. They aren't a lot of jumpers that can say they haven't ever eaten it in 2700 jumps even w/o hook turns and small canopies. Can I drive an Indy car at 200mph around a race track. Heck no, I am pretty sure I would die. Hook turns are not for everyone and either is skydiving. I don't advocate hook turns, buy I do scoff at people that can't fly a canopy like I do tell me that hook turns are dangerous. No different than how skydivers scoff at people that have never jumped that tell them that skydiving is dangerous and they are going to get injured or killed. Derek

no.. and would someone else please tell them "no" for a while so I can go eat my dinner :-) Derek

I don't think that most skydivers think they are infallible, I think they overestimate their abilities. People wouldn't downsize to a canopy they couldn't handle if they didn't think they could handle it. The guy that femured under his VX-74 after a dozen or so jumps on it didn't think he could never possibly get hurt, but he did think he could handle the canopy. Derek

On the bike analogy: What if you drove you motorcycle in a huge parking lot where you could see everyone else. There is a concrete wall on one end of the lot. The only other people that are even close to you are on mopeds. Maybe on or two other big bikes like yours in the parking lot, and they are easy to keep track of. You have a lot of time riding the bike and even more time thinking about riding the bike and preparing for what-ifs. You started on a moped and worked you way up to the ZX-11. You have studied other canoies and discussed techniques and ideas for hours at a time with other big-bike riders. You pick your days to ride and only when you are really focused and ready for it. For fun you will get up to speed and drive towards the wall, turning to parallel it with a couple of feet, similar to race car drivers as the come out of a turn, except w/o the cars around them. You always start the turn early enough that even if you are a little late, you can easily turn harder to avoid hittig the wall. You do this 1-10 times in a day and have done it thousands of times. But you NEVER get complacent, you focus, prepare, visualize, and stay situationally aware each time. You de-brief each run in your mind afterwords, picking it apart. Always striving to make it smoother, closer to perfection. Think you could safely ride? Derek

no.

no

some people w/ a lot of jumps can handle hooking a small x-brace, most can't. I don't know of any low-time jumper that can handle hooking a small x-brace. 4000 jumps does not make you a great canopy pilot. I watch very experienced people toggle hook and bust their asses all the time. Most people overestimate their abilities. Take the AFF course for example, a 49% pass rate. No one spends over $1000 to try and get their AFF rating thinking they will fail. They look at AFFI's at their DZ and say to themselves "Hey, I am as good as they are.....I can pass the AFF course if they did." The reality is they are not as good as they think they are and are pissed when they fail the course and have to face the reality of their level of skill. they blame the evaulators, the weather, the pilot, anyone but themselves. Derek

For sucess, have comparable canopies and comparable wing loadings. It is easier to do light CReW w/ 2 sabres loaded at 1.0 than a sabre loaded at 1.0 and a crossfire loaded at 2.0. it is fun to rub end cells w/ someone else and pretty safe too. If there is any problem, you just both turn 90 degrees away from each other. Done this a bunch w/ tandems. Derek Derek

"I was taught that in turbulance you fly in 1/4 brakes to increase stability. Is it wrong? " Yes. If you find yourself in turbulence on final approach, fly through it at full flight (toggles all the way up), making small toggle inputs to keep the canopy flying into the wind. The more forward speed the canopy has, the more internal ram air pressure inside the canopy. The higher the internal pressure of the canopy, the more resistant to collapse it is. In turbulence, the higher the internal pressure of the canopy, the more rigid it is and therefore less likely to collapse. Derek

I'm w/ Bill, loosening is OK, undoing the chest strap is an unecessary risk. To get maximum vaule from loosening the chest strap, you only have to loosen it until it is no longer taunt. Depending on if you pull your slider down and how big it is, the limit may be the slider or the length of your chest strap. Derek