pchapman

Why release brakes? Because he was stuck in a spiral dive, canopy on the horizon, with line twists at very low altitude. It isn't 'standard procedure' at all but that's what's interesting about it, that the brake lines did slide through the twists. Hard to tell exactly, but when did something with the brakes he got out of the dive. There weren't many twists left so that influences things, and suggest that he might have untwisted himself normally. But he presumably went to plan B as it didn't look like he was going to be able to do so in time. After he untwists and looks down, he was then 14 seconds from landing, including maybe a couple seconds extra time from the flare. I'm guessing he was at maybe 300 feet while still in the fast spiral dive with line twists.

No it's not a good question. EPs are quite clear on a biplane here in the U.S. Besides there are already numerous threads about this "re-invent the wheel" argument in here. Yes, it is a good question. And a separate thread was started which examined the issue and didn't reveal any clear evidence why the 'release the brakes' method would be correct. It may be a very reasonable option to release the brakes, and is supported by the procedures listed by a very large skydiving organization (the USPA). But the thread showed no evidence that releasing the brakes is the only correct way. If you know what other "numerous threads" provide such evidence, I'd be interested to read them. Saying that releasing the brakes is the only possible way basically says, "I'm an American, fuck yeah, we're always right!" or "The writers of the SIM are Gods. They shall not be questioned." Most of what is in the SIM is probably pretty good though.

That's certainly a possibility. At SOME point the Skyhook disconnected, as the main canopy clearly wasn't trailing while the freebag was mixed up with the reserve. It is hard (at least with my software) to step through the downloaded FLV file in small increments or measure fractions of a second. But stopping the video one can see a point where the risers release, the right one moving off a very tiny bit slower as it is pulling the RSL lanyard tight. Very soon after, a white flash of bridle goes by the right side of the screen, under tension, moving up towards where the risers went. Because of the very short time between those events I'm thinking the Skyhook is still connected at that point, but I can't be sure. (All within the 29th second of the video - and I can't see finer grained time codes -- he goes from having both risers connected, to the risers releasing, to reserve bridle going by, to both reserve risers seen either side of his head, to seeing his toes up by the horizon. It is all very fast and suggests but doesn't prove the Skyhook was involved in pulling the bag out.) So I'm still thinking that it is more likely that the entanglement happened during a) the Skyhook deployment sequence, rather than b) the Skyhook detaching very early and the problem being an out of sequence reserve deployment "just on its own". So we're still trying to figure out for sure how the reserve pilot chute or bridle "got under" the reserve freebag.

This is worth Gear & Rigging not just Bonfire, because of the implications! [I have now made a new thread there, linking to this thread.] The video may have been up from the end of August, but it's new to me. I don't subscribe to Blue Skies mag, but on their web page about the incident (linked from the YouTube page), they say "This incident has promoted some discussion about the use of a SkyHook with high performance main canopies such as the Velocity." The reserve didn't extract from the freebag cleanly -- it was a reserve / freebag / reserve bridle entanglement of some sort, it looks like. By the time we see the reserve, the main canopy & RSL to the Skyhook have already departed. Morton Pedersen, the jumper, writes on the web page, "what happen was the wild main threw my reserve freebag around like a ragdoll, flipping the bridel around the lines, when full line extraction the red shyhook lanyard broke. " A good analysis could use more than just the 360p FLV video available off youtube. The main canopy actually looked to me well behaved during the mal -- it was doing a diving spiral, but was not pinwheeling overhead or any such thing. If someone is in a hard spiral, on breakaway the freebag will tend to be pulled roughly upwards along the body axis, past the shoulders and head. Usually that must be 'back and away' from the jumper enough to clear cleanly. But jumpers are often 'sitting' in the harness, dearched, during a spinning mal and may breakaway in that dearched position. In this video the jumper was somewhat butt to the earth, feet up towards the horizon as seen on video, shortly after breakaway -- probably when the reserve was still effectively acting like a bag lock above. The actual body position and motion during the cutaway isn't apparent to me. If a jumper is more butt to wind than belly to wind, the main & RSL & Skyhook is more likely to be dragging the freebag over the shoulders and slightly forward on the jumper -- not clearing the flaps and jumper nicely, and so possibly causing the bag to get knocked and spin around. Normally the reserve pilot chute would be clear of the freebag, as the PC is connected by a shorter piece of bridle than the freebag, relative to the Skyhook where the tension is being applied. Whatever happened, that didn't seem to keep the parts from somehow entangling in this case. Better analysis is needed. This incident also showed an example of a reserve going into a spiralling dive with line twists, which generally doesn't happen. This is probably mainly due to the large asymmetry between the risers, as seen for short moments in the video. It also seems to show the success of popping the brakes to stop a spiral dive with line twists, pulling the brake lines through the line twists. Although I haven't counted exactly, it looks like he only had 1 to 1 1/2 full (360 degree) twists at that time, which may have helped the success of that tactic. Any thoughts on what exactly the video is showing?

I'm posting this just as a link to a thread in Bonfire, called Twisted reserve... video (DeLand). The incident shown on YouTube is fairly significant and so I thought it deserves a at least a link from Gear and Rigging. (If not in Incidents, but it has now been some months since the event.) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4226746;

I see the point of demonstrating some kind of skill. The problem is, it doesn't say that one has to organize a night jump, or brief a night jump to others, or demonstrate much skill other than being able to stick duct tape & glowsticks to oneself and not die before sending in one's paperwork. To demonstrate landing in suboptimal conditions, one can just choose to jump on a stormy day just before sunset, accept a bad spot, pull low, and hook it hard over rough terrain for an outlanding. Survive that and the jumper will be issued a "D", D is for being a Dick...

And the rigger's time is worthless? Sounds like unscheduled Maintenance, not I & R to me. There's no need to replace closing loops all the time. (You don't on a Racer / Reflex / Teardrop?) On a decent rig, they can easily last for a couple years of pack jobs. Some pin cover flaps chew them up, or rough grommets, or especially very tight rigs where it is tough to avoid abrading them during the packing process (but wear can be minimized with care). If the loop is significantly worn, it gets replaced. But there are different conventions in different areas.

One simplistic answer to the question is because it has been that way for something like 50 years. Making one night jump (of at least 20 seconds delay) was already in the Parachute Club of America D license rules by 1962. You also had to be able to do things like one left and one right 360 turn within 6 seconds. While the sport advanced and the maneuvering requirements changed, a night jump remained distinctive and novel ... so seems to have been left in as part of the rite of passage. (But, things can always change if there's enough desire to overhaul the system. In Canada for example, that night jump requirement for the D disappeared by the early 2000's. The new system, though far from perfect, gives one more choice to demonstrate real skill in one discipline of one's choice.) Edit: So I figure that the night jump rule came first, and only much later did people try to justify it with ideas like, "um, because the sunset load might take off late."

If it isn't a troll it's an honest to God newbie! The diagonal handrail thingy might just be the wing strut on a Cessna 182 or similar. That's the main structural member which keeps the wing in place. And it's a handy thing to hold on to as well. Now that I'm here I might as well give some actual advice: Anyone can do it; you just need to get used to using extra muscle force to place limbs where they should be. Make sure you get right up to the edge of the door when climbing out, and stick your head out. Some students stay back, afraid of the wind and altitude, and then find it is too far a reach to get their foot on the step or hand on the strut. Lean forward when getting out into the wind, so the wind isn't catching you as much, and so you are being pushed back against the step instead of just being levered off while standing straight above it. Get a good foot hold on the step, with the foot hanging slightly over the front edge of the step if needed to get purchase against the wind blowing you back. Don't rush. Do each move deliberately, get each leg and arm in position without rushing, so that you can place each one carefully in a good position. It's a bit like climbing in that way. And go talk to your instructors to show you some tips that match the actual airplane you use and the actual climbout that is used by that dropzone.

I think your post also highlights the problem that starting with tandems sometimes messes up a student's leg position. Either because of slide in landings on a tandem (with an instructor who can make it work), or the tandem instructor wanting a student's legs way up high, a bad habit is formed. The student's legs get too far in front and not enough down. On ground contact they push out infront instead of being able to cushion the landing or initiate a PLF.

Hmm, it is at least worth a close inspection. I also once found a reserve with that "free end through the ring" error, done by a well respected local rigger the first time he encountered such soft links.

While things may have turned out badly for you Muffie, there are tandem instructors who use knee pads all the time under their jumpsuits, if they are in poorly padded planes. While it is interesting that they can 'grab' and help cause an injury, in most cases they improve things in the long run for their wearers. As for PLFs, I think a student should be mentally primed to do a PLF on landing, if they are having landing problems. If they can't perceive their motion vs. the ground well enough to pull off a good landing consistently, then they aren't going to be able to recognize at the last moment that, "Gee I've screwed up this flare, better start thinking about doing a PLF." So I'm thinking one should be ready to roll off to the side, and have enough muscle tension in the legs not just to crumple and fall forward or slam in on one's ass.

[Russian] Da! [/Russian] Clearly rounds aren't entirely out of fashion in eastern Europe.

FWIW, my regular canopies: 1991: Titan 265 2003: Sabre 135 2004: FX 88 Along the way I picked up some odds and ends for specific purposes or to play with: Parafoil 282 Maverick 200 CRW Firelite 172 CRW Evolution 140 Cobalt 75 That's leaving out some triangular and round shaped canopies.

You'll catch some flak for thinking about something so old. But it is OK as long as you are aware of the limitations -- and there are some. You aren't planning to spend much on it - good. While not much is invested, selling it may be harder than for a more pricy, modern rig. And on dz we'll be dealing with another newbie asking the same questions. :) If the canopy actually needs a reline, it isn't worth it, since the canopy is worth almost nothing and is harder to sell. Often with old F-111, if a reline is needed, the canopy is pretty shot. At least it is a reasonable size relative to your weight. Jumping old F-111 will get you in the air, but it isn't going to train you for modern canopies. That may or may not matter, depending whether you are set on being the next swoop god at 500 jumps. You'd want to confirm that the rig has an AAD pouch installed, otherwise that will cost money. You'll need a two pin AAD if you want one, which costs more. The rig won't likely be as freefly friendly, but that may only be a smaller issue in the next 100 jumps. Still, certain levels of safety are expected when jumping with others or just playing around with sitflying. Mainly see if a new BOC is needed, and whether some sort of tuck tabs have been added to protect the main pin. If much modification is needed, the value of the rig comes down more. (I'm assuming the rig has a BOC. It could be a pullout, in which case you'd want retraining for that method.) So again, there's nothing "wrong" with the rig, and I've known others whose first rig had old F-111 in it. Just that there are a lot of little caveats about cost and getting it into service immediately.

Nice job on putting the stats together, even if we argue about what definition of "most fatalities" to use.

With line wear, there's not only the issue of how much wear might come from a pouch, but how much wear one would otherwise get with rubber bands. Maybe there isn't much, but recall how rubber bands on hip rings could quickly wear leg straps. Rubber bands for parachute deployment tend to rotate and flip to relieve tension from lines pulling out, so that may reduce some of the frictional wear. But without a closer study, I'm not sure that the wear would be non-existent.

I'll accept that one can't just understand some things without effort. But boy it can be tough to get a straight answer at times about the essentials. Enough from me for now.

So a good Christian rejects the Old Testament? Is there a list somewhere of what parts of the bible a church disassociates itself with? Or does the Gospel of John say, "ignore pages x through y"? (And if the Old Testament were rejected, would they be saying that "God was indeed an evil tryrant, but he got better, and we don't believe in that killing stuff now", or that "The people who wrote the Old Testament were full of crap, God never did such evil things." Just trying to understand which interpretation a Christian would hold.) It just sounds really bad for Christians if they, in general, believe in "the Bible" when there's all that stuff about killing in it. Other people might get arrested for hate crimes (in some countries) if they started handing out pamphlets with such "kill people" messages. But Christians seem to get away with it.

Normally a 40 lb test is used , but I've seen it suggested (entirely unofficially) that 35 lbs would be Ok on older canopies, since the 40 lb test is at the edge of being destructive. Pre- F-111 style fabric also had a lower strength specification. (E.g., F-111 and the milspec that covers such fabric = 45 lbs; while MIL-C-7020 Type I, as used for Navy Conicals, C-9's etc, is listed as 42 lbs.) I did find another spot on that canopy that tore at 35 lbs. So the material isn't what I'd want for a reserve, but despite age and dying, it still has some structural strength. Thanks skybill for clarifying the sea pocket info, and dpreguy about when people would sew over the vent.

Canada: No restrictions in general by the government or by the voluntary skydiving organization CSPA. However, ram air canopies are required by the gov't for mains and reserves when doing demo jumps. Any CSPA jumper is supposed to be trained in whatever equipment they are jumping. I have heard of a DZ banning round reserves, due to proximity to water or suburbs or the like. There are also some dropzones, especially in Quebec, that insist on AADs. That's very awkward if one has multiple sets of gear & belly mounts. No TSO or other certification is required for equipment in Canada, so one could for example jump Russian military gear (as I have). France: Even back in '03, round reserves were banned (eg, even for those of us coming as temporary guests to the World Championships) and round mains were banned too. AAD's are mandatory. (But I don't know the relationship of gov't and sport organizations and how that affects things.)

Yeah I think I'll have a lot of yellow 550 around the house soon. Those Navy Conicals sure look built tough. Although not having continuous lines , in addition to the ULB & LLB, they have 6 circumferential bands (plus the bias construction tapes). Pull tests on this canopy went to about 37 lbs before the fabric started to creep and sound like it was about to let go. Not too bad for something from '57.

How rare was it for someone to dye their reserve canopy a different colour, back in the days of military style round reserves? In any case, I recently came across a 1957 military round reserve (in a more modern Strong Stylemaster belly mount container), that was dyed yellow, along with the MA-1 pilot chute and the lines. Funny to see. Seems like it would be best for a multi canopy descent like in the Gypsy Moths. A photo is attached. Meshed mods were added later and are not dyed, nor are two lines that someone had replaced as a repair. Some large, well sewed patches on the canopy were of yellow material to match the dyed fabric. Also, the apex vent (photo 2) had been sewn over with a patch of fabric, reinforced by sewn tapes. That also seems a bit out of the ordinary for a reserve! A search showed very little about dying reserves, although a couple examples were mentioned. "377" wrote this in 2009 in the DB Cooper thread for example: The RIT (?) dying method was described in http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=439117.

SOS to TAS should take some good training as '604 mentioned. Anyone at an SOS DZ has to learn that at some time, so it isn't insurmountable. TAS to SOS should be a little simpler. One handle, pull it. He'll still want to practice a bunch of times on the ground not to be groping on the wrong side of his chest. Edit: SOS adds complexity? Sure, for building the rig. Not for the jumper. Sort of like saying adding an AAD adds complexity.

And here's a photo of a POD for a PC. Which I'm just showing off because I got hold of it & a red, white & blue PC tonight. (And a Delta II.) About 15" long, 12 1/2" wide, 3" thick when stretched out. Fairly compact. Pull the crown lines out of the #8 grommet to put in the upper stows, and put the canopy lines in the lower stows. (Poynters I, section 6.5.4 also shows a couple small drawings of PODs) The canopy isn't inside the POD in my photo; I've just got it stuffed loosely with other things.