pchapman

It was hardest for me to learn that I really needed to buy a weight belt to fall at the right speed (for someone tall and skinny). It wasn't a crutch but an essential tool that, if used earlier, would have prevented me from picking up bad RW habits and wasting time in freefall with others. Also, it was hard for me to learn to move less when maneuvering in RW -- my legs were too busy, moving around and adjusting needlessly. But all the above is because I didn't have any real RW coaching and just learned on my own.

Here are a few I dug up, FWIW: -- One case in the category of "cutting away turns bad": http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=304748 Someone cut away a PC in tow, main comes out, released riser snagged reserve lines, downplane, but jumper luckily got out of it before landing -- One more "cutting away turns bad": In 2003, Diver Driver mentioned a friend's mal where a cut away riser snagged the reserve slider but luckily didn't kill him: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=584062#584062 [One more edit:] In another thread he goes into more detail about what probably was the same case (but not for sure), about "Frank at SDC". The reserve was inflating and collapsing, and he landed during one of the better cycles, and was 'only' seriously injured. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=448058#448058 -- In the category of "cutting away would have been bad (but only due to the special and rare circumstance of reserve problems)": In 2003 Wendy Faulkner related an incident where a friend had a reserve blow up, and then got his main out after all, which he had conveniently not cut away. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=586197#586197 [Edit to add this one:] -- One in the category of "cutting away turns bad": Mike McGowan, well known videographer, had a cut away riser pull the reserve slider to the top of the lines. He hit trees that luckily snagged the canopy, so it wasn't a fatality. Quite a few years ago now. -- One that could go either way IMO, but was reported as "cutting away is good": The girl in Tunisia in 2005 (http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/Detailed/85.shtml) She didn't cutaway and had a fatal main/reserve entanglement. In skydivingfatalities.info, it is suggested that not cutting away caused the problem. But the description makes it sound like the entanglement could as well have happened whether the main had been released or not -- The main and free bags entangled along with their bridles, and neither canopy was out of the bag, so I'm not sure the risers got loaded much at all, making it less relevant whether the 3-rings were released. It is a debatable case but I'm not sure the evidence favors either emergency procedure.

Just a little time wasting here on History & Trivia: Apparently one tradition is to have the last space in a brand new logbook signed off for good luck -- With the idea that you should then live to fill all the jump entries that logbook. I had never heard of this tradition until recently. Any comments?

Well, if you cut away low and don't pull the reserve (and don't accelerate to AAD firing speed until 1.5 seconds to impact)... it isn't much going to matter if it is a Racer like he had, or something else. But I only skimmed the dz.com thread to familiarize myself with the case. (Ref.:http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4490907) If you want to talk about the benefits of optional equipment like RSL's or MARD's, fair enough.

(Edit): Sounds like that isn't how one is taught in the AFFI program. I don't know much about precise standards in different countries for their AFF and AFF style programs, but there isn't much of a difference between maintaining a grip through bag liftoff, vs. waiting just slightly longer for line stretch. By the time it is clear the bag has lifted off properly, very soon the canopy is at line stretch. At least where I'm from (Canada & PFF program), I learned to maintain a grip on the student until the student is pulled away from you by the opening. You do not leave the student before then. So to me, the stills from the video appeared normal. Standards differ and opinions vary...

Some clarification might be in order, and I think you'd agree on this MJO: I should mention that while the above is correct in one sense, body position has a huge effect on the perceived opening force and the stress on your body. In that way, body position does have a lot to do with opening force...whether the force hits you in a way that is easy or tough on your body. So the actual, physical canopy opening speed is likely much the same whether you are in a good body position, or if you are nosed 30 degrees head down and rolled 45 degrees to your side. But with the latter scenario you might feel like you were snapped upwards a lot faster, whipping you around much further to the vertical, and being yanked brutally sideways, snapping your head around in a direction that is hard to handle. (I should add that technically having one shoulder and one set of risers low might change the canopy opening itself, making it less symmetrical, but in general that's a secondary issue.) @ OP: Your photos show a pretty decent body position for opening, even if not a perfect neutral freefall position. So I wouldn't immediately write off your concern as body position. There's a bit of having the head low or head turned at one point, but that's all minor and one can't blame the feel of the opening on that. One hopes that to usually be true, but you never know. My DZ has Aerodyne Solo canopies, and when I'm with a PFF student I'm often cringing a little at how snappy some student's opening looked. I can picture in my mind full bottom skin inflation on a Solo, but I just can't picture those canopies in a snivel. That image just has never presented itself long enough in front of my retinas & brain... @OP: Student gear sometimes doesn't fit well and is a little older, in which case an OK opening may leave some bruises from buckles and extra adjustment hardware that isn't well padded or that shifted on your body a little much on opening. So gear fit has some effect too on the perceived roughness of the opening.

Thanks Squeak. Clearly there's more to be learned and discussed about pilot chutes but I think we can agree that Brian's method isn't supposed to eliminate all possibility of a bridle wrapping the PC, even if the method has some advantages. And whatever method you use, keeping the bridle neat and having a good throw promote proper PC openings... (Pilot chutes and bridles are miniature parachute systems. To be really neat on deployment, you'd almost need a deployment staging system, metering out the bridle as it extends, rather than dumping it out, and having the PC stay tight until bridle stretch!)

I just have one I know of offhand, but there isn't much published about it. Charles Sheppard, Trenton Ontario Canada, Oct 2005. It was a military jump but a civilian type jump with civilian gear. Reportedly the pilot chute entangled in its bridle so it was a PCIT. Cutaway, reserve pull, main risers entangled with the reserve bridle. I don't know what really happened but that's the way it was presented to me. The idea was that the main problem was not some general entanglement of main and reserve, but specifically cut-away main risers preventing reserve depolyment. Rig was supposed to be a Talon of some sort, I'd guess something of Talon 2 vintage. The rig vintage would have some bearing on how well the released risers stayed in place, but nothing suggests the gear was particularly old-fashioned in its riser protection. So it is a bit mysterious what actually happened. The incident is in skydivingfatalities but without useful details http://www.skydivingfatalities.info/search.asp?name=Charles%20Sheppard&Personal=on

@ FataMorgana: This is about the Germain pilot chute packing method, not the bridle routing around container flaps method. Really? I don't see how it is any more impossible Brian's way than any of the other common folding techniques, but am willing to hear explanations. Brian's way does hold the bridle 'within' the pilot chute to some extent, which may help sequence the deployment a little, instead of just allowing the bridle to dump fully out into the wind as soon as the pilot chute roll starts coming apart as it is tossed. Still, any time the pilot chute is not thrown really quickly away from the jumper, there is a chance that it will blow back into whatever bridle there is flapping in the breeze. A wrap of the bridle and pilot chute might also be promoted by sloppier pilot chute packing, allowing some twisting of the bridle partially around the PC handle while handling and inserting it into the BOC. This could happen with most methods. But I haven't analyzed any of this in the detail BASE jumpers might do about their deployment methods, so better informed opinions are possible. I'd just be surprised if Germain's pilot chute packing technique is the cure for all ills. Here's a PC toss seen on a hop and pop recently: [inline a_PC_toss.jpg] It is probably no worse than many many PC tosses. It looks like there's always a tiny chance that the PC will blow back into the bridle, with the chance that the bridle hitches around the PC. Whether the PC was packed the Germain way or not, I'm not sure that it matters much by this stage.

Ah, those were the adjustable MLW Javelins that broke, not some separate incidents not previously mentioned here.

What rig / incidents were those? Was it related to actual harness design? Some older rigs had slightly higher chest straps, and there are always cases of poorly fitting rigs allowing the chest strap to migrate upward on opening. (One sees that more on students.)

Had to double check that one: That was a fatality, in Italy. Possibly premature deployment at bottom end of freefly dive (loose BOC), blew some lines on main, chest strap tore off MLW (not sure of details, but it wasn't the buckle failing). (6/7/2003 in skydivingfatalities.info, dz.com thread 512835)

So it opened ok and flaired ok, so where was the problem? Hey, it can be fun to rant from time to time, but give us something to work with! I guess "if it ain't broke and it's gonna cost huge bucks to do all the tests from a big aircraft to certify a new reserve, they ain't gonna fix it". The landings I've seen with those Sigma / Vector tandem reserves have always had good flares. My only VR-360 ride was with a reasonably light student, so toggle pressure wasn't an issue, and I was actually pleasantly surprised at that. Without student loops in the toggles one does have to do everything oneself. I have heard someone remark on the heavy toggle pressure with a heavier student, and so he had to think like an accuracy jumper and minimize maneuvering to maintain strength for the flare. Could the canopy be made smaller? Who knows. At least they don't blow up much. While Strong tandem reserves have a good record as far as I know, years back two friends had them blow up on them in separate incidents (one with amazingly minimal injuries and the other with life altering injuries). While I understand statistics, because I was close to those incidents, I can't help but to much prefer the UPT product! The only real VR-360 issue I hear about is that it opens in very deep brakes. That's usually not a problem but occasionally it will get into an oscillation between flying and stalling. (I've seen the same on an accuracy canopy that had deep set brakes). An oscillation usually isn't a real problem, but has scared newbie tandem instructors. Where it really becomes a bit of a problem is if it is in a stall cycle, AND you have line twists, each little problem hampering recovery from the other. I've heard of that happening (on DZ.com) but have no idea how rare the situation might be. How often have others out there had the stall and unstall cycle happen on a VR-360 opening?

I won't get into the rather theoretical issue of being in the plane, diagnosing that the pilot isn't maintaining altitude and airspeed , unbuckling, pushing past other jumpers (unless one is at the door), opening the door, and then jumping at 120' ... which requires that the pilot had a whole lot more altitude before that. But for a thought experiment; nothing all that practical: One could do better than normal with a 120' level exit, if one climbed out and held tight to the floater bar or doorway (and assuming you're leaving everyone else to die), popped the reserve, and didn't let go until the inflating canopy ripped you off the aircraft. I'll leave aside any issues with the canopy catching on the horizontal tail, especially if the plane is nose high at slow speed. (Although the Twin Otter tail is high.) By hanging on as long as possible, that takes away some of the altitude loss, at least to the point of the freebag coming off the canopy. I remember that video of a static line hangup under a C-182. The student eventually pulled his reserve, and that freed him from the aircraft (and misrouted static line system). The canopy by chance happened to open nose upwards, and so he actually ended up being fully open and flying 'level' ABOVE the level of the aircraft (although the aircraft may well have been descending gradually). So if one needs minimal altitude loss during deployment, and one can clear the aircraft structure, pulling while hanging on the aircraft would make sense.

Which brings up the issue of what CRW maneuvering and collision rules are in the USPA SIM or other document appropriate to one's country. Anyone want to look up what the USPA says, and see whether it would be appropriate in a case like this? Jumpers typically don't get CRW collision training unless they are learning CRW specifically. Anyone download the video before it went private?

From that, it seems to have been suicide. (Same as for someone else in another current thread in this forum too...) Some people I think aren't big on talking about the reason someone is gone, but one does always wonder what the heck happened. It can be hard to see that sort of thing coming, especially for people one only knows a little or only knows online. Blue skies.

So is a foreigner qualified in their own country, not a permanent resident, and fulfilling the FAA minimums (500 ram air, equivalent master license, manufacturer training, etc) -- they are OK to do tandems? Those rules alone make it seem OK, but I don't know what else might apply? (I'm leaving aside work visas and such; we're just talking about FAA legality and ability to jump at USPA DZ's.)

How exactly would that help if the chief instructor wouldn't let her use it? Depends on one's assumptions. Instructors instruct & control students. She's apparently not a student any more. So he may be chief of nothing at all when it comes to power over her canopy choices. She can tell him to go stuff himself. But in practice, you may be right, someone like that probably has other powers at the DZ and may have a say over what people get to jump, for better or for worse...

Jeez, what's happening to all the good CSPA leaders / volunteers? (I knew both Dave H. and Barry M.)

Front risering does increase your forward speed. But for practical purposes, you may not want to do a chinup on the front risers for a minute or more, when your slow canopy might only gain, who knows, 3 mph on fronts. That time would be better taken up planning a good approach to the DZ or a good circuit, as appropriate to your canopy's speed. If you want to front riser for a while for the workout or to see how much extra distance you get, fine. But at your wing loading there isn't much immediate practical use. About the only time you'll want it is if you got yourself really low over obstacles and can't fly away crosswind or downwind to a better place. If hanging on the front risers to gain a few mph will allow to avoid the tall forest and just barely make it into the clearing, then it is worth it... Edit: Note that you'll only get extra distance over the ground if facing a strong wind, where the increased forward speed has more of an effect than the increased descent rate. In zero wind, the added descent rate will likely have more of an effect than the forward speed, and your glide ratio down to the ground will likely be worse on front risers.

wtf?

We are using & interpreting words in different ways. I don't mean they pop open when under load. Rather, the release mechanism for the seatbelt is indended to operate correctly with easily applied force, when the seatbelt is under a tension load such as the occupant being suspended upside down. Just like if you have a spinning mal, 3 rings "should release under load", if you get my drift. Anyway, I don't know what the design rules are, but it was explained to me not to use automotive seatbelts in homebuilt aircraft, as they aren't designed to release as easily (using the release mechanism) when there's weight on them.

If you're talking about the consequences of a premature, no big deal. No different than when doing a rodeo dive, tracking dive, atmo, VRW, artistic freefly, etc, whenever one jumper is in or close to the the burble path of another jumper. Everyone gets to be equally dead. (Actually, being right on the jumper with the premature might help a tiny bit -- to get flung off before a large speed differential is created.) All those types of jumping are well accepted. If you're talking about the increased chance of a premature, yes, with the drogue out and main cover flaps open the pin area is more exposed. How easily the pin or cable may be dislodged will depend on the particular system. There certainly is some risk there for those who aren't careful with their footwork while hopping on and pole dancing.

Aviation seatbelts are designed to undo under load. Supposedly to a greater degree than automotive belts. (Yet you can be hanging upside down in a car just as easily as an aircraft...) Haven't tried it myself though. Certainly in this case the jumper might be suspended in a way that they can't reach the mechanism.

Because that's the way things are? Some DZ's have goggles that have crappy straps, gear that doesn't fit some students well, poor instruction on how to fly if a radio fails, overly busy instructors trying to sneak in an AFF between tandems, and so on. It can be hard for students to know what is just a case of "well, that's the way it is in skydiving sometimes", versus "this place sucks, I should leave!". That being said, you are right that one should at least bring issues up. E.g., If there's a problem reading the alti, is it an old scratched one or did the student not put it on tight enough or are they taking too little time to glance at it?