Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 7/17/84; site link.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!link!msb From: msb@link.UUCP (Mike S. Balenger x8789) Newsgroups: net.rec.skydive Subject: Re: Engine failure on t/o (e.g. Caravan) Message-ID: <365@link.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 09:40:07 EST Article-I.D.: link.365 Posted: Tue Nov 5 09:40:07 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 7-Nov-85 04:11:17 EST References: <476@spice.cs.cmu.edu> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Holmdel, NJ Lines: 87 I have been in the Caravan. It *was* nice. The rear door was wide enough for 4 across. Maybe five. It stayed open all the time. Therefore, opening the door was not a problem for exiting the plane. The plane was just very low. In a high speed crash like that, the G-forces experienced in the cabin would probably have been too great to get hold of anything with which to propel one's self out the door. *********** In reference to deploying a reserve before cutting away: While I was an undergrad in Virginia, I orginized classes for a drop zone. One of the guys in the class had THE WORST T-10 MALFUNCTION anyone on the drop zone had ever seen. Many of them were old-timers in the sport. The malfunction was just a line over which had caught a wad of material on top of the canopy, causing a high (but not lethal) decent rate, and a 1-2 second spin. The part of this that I think is important is that the WORST malfunction that they had ever seen was not lethal. Had the student ridden it in, and performed a good (granted, a REAL good) PLF, he could have walked away from it with no broken bones or twisted ankles. Students there had also been taught not to cut away. Instead, they were taught to throw their reserve "down-and-out at a 45 degree angle in the direction of a spin." When this student tried to do it, it didn't work. Pictures taken of him with a telephoto camera seemed to show him holding onto it so that it couldn't catch the air. He said that it kept blowing up in his face, and he couldn't get it out into the wind. Who is to say wether the student panicked, or the rate of decent was too low to really catchh the reserve chute. In either case, after 2500 feet of attempts the reserve finally inflated at about 200 feet, and took enough weight off the main that the main cleared. He landed under two perfectly good parachutes. This incident has always raised some intersting questions for me: -- Is it naive to believe that students can correctly execute complex sequences to deploy a reserve? -- What would he have done if his spot wasn't as good as it was? You can't steer two parachutes. -- Would it have been reasonable to cut away the main after the reserve had inflated? What would have been the risks of the main fouling the reserve on its way out? -- Is a relatively slow malfunction like this really fast enough to catch a reserve without a pilot chute, and get it out? If not, a cut away seems appropriate. -- Do jumpers panic so much that they would really hold on to the material of a chute? If so, a cut away seems inappropriate. -- Why aren't Steven's cutaway systems used on more conventional gear? (A Steven's cutaway system is really quite simple. It automatically pulls the reserve ripcord when the main is cut away. It also prevents only one main riser from being cut away, a condition which could cause a streamer. It consists of a piece of webbing which attaches the two main risers and the reserve ripcord. If one of the main risers is cut away, it will not fly away and cause a streamer because it is attached to the other main riser. When the other main riser is cut away, it cuts away the main chute, and pulls the pin of the reserve as you drop away from it. Thus, with a Steven's system, if you only cut away one side, you are no worse off than you used to be. True, you are only suspended by one riser, but you are suspended. If you cut away both sides, your reserve is automatically opened into clean air-- guaranteed.) ******* Happily, the ole T-10's are a dieing breed. The new student squares are safe, dependable, and more fun. They will win in the long run. The one-shot cut away and reserve deployment is much easier to teach and execute. The only drawback could be in altitude awareness, but I think this is an easier thing to teach. What does anyone else think about conventional gear, reserves, Steven's or the like? How 'bout the letter to the editor of Parachutist which advocated a gas or rocket deployed reserve? Post comments here! -- ihnp4!link!msb Michael S. Balenger (201) 949-8789