What Is Your Definition of a Double Malfunction?

[slotperfect 7]

I have seen some recent posts that talk about double malfunctions being "frequent occurrences" or "on the rise." I am curious how double malfunctions are most commonly defined. What is your definition?

Arrive Safely

John

[Scoop 0]

I would perceive a double mal to be to seperate failures of both main and reserve deployment. I'd say an entanglement is an unfortunate consequence of a failed cutaway/second deployment but would not constitute a double mal.

[Tonto 1]

After a main malfunction, any reserve that does not pass a control check.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[dorbie 0]

Your poll is inadequate.

Main does not have to be cut away or entangled, for example if you had a total.

[slotperfect 7]

Quote

Your poll is inadequate.

Feel free to start your own if this one doesn't suit you . . . OR (what a concept) you could just choose to ignore this poll since it doesn't meet your standards.

Quote

Main does not have to be cut away or entangled, for example if you had a total.

That's what "Other (please explain)" is for. The main malfunctioning (total or otherwise) is obviously the first step in the "double malfunction" scenario. The nature of the reserve malfunction required for the "double malfunction" label is the point of my poll, not how the main malfunctions.

Arrive Safely

John

[blackj 0]

I would consider a Double malfunction is where both the main and the reserve are unlandable and the reserve malfunction is not as a result of an entanglement with a malfuncting main. I.e. the jumper performed the deployment procedure and resulting emergency procedure correctly but both canopy malfunctioned.

[Andy9o8 2]

The most sensible and universally accurate definition is Tonto's in Post #3.

[strop45 0]

I also agree with Tonto, i.e. all of the above.

The only proviso is that the actions of the operator are such and are at sufficient altitude to allow a controllable canopy to be deployed. For example an initial lineover followed by a cutaway too low to allow the reserve to fully inflate would meet one of the above definitions but would NOT IMO be a double malfunction. Similarly a no pull (with or without an AAD) isn't a double malfunction.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein

[riggerrob 643]

I sort of agree with you.

I don't count it as a "double mal" if the victim pulled his reserve ripcord too low.

[tonka 2]

Quote

After a main malfunction, any reserve that does not pass a control check.

t

That is a perfect definition.

[DougH 270]

Anything that makes me want to track for my riggers car.

I agree with Tonto, anything wrong with the reserve the limits my ability to control it and land it safely.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

After a main malfunction, any reserve that does not pass a control check.

t

Bingo...and in my book that includes an entanglement.


I gotta question....how many people have HAD one?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[NeedToJump 0]

Quote

After a main malfunction, any reserve that does not pass a control check.

I also agree with this completely.

Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

All of the above! If you are unable to land your main canopy, it does not deploy at all (Total), have cutaway (or not in the case of a total), and your reserve does not open properly then it's a double. Whether or not you are successful in clearing the problem is besides the point.

One thing I can tell you FOR SURE, though, is that you don't want it to happen to you.

Chuck

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Main does not have to be cut away or entangled, for example if you had a total.

That's what "Other (please explain)" is for. The main malfunctioning (total or otherwise) is obviously the first step in the "double malfunction" scenario. The nature of the reserve malfunction required for the "double malfunction" label is the point of my poll, not how the main malfunctions.

That's what I did WITH the explanation you solicited.

I better understand your poll with your explanation, and FWIW I think Tonto nailed it, with the nit that you might have a nuisance mal or a low pull and not have time for a check after it clears, so 'would not pass' rather than 'does not pass', but that's pedantic I guess.

[OSOK 0]

slotperfect, I think options 4 and 3 are the same as 1. I think a poll that would show easier to categorize opinions will be "Main is cutaway; reserve does not open properly (no entanglement)" and "Main is cutaway; reserve entangles with main"

[slotperfect 7]

One of the problem with polls (for me at least) is that it is difficult to convey my ultimate intent in gathering the information when the poll is created without "steering" the results in one direction or another. Add the "can't please everyone" factor and it makes polls far from perfect.

I allowed multiple answers and left an "Other" option (as I always do) to try and make up for any unforeseen ambiguity.

So far, the poll is providing exactly what I was looking for . . . an international perspective, and different perspectives from within my own aero club (USPA). It is also revealing that many people consider a main/reserve entanglement a separate category of its own.

My own understanding of a double malfunction, coming from US Military Free Fall and USPA Group Member DZ experience, is similar to Tonto's, extracting a main/reserve entanglement as its own category of malfunction.

What this info has done for me is to 1) gain a better understanding of some very experienced opinions that double mals are "frequent" or "on the rise," and 2) help me filter any double malfunction statistics I see within various fatality summaries with the understanding that some reports include main/reserve entanglements in that category.

Arrive Safely

John

[WeakMindedFool 0]

All of the above!

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves.
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos

[bigtexan 0]

I would define a double malfunction as both shoots fail to function as would be expected.

[tbrown 26]

Anytime you don't end up with one (1) completely opened canopy. Some are entanglements, some are a malfunction or canopy damage after a cutaway. Some are survivable, some are not. None of them are pleasant to think about.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Quote

After a main malfunction, any reserve that does not pass a control check.

I would slightly alter this: "after a main malfunction AND CUTAWAY (unless it's a total), any reserve that does not pass a control check".

The difference in my mind is that a double-malfunction implies that the gear malfunctioned twice. If the main and reserve are entangled, then one or the other or both were deployed in a manner outside their design parameters. If your main has a horseshoe, or you fail to cutaway, or your cypres fires, or something else happens to entangle them it is the result of either a bad decision or bad luck, not a reserve malfunction.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[Tonto 1]

Agreed 100%.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[sd-slider 0]

Quote

I gotta question....how many people have HAD one?

Besides YOU?



.

Anvil Brother #69

Sidelined with a 5mm C5-C6 herniated disk...
Back2Back slammers and 40yr old fat guys don't mix!

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

Quote

I gotta question....how many people have HAD one?

Me. January 20th 2007