popsjumper 2 #26 February 5, 2013 From your post in the other thread: QuoteAlthough you weren't responding to me specifically, these are my sources, that suggest that leaving toggles stowed and using risers is best: -- Jim Cowan of CPS at PIA 2009 -- John Leblanc of CPS in a 2004 lecture -- the CSPA manual, FWIW (PIM 2 rewritten 2010) From USPA: "The landing with both brakes stowed option was added as an option in the SIM based on personal observations by some Board members of uneventful landings with brakes stowed on both canopies, and test jumps performed by Jim Cowan. The test jumps were not as extensive as the PIA dual square, but provided enough information that the Board wanted to include the information as an option." QuoteThese are in contrast to the Dual Square Report presented at the PIA in 1997, which mentions flying the front canopy in a biplane, or the 'dominant' canopy in a side by side, with gentle toggle input. (However, it never explicitly mentions releasing toggles,... I was under the impression that in order to fly with the toggles, you first had to unstow them. Quote.....what to do if certain toggles are released or not, or toggle positions for matching a canopy that has toggles set. Thus my opinion is that the toggles issue might not have been thought out as much at that time as in later publications.) I would not argue that except to ask...what other publications? QuoteThe USPA SIM basically follows the Dual Square Report, but is explicit about releasing toggles in order to steer. True dat. QuoteI tend towards preferring to keep the canopies slower if possible (if they aren't the less common type that is on the edge of stalling when brakes are set), but would agree that more evidence would be useful. Are you saying that if you release the brakes on one, then that one will uncontrollably out-fly the other wrto speed? Actually, with toggles you have more control. You have the option slow it down OR speed it up as necessary. Stalls are less likely.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleGobble 0 #27 February 5, 2013 QuoteThere seems to be a lot of discussion saying, "Disregard the GK testing and go with "XXX". The USPA including the riser flight in the SIM doesn't not negate the validity of toggle flight. There is no information saying risers are safer than toggles. From USPA: "The landing with both brakes stowed option was added as an option in the SIM based on personal observations by some Board members of uneventful landings with brakes stowed on both canopies, and test jumps performed by Jim Cowan. The test jumps were not as extensive as the PIA dual square, but provided enough information that the Board wanted to include the information as an option." PD did more testing than the GKs. If you are going to chop you'd better be damn sure that you won't risk entanglement. RSLs were noted as not being present during PDs testing and it provides an additional snag mechanism. Other things to consider are widely disparate canopy sizes. For instance my container will easily accomadate a 135 main (possibly 120) non-xbrace, and I have a 160 reserve. Altitude should change how you look at things as well as how shitty the landing area is that you are headed towards. If you have two out and they are flying stable ANY input can greatly effect flight characteristics. I'm not saying do nothing but I'd also argue that there are a alot of jumpers out there with extremely subpar canopy skills and a real lack of understanding. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. Just providing some more info and thoughts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #28 February 5, 2013 All this pre-planning is great, because there is very little time once you are in a self-downplane. We do a downplane with a 93 and a 101 JFX and it is roaring fast! Well above your normal descending canopy and ground rush easily at a thousand feet, you are just moving soooo fast! If you deploy at an altitude that your AAD creates a two-out, you will not have long to contemplate your future actions if a downplane occurs. Think about your actions and reactions clearly and calmly now, because time and response will be of the essence in those precious seconds. topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 279 #29 February 5, 2013 Risers vs toggles, me vs. popsjumper: I'll agree that the evidence isn't there to conclude that one method is correct, and the other utter crap -- even if we disagree on the degree to which one might be better than the other. I'll now reply to a popsjumper post in the Incidents thread which he deleted. There was some messiness there because the moderator's thread split wasn't done precisely: Quote From USPA: "The landing with both brakes stowed option was added as an option in the SIM based on personal observations by some Board members of uneventful landings with brakes stowed on both canopies, and test jumps performed by Jim Cowan. The test jumps were not as extensive as the PIA dual square, but provided enough information that the Board wanted to include the information as an option." Good catch -- I only noticed the parts saying to use toggles. I mentioned how the Dual Square Report didn't mention unstowing toggles, which I considered a problem. Pops wrote: QuoteI was under the impression that in order to fly with the toggles, you first had to unstow them. Indeed, but the point I was making is whether one SHOULD unstow them or not. It isn't uncommon for someone with a two out (especially back when pulling sliders down wasn't as common) to pop brakes before realizing they have a two out. Once that happens, the clear tendency is to steer with toggles. The way the Dual Square report referred to toggles, it was almost as if they assumed one popped toggles on one canopy, rather than having it as something to be investigated. Quote I would not argue that except to ask...what other publications? I meant the information I had already mentioned, that were created later than Dual Square. Such as lecture notes from Leblanc or Cowan, whether or not they were 'published' in a form accessible to all. Quote Are you saying that if you release the brakes on one, then that one will uncontrollably out-fly the other wrto speed? That could indeed need more investigation, and clearly depends on the canopies. Quote Actually, with toggles you have more control. You have the option slow it down OR speed it up as necessary. Stalls are less likely I'm not sure there'll be much of a problem with stalling with most canopies in brakes set -- although I could see for example questions about landing a two out of low wing loading in turbulent, high wind weather, whether more speed would be nice. The Dual Square Report doesn't explicitly mention how to use toggle control when say flying a side by side, whether to use full flight when not steering (which is normal in canopy flight) or not. I think that's a glaring omission in their rules of how to fly although you might say that it's natural to use brakes to get the canopies to fly together as best as possible. Both viewpoints could be correct. And yes, it is worth noting that if there is a canopy mismatch that might cause a problem with toggles set, popping a set of toggles might help to add extra control. Newer publications such as the CSPA PIM, do specifically note to use brakes to match canopy flight, if the brakes have been released on one canopy. I have no special insight in this whole topic but am trying to hash out details... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #30 February 5, 2013 Quote The Dual Square Report doesn't explicitly mention how to use toggle control when say flying a side by side, whether to use full flight when not steering (which is normal in canopy flight) or not. I think that's a glaring omission in their rules of how to fly although you might say that it's natural to use brakes to get the canopies to fly together as best as possible. Both viewpoints could be correct. Hence the problem with all of this (good point, BTW) Yes, sir, that's one problem with all this. ALL of it is opinion with the exception of the documented GK testing, No recommendation has yet provided all that detail and all have left open many options to debate. No other option has been shown to have been tested other than somebody saying, "S0-and-so did." Not adequate at all. Quote Both viewpoints could be correct. Exactly! Yet so many arguing that the one is "better" than the other. QuoteNewer publications such as the CSPA PIM, do specifically note to use brakes to match canopy flight, if the brakes have been released on one canopy In many ways, CSPA is waaaay ahead of USPA. QuoteI have no special insight in this whole topic but am trying to hash out details... Personally, I'm sticking with the tried and true...at least until other options have be adequately tested and proven workable in the long run. I'm open but there needs to be more than, "Joe thinks so." Regardless of who"Joe" is.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #31 February 5, 2013 QuoteThink about your actions and reactions clearly and calmly now and practice, because time and response will be of the essence in those precious seconds. top Bold = mine.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #32 February 5, 2013 Quote Quote I challenge anyone to show me evidence of a two out situation above 2500 feet. What about some PC in tow that ends up as two out? I've seen it once. It was way above 2,5k. My PC in tow was around 1800 , no AAD and the clock was runningWhen I pulled the reserve the main opened followed by the reserve. Gotta have a plan in advance.One Jump Wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #33 February 6, 2013 Quote Gotta have a plan in advance. Here's my 2 cents.... Find a CRW dawg and learn how to do a down plane. Start up high and bring it down low when your ready. Lotta good stuff here! Practice, Experience, Knowlege, Confidence..... they go hand in hand.Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ILUVCHUTERS 1 #34 February 7, 2013 I have also had one of those. About 1,500 feet or so once I was under two parachutes. Thankfully, nice, stable bi-plane and I had just taught FJC that day, so was quite current in two-out procedures. Talk about going the extra mile for a teaching moment though... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #35 February 20, 2013 QuoteThe Dual Square Report doesn't explicitly mention how to use toggle control when say flying a side by side, whether to use full flight when not steering (which is normal in canopy flight) or not. I think that's a glaring omission in their rules of how to fly .... Well, it's not a training tool and wasn't intended to be. The report is not a set of "rules" either. Simply an investigation. That kind of stuff is for your training group to develop. At one time, it was saying... "Release the brakes on the dominant canopy, steer very gently and land with no flare." Yes, yes...for the two, not the downplane. It's up to the trainer to explain what "gently" means. But yes, if the testing was intended to develop specific procedures and training tools, then yes, it fell somewhat short of that.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
