Some good news

Ramy - Not sure who landed first, as I only saw the glider for the first two rotations of the parachute. Last time i saw it, i was ahead on the way down.

flubber - The key element you are missing in that thought process is the ability to see the terrain coming. In that location, much of the mountain tops were completely in the clouds, so determining when to pull up and how to aim could have been impossible. As many other alluded to, i probably was more predisposed to jump due to my experiences and having a much cheaper ship than most. Chances are, if i had come out from the clouds under control, i probably would have tried to put it down on rt 16, in the wildcat parking lot, or someplace similar. All of those probably would have resulted in similar amounts of damage to the glider.

I knew full well that a bailout would involve the risk of breaking bones, puncture wounds, and being stranded in the woods. To me, those are all far more comforting than the thought of entering trees with a pair of 11" metal spars buckling behind my head and not knowing what was coming through the canopy. When i crashed, it was only 1300 local, so it wasn't really that late in the day.
Chris

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 10:19:56 PM UTC-5, Christopher Giacomo wrote:

flubber - The key element you are missing in that thought process is the ability to see the terrain coming. In that location, much of the mountain tops were completely in the clouds, so determining when to pull up and how to aim could have been impossible.

I think I will just opt out of wet wave.

That said, flying or parachuting into the trees is still a possibility, so I will pursue tree self rescue kit and training https://www.towmeup.com/about/tree-self-rescue/

Chris, please explain "two rotations of the parachute". Were you
steering the chute in circles, and if so, why, or was this uncommanded?
Were you using a round canopy or ram air? What did you jump with
previously?

Glad nobody suggested having a glass panel with synthetic vision...

On 11/7/2015 8:19 PM, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
Ramy - Not sure who landed first, as I only saw the glider for the first two rotations of the parachute. Last time i saw it, i was ahead on the way down.

flubber - The key element you are missing in that thought process is the ability to see the terrain coming. In that location, much of the mountain tops were completely in the clouds, so determining when to pull up and how to aim could have been impossible. As many other alluded to, i probably was more predisposed to jump due to my experiences and having a much cheaper ship than most. Chances are, if i had come out from the clouds under control, i probably would have tried to put it down on rt 16, in the wildcat parking lot, or someplace similar. All of those probably would have resulted in similar amounts of damage to the glider.

I knew full well that a bailout would involve the risk of breaking bones, puncture wounds, and being stranded in the woods. To me, those are all far more comforting than the thought of entering trees with a pair of 11" metal spars buckling behind my head and not knowing what was coming through the canopy. When i crashed, it was only 1300 local, so it wasn't really that late in the day.
Chris

--
Dan, 5J

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 10:49:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Chris, please explain "two rotations of the parachute".* Were you
steering the chute in circles, and if so, why, or was this
uncommanded?* Were you using a round canopy or ram air?* What did
you jump with previously?

Dan, 5J

Dan,
I was using a security 350, which i believe is a round chute. I was trying to steer it downwind to get closer to the road, but could not pull down on the left riser, as that hand had a death grip on my nano. As a result, i was steering using the right riser by accelerating the turn when going into the wind and relaxing when running with the wind. All of my previous jumps were done with steerable rectangular chutes with steering toggles... a bit easier to steer.

Chris

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 10:49:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Chris, please explain "two rotations of the parachute".* Were you
steering the chute in circles, and if so, why, or was this
uncommanded?* Were you using a round canopy or ram air?* What did
you jump with previously?

Dan, 5J

Dan,
I was using a security 350, which i believe is a round chute. I was trying to steer it downwind to get closer to the road, but could not pull down on the left riser, as that hand had a death grip on my nano. As a result, i was steering using the right riser by accelerating the turn when going into the wind and relaxing when running with the wind. All of my previous jumps were done with steerable rectangular chutes with steering toggles... a bit easier to steer.

Chris

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-6, Christopher Giacomo wrote:

"I was trying to steer it downwind to get closer to the road, but could not pull down on the left riser, as that hand had a death grip on my nano."

First, congrats on making the right decisions in time to save your butt.

But really, you were hanging on to your logger instead of steering your chute with both hands, into trees?

Probably not the best decision, but better lucky than good, after all :^)

When I went through bailout/ejection training in the AF, there was heavy emphasis on throwing away the D-ring after pulling it - life support always said if we really wanted a D-ring that bad they would give us one!

So, perhaps a little lesson to be re-learned by all of us who wear an emergency chute: DON'T HANG ON TO THE STUPID D-RING! Pull it, throw it away, then concentrate on using BOTH hands to steer your chute.

OLC points are really not worth it - and most loggers will survive a crash anyway.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

(PS: Of course, extra style points for putting the Nano in a pocket while in freefall...that's what James Bond would do!)

Interesting update today...
After further review, the NTSB has upgraded the whole ordeal from an "incident" to an Accident, requiring the FAA (who they have hardly been on speaking terms with and refused to send any documentation to) to complete a bunch more paperwork and sign off on my remedial training.

The reason? The FAA/NTSB definition for an accident is an event that causes major structural damage to the aircraft. In my case, they deemed the wing and empanage damage to be minor and non-structural. I swear i'm not making this up, but it is now an accident because when the empty sailplane hit the trees upside-down, the battery most likely smashed the forward canopy, which the NTSB determined to be a "structural" component of the aircraft... Yes, that thin piece of lexan that was cobbled into a loose aluminum frame was considered to be "structural."

I think what really happened is there was some inter-agency fighting and my accident got caught in the middle of the ****ing contest. You can know something is absurd when you have the FAA trying to call BS on your behalf...

Still no word on the salvage sale.

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 4:39:43 PM UTC-5, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
Interesting update today...
After further review, the NTSB has upgraded the whole ordeal from an "incident" to an Accident, requiring the FAA (who they have hardly been on speaking terms with and refused to send any documentation to) to complete a bunch more paperwork and sign off on my remedial training.

The reason? The FAA/NTSB definition for an accident is an event that causes major structural damage to the aircraft. In my case, they deemed the wing and empanage damage to be minor and non-structural. I swear i'm not making this up, but it is now an accident because when the empty sailplane hit the trees upside-down, the battery most likely smashed the forward canopy, which the NTSB determined to be a "structural" component of the aircraft... Yes, that thin piece of lexan that was cobbled into a loose aluminum frame was considered to be "structural."

I think what really happened is there was some inter-agency fighting and my accident got caught in the middle of the ****ing contest. You can know something is absurd when you have the FAA trying to call BS on your behalf....

Still no word on the salvage sale.

"We're from the government, we're here to help you....".......

"Run away, very fast, very far...."

Look at the bright side, you're still here to comment on this. Glad to see that.

Hope 2016 is better for you.

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-6, Christopher Giacomo wrote:

"I was trying to steer it downwind to get closer to the road, but could not pull down on the left riser, as that hand had a death grip on my nano."

First, congrats on making the right decisions in time to save your butt.

But really, you were hanging on to your logger instead of steering your chute with both hands, into trees?

Probably not the best decision, but better lucky than good, after all :^)

When I went through bailout/ejection training in the AF, there was heavy emphasis on throwing away the D-ring after pulling it - life support always said if we really wanted a D-ring that bad they would give us one!

So, perhaps a little lesson to be re-learned by all of us who wear an emergency chute: DON'T HANG ON TO THE STUPID D-RING! Pull it, throw it away, then concentrate on using BOTH hands to steer your chute.

OLC points are really not worth it - and most loggers will survive a crash anyway.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

(PS: Of course, extra style points for putting the Nano in a pocket while in freefall...that's what James Bond would do!)

i agree with the james bondness, from what i understand though, there is no steering the round chutes. you are basically gonna land where you land no matter what, and the only thing you have control over is using the correct touchdown procedure(knees bent, feet together, tuck and roll thing.

On another day a couple gliders were in wave when a slug of moisture closed the windows trapping them on top. One turned down wind and rode the undulations to drier air in Maine and landed.

If the weather situation described is a possibility (which in this case it was) and one possible outcome is to be left with no option but to bail out (which in this it was), then why are pilots engaging in the activity?