Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
RSL's-Again

 


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 9:34 AM
Post #1 of 183 (3238 views)
Shortcut
     RSL's-Again  

RSLís-Again

What I know about RSLís:

They will only help you if:

1) You lose altitude awareness.
2) You are very, very low with your main out and cutaway.
3) You fail to deploy your reserve immediately after cutting away your main when you are very low.

An RSL can hurt you if:

1) You cutaway and do not fail to deploy your reserve in time.

99% of cutaways fall into the latter category.

You can avoid being in a situation where an RSL would help you by;

1) Maintaining altitude awareness.
2) Jumping an appropriate canopy for your experience and skill level.
3) Understanding and being prepared for violent malfunctions that lose altitude rapidly if you do jump s HP canopy.

One main cause of canopy malfunctions is poor body position. Some manufacturerís recommend a slightly head high attitude when deploying the reserve to assist the reserve pilot chute launch. This is different from on your back spinning. A skydiverís arms, legs, and head all present snag points for the reserve pilot chute. If the pilot chute must go past the appendages, there exists a risk of entanglement. If the jumper is unstable, it increases the potential for the canopy to malfunction.

If you do not have enough altitude to get stable after cutting away, you either;

1) Deployed your main too low.
2) Rode a malfunctioning main too long.
3) Failed to get hard riser inserts and maintain your 3-rings and cutaway cables creating a hard cutaway.

All 3 of these are very easy to avoid, making being low in freefall easy to avoid.

So, in conclusion, an RSL can help 1% of the time, in situations that can be easily avoided, and hurt you 99% of the time. The RSL doesnít know if you are low or not. If it Ďarmedí itself at, say 750 feet, it would be a great device. But is doesnít. It is armed unless you disconnect it.

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Aug 22, 2005, 9:56 AM)


Premier skydiverek  (C 41769)

Aug 22, 2005, 9:43 AM
Post #2 of 183 (3217 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Skyhook baby, Skyhook!


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 22, 2005, 9:48 AM
Post #3 of 183 (3209 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>So, in conclusion, an RSL can help 1% of the time, in situations
>that can be easily avoided, and hurt you 99% of the time.

This is an extremely misleading statement, akin to a BASE jumper saying that a reserve helps you 1% of the time and can hurt you 99% of the time. An RSL does nothing 99.9% of the time during a cutaway. It usually gets the reserve out slightly faster, a negligible factor on most cutaways. In a small percentage of cutaways, it saves the life of the jumper who fails to open his reserve in time. In a much, much smaller percentage of cutaways it causes a problem. We don't read about RSL saves because - well, they're not that newsworthy, and sort of embarassing for the jumper involved. But if we were to remove all RSL's from jumper's rigs we would see a big increase in fatalities due to low cutaways. Older fatality summaries support this.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 9:54 AM
Post #4 of 183 (3197 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
An RSL does nothing 99.9% of the time during a cutaway. It usually gets the reserve out slightly faster, a negligible factor on most cutaways. In a small percentage of cutaways, it saves the life of the jumper who fails to open his reserve in time. In a much, much smaller percentage of cutaways it causes a problem.

And the rest of the time, the other 98% of the time, it doesn't help the jumper after a cutaway because they would have depoloyed the reserve just fine on their own and been stable when they did.

Quote:
We don't read about RSL saves because - well, they're not that newsworthy, and sort of embarassing for the jumper involved. But if we were to remove all RSL's from jumper's rigs we would see a big increase in fatalities due to low cutaways. Older fatality summaries support this.

Seems like a poor trade off to me. Kill some to save some more. From a purely numbers point of view, it makes sense. A safety device shouldn't cause a problem any more than a neglible, freak occurance precentage. If airbags had the same precentages as RSL's, they wouldn't be very popular.

In the vast majority of cutaways where the jumper has an RSL, it doen't help and could hurt the jumper.

Derek


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 22, 2005, 10:01 AM
Post #5 of 183 (3191 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>And the rest of the time, the other 98% of the time, it doesn't help
>the jumper after a cutaway because they would have depoloyed the
> reserve just fine on their own and been stable when they did.

Uh, right. Like I said, an RSL does nothing 99.9% of the time during a cutaway.

>Seems like a poor trade off to me. Kill some to save some more.
> From a purely numbers point of view, it makes sense. A safety
> device shouldn't cause a problem any more than a neglible, freak
> occurance precentage. If airbags had the same precentages as
> RSL's, they wouldn't be very popular.

Airbags have killed over 250 people in the past 15 years. And they're worse in a lot of ways - you can't disable the driver side airbag in most vehicles; you can disconnect the RSL if you want to.

>In the vast majority of cutaways where the jumper has an RSL, it
>doen't help and could hurt the jumper.

You got that backwards. In the vast majority of cutaways with an RSL, it doesn't hurt and could help the jumper.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 10:07 AM
Post #6 of 183 (3185 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
In the vast majority of cutaways with an RSL, it doesn't hurt and could help the jumper.

That would mean in the vast majority of cutaways;

1) The jumper lost altitude awareness.
2) The jumper is very, very low with their main out and cutaway.
3) They fail to deploy Their reserve immediately after cutting away their main when their are very low.

Otherwise, they didn't need the help and are increasing their odds of a reserve malfunction witht he RSL deploying their reserve while they are not stable.

I think the vast majority of cutaways are not very low with the jumper failing to deploy their reserve in time. Therefore, the vast majority of cutaways where the jumper has an RSL, the RSL only serves to increase their odds of a resreve malfunction and was unnessary, i.e. the jumper would have been fine without it.

Derek


jlmiracle  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 10:15 AM
Post #7 of 183 (3173 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Hook - what about the other bad situations where an RSL will hurt you more than help such as jumps with a camera and doing CRW.

AND it MAY have been a factor in the latest incident.

Judy


(This post was edited by jlmiracle on Aug 22, 2005, 10:18 AM)


Premier skydiverek  (C 41769)

Aug 22, 2005, 10:16 AM
Post #8 of 183 (3171 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Gentlemen, start your engines Unimpressed!


tombuch  (D 8514)

Aug 22, 2005, 10:38 AM
Post #9 of 183 (3146 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Let's not just say RSL's are great or they suck. The benefits are very clear for low time jumpers and less so for advanced jumpers with high performance canopies.

I'm a massive supporter of RSL's for everybody with less than a couple of hundred jumps, and not so solid on RSL's for very experienced jumpers, although I do use one myself. The debate isn't Good vs Evil, but who will be best served by an RSL and why.


rigging65  (D 21921)

Aug 22, 2005, 11:24 AM
Post #10 of 183 (3112 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

IMO, that's a little bit like saying seatbelts are useless because they only help about 1% of the time. True, MANY vehicle accidents don't require a seat belt to remain safe, and there are certainly incidents where seatbelts have killed or at least badly hurt people.

BUT...when you need it, if it's not on, you're screwed. That's the way I look at RSLs. They have positives and negatives, and if you're 'on the ball' and not incapacitated, you'll most likely be just fine without one. But, if things aren't just perfect, then it's probably going to save your life.

Besides, it's really easy to sit down and say "don't lose altitude awareness" , "don't get incapacitated", etc.

No one goes out the door thinking "I'll try and lose altitude awareness on this jump and separate my shoulder"...


jlmiracle  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 12:08 PM
Post #11 of 183 (3094 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [rigging65] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
But, if things aren't just perfect, then it's probably going to save your life.

Did you read the last incident report?

j


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 22, 2005, 12:16 PM
Post #12 of 183 (3090 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>>In the vast majority of cutaways with an RSL, it doesn't hurt and
>> could help the jumper.


>That would mean in the vast majority of cutaways;

>1) The jumper lost altitude awareness.
>2) The jumper is very, very low with their main out and cutaway.
>3) They fail to deploy Their reserve immediately after cutting away their main when their are very low.

No it doesn't. It means that in the vast majority of cutaways:

1) it doesn't hurt the jumper.

>Therefore, the vast majority of cutaways where the jumper has an
> RSL, the RSL only serves to increase their odds of a resreve
> malfunction and was unnessary, i.e. the jumper would have been
> fine without it.

If your angle is that "the RSL increases someone's odds of a reserve mal" then it is just as true that "the RSL increases someone's odds of survival during a cutaway." If you want to qualify all those statements, that's fine, but overall an RSL still increases your odds of surviving - for an average skydiver on an average sport rig. If you choose not to use one, and are OK with the additional risk, that's also fine.


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 12:48 PM
Post #13 of 183 (3065 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Would you mind discussing the SkyHook RSL in the same context? I'm just curious if you'd lump it together with other RSLs and are including it in your opinion, or if you'd separate it out as having different pros and cons and what you see them as (especially the cons).

Also, for those that use 2 hands to cut away (whether taught that way or need to do it that way because of the required force), doesn't an RSL help in cases where the jumper may have trouble locating the reserve handle? People end up low very quickly when they start tugging on their big ring or something else.

How about the RSL getting the reserve open at a higher altitude preventing some off landings which could be hazardous? Again, might make little difference with one hand per handle... but a significant difference if it takes a moment to locate the reserve handle after cutting away.

One more... I've never had a cutaway so I can't speak from experience, but I did hear a cutaway story where the jumper had some trouble getting stable after the cutaway. Flung off from a spinning mal with his left hand on his reserve handle, he found it difficult to get stable. He got stable with enough altitude and was fine. He also could have pulled unstable. But on your back, with only one free arm(which is presumably holding a cutaway pad), at less than terminal speeds, with your altimeter possibly difficult to see while you're holding your reserve handle, how hard is it to lose altitude awareness while trying to get stable? Not for you... for someone more like me...

Dave


(This post was edited by pilotdave on Aug 22, 2005, 12:53 PM)


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Aug 22, 2005, 12:52 PM
Post #14 of 183 (3061 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Derek - this argument might be more compelling if you didn't make up all the statistics to support your conclusion. Normally these threads at least have real metrics, albeit grossly manipulated ones.


FrogNog  (C 34484)

Aug 22, 2005, 12:54 PM
Post #15 of 183 (3059 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

This is my pedantism minute:
Hook, can you attach a spreadsheet of the cutaways you aggregated to get 99%/1%? And can you describe the metric for a cutaway-and-reserve-deployment that was executed "in time"?


Darius11  (C License)

Aug 22, 2005, 1:19 PM
Post #16 of 183 (3044 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I donít see what the huge discussion is.
If you have an RSL and have time you can disconnect it so you can be stable for your reserve deployment.
If you donít have enough time to disconnect the RSl then you probably should not discounted as every second counts.

I can reach mine in 1 sec and discounacted in half more.


hookitt  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 1:23 PM
Post #17 of 183 (3038 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Darius11] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
I can reach mine in 1 sec and discounacted in half more.

Just wait till your first real spinner. Epecially one that flings you in to line twists and then starts spiraling.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 1:27 PM
Post #18 of 183 (3035 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [rigging65] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
IMO, that's a little bit like saying seatbelts are useless because they only help about 1% of the time. True, MANY vehicle accidents don't require a seat belt to remain safe, and there are certainly incidents where seatbelts have killed or at least badly hurt people.

Seatbelts are completely different. How often is someone injured in an accident because they were wearing a seatbelt? Not very often, not enough to worry about being harmed by your seatbelt. Can it happen? Sure, but the chances are very remote. You are far better off wearing a seatbelt in any accident that not. You are not far better off with an RSL with a malfunctioning main than you are with one.

Lets take 100 RSL-equipped malfunctions.

How many of those will the jumper will altitude awareness, cutaway very low and not have pulled their reserve in time?

How many of those will the jumper execute their emergency procedures just fine and not need the RSL to pull their reserve for them?

How many of those just above where they didn't need the RSL will the reserve have line twists or malfunction because the RSL initiated the reserve deployment while the jumper was unstable?

Derek


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 1:31 PM
Post #19 of 183 (3031 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
If your angle is that "the RSL increases someone's odds of a reserve mal" then it is just as true that "the RSL increases someone's odds of survival during a cutaway."

I disagree. Immediately after a cutaway, it is likely that the jumper will be unstable. Unstable deployments is a cause of malfunctions. The RSL results in unstable reserve deployments.

The only time that is acceptable is when the jumper is so low that a malfunctioning reserve or line twists are much better than hitting the ground with nothing.

Derek


Darius11  (C License)

Aug 22, 2005, 1:32 PM
Post #20 of 183 (3029 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [hookitt] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I know I have never had a real spinner so youíre right maybe when I do have one I will change my mind.
But if I really donít have 1.5 secs to disconnect an RSL would I have enough time to get stable from spinning on my back and then pull? I donít know I am asking the guys who have had spinners on their backs and have cutaway with out an RSL how long does it take to get stable?


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 1:43 PM
Post #21 of 183 (3021 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Would you mind discussing the SkyHook RSL in the same context? I'm just curious if you'd lump it together with other RSLs and are including it in your opinion, or if you'd separate it out as having different pros and cons and what you see them as (especially the cons).

The Skyhook is completely different since it does not increase the odds of a reserve malfunction. The only con I see with it is the increased complexity it adds to the reserve system. It isn't difficult to put together though.

Quote:
Also, for those that use 2 hands to cut away (whether taught that way or need to do it that way because of the required force),

A properly built and maintained 3-ring system should never require more than one hand to pull. I have several cutaways on violently spinning, highly loaded canopies. All were easy to cutaway with one hand. If someone chooses the 2-hands per handle method, they accept the downside of having to then get a hand on the reserve handle in time.

Quote:
How about the RSL getting the reserve open at a higher altitude preventing some off landings which could be hazardous? Again, might make little difference with one hand per handle... but a significant difference if it takes a moment to locate the reserve handle after cutting away.

If you are jumping in an area where off-DZ landings are hazardous, pull high enough to recognize a mal, cutaway, get under the reserve and find a safe off-DZ landing area. The flip side of the coin is the RSL cause the reserve to have line twists, which isn't going to help the jumper get to a safe off-DZ landing area. The jumper can always pull their resrve as soon after their cutaway as they wish.

Quote:
One more... I've never had a cutaway so I can't speak from experience, but I did hear a cutaway story where the jumper had some trouble getting stable after the cutaway. Flung off from a spinning mal with his left hand on his reserve handle, he found it difficult to get stable. He got stable with enough altitude and was fine. He also could have pulled unstable. But on your back, with only one free arm(which is presumably holding a cutaway pad), at less than terminal speeds, with your altimeter possibly difficult to see while you're holding your reserve handle, how hard is it to lose altitude awareness while trying to get stable? Not for you... for someone more like me...

Look down. You can always see the ground, regardless of your attitude in freefall. If you can't judge altitude by looking down, work on it, as your altimeter will eventually fail you. I had mine fall off during deployment once. Also, it isn't hard to get stable withg one hand on your reserve handle. Try it in freefall to see. You can do anything with one arm and be perfectly stable.

Derek


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 1:46 PM
Post #22 of 183 (3018 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Darius11] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
If you have an RSL and have time you can disconnect it so you can be stable for your reserve deployment.
If you donít have enough time to disconnect the RSl then you probably should not discounted as every second counts.

I can reach mine in 1 sec and discounacted in half more.

Try that during a malfunction. No way. Plus why complicate your emergency procedures? You are adding another handle to the system. What if you spend so much time trying to disconnect it that by the time you do get it, you now need it?

Derek


wmw999  (D 6296)

Aug 22, 2005, 1:46 PM
Post #23 of 183 (3018 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I think you're combining best-case with worst-case scenarios willy-nilly.
Quote:
only help you if:
1) You lose altitude awareness.
2) You are very, very low with your main out and cutaway.
3) You fail to deploy your reserve immediately after cutting away your main when you are very low.
I'm not sure if you mean to AND or OR these (hopefully it was an OR). Either way, the real statement is that an RSL can help you if you cut away and fail to deploy your reserve in time.
Quote:
RSL can hurt you if:
1) You cutaway and do not fail to deploy your reserve in time.
However, without quantifying the likelihood of an RSL hurting you in the second category, and without quantifying the likelihood of the first category, you're comparing apples and oranges.
Quote:
So, in conclusion, an RSL can help 1% of the time, in situations that can be easily avoided, and hurt you 99% of the time.
This statement should probably be re-worded as "an RSL will save your life if (xxx) and has a small possibility of hurting you if (xxx).

Now you can go into the reasons why someone might be low. But it's just as easy to say (excluding camera, equipment, and CRW jumps) that someone who's cutting away should automatically as they cut away be arching, as it is to say that it's really really easy never to be low cutting away.

I'm not one to convince people to put RSLs on. I have far more jumps without than with. But the logic in here is faulty, and it's much better to argue with good logic.

Wendy W.


(This post was edited by wmw999 on Aug 22, 2005, 1:47 PM)


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 1:56 PM
Post #24 of 183 (3005 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I hate to do it, but compare your anti-RSL argument with an argument againt AADs. An AAD is FAR FAR FAR more likely to cause a 2-out than ever save anyones life. Pulling high enough prevents both 2-out situations (caused by AAD fires) and also death by not pulling.

It's easy to say don't go low and you don't need an AAD. On probably 99.99% of jumps, the AAD neither hurts nor helps, but the chances of it hurting are better than the chances of it helping. But of course we all have em "just in case."

So with RSLs, sure, they don't help or hurt on most cutaways. They CAN hurt, but we use em "just in case."

Question: When the SkyHook gets licensed to other manufacturers, do you think it will virtually replace the RSL?

Dave


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 1:56 PM
Post #25 of 183 (3004 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [wmw999] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

For example, I have 14 cutaways. None with an RSL. So, if I did have an RSL, I would not have needed it, since I am here today. Now if I would have had an RSL for those 14 reserve rides, it may have caused my reserve to malfunction. Not very likely, but possible. No help, but could have caused a problem.

Derek


wmw999  (D 6296)

Aug 22, 2005, 1:59 PM
Post #26 of 183 (1261 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I have about 5 cutaways. One with an RSL (plenty of altutide). I'm still here, so obviously I didn't need it. Equally obviously, it didn't hurt me the time it did come into play.

At least one of the other cutaways had me opening my reserve while heading to my back (I'd just transitioned from conventional gear and old habits kicked in). So opening unstable is also not a guarantee.

Wendy W.


dragonfyr  (D 22012)

Aug 22, 2005, 2:00 PM
Post #27 of 183 (1260 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Darius11] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I know I have never had a real spinner so youíre right maybe when I do have one I will change my mind.
But if I really donít have 1.5 secs to disconnect an RSL would I have enough time to get stable from spinning on my back and then pull? I donít know I am asking the guys who have had spinners on their backs and have cutaway with out an RSL how long does it take to get stable?
In reply to:

From my experience, you will not have the time or the mindset to try and disconnect a small clip on your shoulder during a high speed spinner. My spinner happened fast and you lose altitude even faster.

The key is, why wait to get stable? If you know you are low, get the reserve out! Getting stable is a nice-ity, not a necessity for a reserve deployment. There have been many threads discussing this already. I know I was not stable after my cutaway, but I knew I was low. I chopped and pulled my reserve handle within 1 second of my cutaway. My reserve opened perfect with no twists or anything. This is what they are designed to do.

IMO, RSLs are great for students and low experience jumpers. I agree with Tom though that once you have a couple hundred jumps, you can make your own call. I prefer to jump without one because I know I will get my reserve out fast and I personally want to get a little separation from my main.

Don


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 2:00 PM
Post #28 of 183 (1260 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
I hate to do it, but compare your anti-RSL argument with an argument againt AADs. An AAD is FAR FAR FAR more likely to cause a 2-out than ever save anyones life.

If you are that low, going that fast, you deserve what you get. If AAD fires causeing 2-outs killed an appreciable number of jumpers/year, less people would jump with an AAD. As it is, they are rare, kind of like being killed by a seatbelt or airbag.

Derek


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 2:07 PM
Post #29 of 183 (1256 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [wmw999] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
I have about 5 cutaways. One with an RSL (plenty of altutide). I'm still here, so obviously I didn't need it. Equally obviously, it didn't hurt me the time it did come into play.

An RSl-deployed reserve is not a guaranteed line twists/malfunctioning reserve, but it can. Why chance it if you donít need it?

Quote:
At least one of the other cutaways had me opening my reserve while heading to my back (I'd just transitioned from conventional gear and old habits kicked in). So opening unstable is also not a guarantee.

Nope, no guarantees, but it is well known that deploying unstable is a primary cause of malfunctions. Why open unstable if you donít have too? You can always still fire off the reserve unstable if you are out of altitude.

I think people focus too much on stuff like RSLís and not enough on proper gear selection, maintenance, training, etc.

Derek


wmw999  (D 6296)

Aug 22, 2005, 2:11 PM
Post #30 of 183 (1252 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
I think people focus too much on stuff like RSLís and not enough on proper gear selection, maintenance, training, etc.
I think you're dead on there. It's a system. If people focus on how the system pieces work and interact, they have a much better chance of remembering it in a pinch.
But they'd rather get packers Unimpressed

As far as the RSL is concerned, I'm betting my life that I'm more likely to end up in a basement situation than to end up in an entanglement situation. I've been around a long time, and for the kind of jumper I am, that's probably a decent bet. Hopefully I'll never find out, because hopefully it's the difference between .0X percent and .0X/2 percent.

Wendy W.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 22, 2005, 2:12 PM
Post #31 of 183 (1249 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

> Now if I would have had an RSL for those 14 reserve rides, it may
> have caused my reserve to malfunction. Not very likely, but
> possible. No help, but could have caused a problem.

I have not had a malfunction in the past 5 years. I could therefore conclude with great certainty that my reserve did nothing to help me over the past five years, and only could have hurt me. Again, that's a very misleading statement; it would be foolish to use it to recommend that people not jump with reserves.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 2:16 PM
Post #32 of 183 (1244 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
I have not had a malfunction in the past 5 years. I could therefore conclude with great certainty that my reserve did nothing to help me over the past five years, and only could have hurt me. Again, that's a very misleading statement; it would be foolish to use it to recommend that people not jump with reserves.

How could having an RSL helped me?

How could the RSL have made things worse for me?

Derek


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 2:18 PM
Post #33 of 183 (1244 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kelpdiver] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Derek - this argument might be more compelling if you didn't make up all the statistics to support your conclusion. Normally these threads at least have real metrics, albeit grossly manipulated ones.

OK, give me the numbers.

Derek


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 22, 2005, 2:22 PM
Post #34 of 183 (1240 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>How could having an RSL helped me?
>How could the RSL have made things worse for me?

The same way a reserve could have helped me/made things worse for me.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 2:24 PM
Post #35 of 183 (1238 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
The same way a reserve could have helped me/made things worse for me.

I don't understand what you mean. Your reserve could have caused your reserve to malfunction the same way an RSL could have cause my reserve to malfunction?

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Aug 22, 2005, 2:25 PM)


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Aug 22, 2005, 2:44 PM
Post #36 of 183 (1245 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Quote:
Derek - this argument might be more compelling if you didn't make up all the statistics to support your conclusion. Normally these threads at least have real metrics, albeit grossly manipulated ones.

OK, give me the numbers.

It's your argument. It was your choice to make up numbers.

At the end you mentioned 14 cutaways. That's better. But your claim that an RSL would have made no contribution and might have instead hurt you came after the fact, and you provided no evidence that your experience would extend to the jumping population.

But there are often tradeoffs to make in emergency proceedures. As Bill suggested, in the aggregate the skydiving world is better off with the RSL than without. I suspect 'numbers' exist that will back that.

Clear exceptions exist, and if you're sure you're an exceptional skydiver, you have the choice to not use it. Most of your argument that wasn't not thin air number based was about not getting into a bad situation where the RSL's speed might matter. Which is great up until the person screws up.

This conversation is quite similar to one I read last week in a diving forum about whether or not it was worse to donate the primary regulator to an out of air person underwater. Someone had a long list of worst case scenarios that made it better to him to donate the secondary. Struck me as seeing 3 trees and missing the forest. Akin to yanking the RSL because of a fear of the wrong mini riser breaking.


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 2:49 PM
Post #37 of 183 (1241 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
If you are that low, going that fast, you deserve what you get.

People screw up. Happens all the time. I personally don't believe people deserve to die for making a mistake. Sure, that's a BIG mistake which SHOULD have killed them. They deserve a really hard reserve opening that leaves em sore for days, a grounding at the very least, etc.

How many people die per year due to RSLs? How many people die that MAY have been saved if they had an RSL? I bet more die that could have been saved than die directly because of the RSL, on average.

Dave


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 2:54 PM
Post #38 of 183 (1235 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
People screw up. Happens all the time. I personally don't believe people deserve to die for making a mistake.

I don't think they deserve to die either. They do deserve 2-out, which isn't likely to kill them.

Quote:
How many people die per year due to RSLs? How many people die that MAY have been saved if they had an RSL? I bet more die that could have been saved than die directly because of the RSL, on average.

The numbers don't exist. It would be nice if they did.

But is saving more than it kills enough? What should the minumum help/hinder ratio be?

Derek


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 3:06 PM
Post #39 of 183 (1228 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
But is saving more than it kills enough? What should the minumum help/hinder ratio be?

If the numbers are skewed far in favor of help over hinder, sure. I don't know what the number has to be. I'm searching the fatality reports now to get some idea. Would you count all incidents where the RSL may have contributed to reserve line twists which endd up killing the jumper? No way to know the jumpers would have tried to get stable before pulling, and no way to know if they would have pulled too low trying to get stable...

Dave


mattjw916  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 3:09 PM
Post #40 of 183 (1225 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

But if more people used RSLs, I'd bet that we'd see a LOT more RSL incidents.

The problem is the people who think that if they have the latest safety widget installed on their rig, they are somehow "safer" than the rest of us. They aren't. It is undeniable that RSLs complicate a relatively straight forward process, i.e. chop main, deploy reserve, excluding a couple rare exceptions.

I'm quite comfortable without an RSL. Even if Derek's numbers were 70-30 or 60-40, I still don't think the merits of an RSL warrant the additional risks.

This sport requires you to have your shit together on every jump, if anyone thinks they need an RSL to be "safe", that sets off a huge red flag IMO. And yes, I know many people that won't jump without an AAD and an RSL on their rig, period.


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 3:43 PM
Post #41 of 183 (1223 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mattjw916] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
I'm quite comfortable without an RSL.

I am willing to bet that every jumper that has ever gone in without an AAD was quite comfortable without an AAD. I don't see how comfort matters.

An RSL is for the worst times, not the best times. When you find yourself cutting away at 500 feet for whatever reason, let me know how comfortable you are. Of course you never plan to do something so stupid. Neither did all those people whose fatality reports say "an RSL may have helped..."

You think you're better than them. I don't know anything about them so I see no reason to think I'm any different.

Dave


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 22, 2005, 3:49 PM
Post #42 of 183 (1216 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>I don't understand what you mean.

You claimed that during your 14 cutaways you never needed an RSL so it couldn't have helped you, but it might have done something bad and injured/killed you. In the past 5 years I never needed my reserve, so a reserve couldn't have helped me. Had it deployed accidentally (say, on the step) it could have killed me. Using your logic, I might conclude that having a reserve is therefore dangerous.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 3:51 PM
Post #43 of 183 (1211 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Apples and oranges. How could an RSL have helped me on those 14 mals?

Your reserve would have been a great help if your main had mal'd.

Derek


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 3:55 PM
Post #44 of 183 (1210 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
How could an RSL have helped me on those 14 mals?

Why bother writing all these posts about statistics and whatever if you simply believe that an RSL is absolutely useless. Just say so.

Dave


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 4:00 PM
Post #45 of 183 (1205 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Why bother writing all these posts about statistics and whatever if you simply believe that an RSL is absolutely useless. Just say so.

Because that would miss the point. Why is everything. My point is RSL's aren't useless, but their benefits don't outweight their problems.

The best analogy I can think of is the airbags one. If airbags fired when you put the brake petal to the floor, few people would use them. But because they only fire in the event of a collisions, they are widely used and work very well.

RSL's activate the reserve regardless if it is the right thing to do at the time or not.

Derek


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Aug 22, 2005, 4:01 PM
Post #46 of 183 (1204 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mattjw916] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
But if more people used RSLs, I'd bet that we'd see a LOT more RSL incidents.

Do we have any guesstimates on RSL usage rates? Manufacturers would likely be the best source for this, though it may overstate because people are more likely to use the RSL in the beginning when they purchase a container.

I'm imagining it's 50% or greater (which means the incident count wouldn't change above the noise level), but I really don't know. During my rental phase at various DZs I only encountered one without, and used it a handful of times.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 4:05 PM
Post #47 of 183 (1201 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kelpdiver] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
It's your argument. It was your choice to make up numbers.

Quote:
I'm imagining it's 50% or greater

Crazy

I would guess less than 50%.

Derek


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 4:08 PM
Post #48 of 183 (1200 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Hmmm, you've got me really confused, which is easy to do.

An RSL could not have done anything for you on any of your 14 cutaways. But in the last 5 years of jumping, a reserve could have helped billvon?

You're not making any sense to me. For a reserve to have helped billvon, you'd have to make up a story about something happening like his main malfunctioning. But if you're gonna make something crazy up like that, why not think you could be in a situation where an RSL might save you?

If no such situation exists, an RSL is a useless device, at least for you. And since you are using your cutaways as an example for the rest of us, I'd take it to mean an RSL is useless in general.

Dave


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 4:14 PM
Post #49 of 183 (1194 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I'm using my cutaways to make a point. I was fine w/o an RSL, but I could have had a problem had I had one. The only time an RSL (or reserve for that matter)makes a difference is during a malfunction. No mal, RSL and reserve is moot. So, comparing apples to apples, during a mal, a reserve will definately help, whereas an RSL may help or hurt.

So, if everyone had RSL's, that is a lot of malfunctions witht he reserve being deployed as the main is cutaway, wether that is the best course of action or not. That would mean an increase in RSL-caused reserve malfunctions.

Derek

Derek


bmcd308  (D 27472)

Aug 22, 2005, 4:17 PM
Post #50 of 183 (1190 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>>How could an RSL have helped me on those 14 mals?

Your reserve would have been a great help if your main had mal'd. <<

The analogy is pretty clear - your rsl could have helped you if one of those cutaways had been at 800 feet.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 4:23 PM
Post #51 of 183 (1143 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [bmcd308] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
The analogy is pretty clear - your rsl could have helped you if one of those cutaways had been at 800 feet.

What if one of them was? I pulled the reserve and was fine. An RSL still wouldn't have helped. What if on one of the cutaways from a violently spinning VX-60, I had entangled with my reserve PC bridle?

I think we should stick to comparing malfunction jumps with and without RSL's. Jumps where the main didn't mal are revellent to a discussion about RSL's.

Derek


tkhayes  (D 18764)

Aug 22, 2005, 4:36 PM
Post #52 of 183 (1139 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Some of the most flawed logic I have ever seen. You quote stats without sources, assume that there are only 3 scenarios where the RSL does some good, etc etc.

How about they help when:
1. they deploy the reserve EVERY time you cutaway if it is connected.
2. they help EVERY time by getting your reserve out faster that you ever could, allowing more time under your reserve to find a nice safe place to land
3. they save many lives every year, given that we USED to have bounces due to low/no reserve pulls and now we have almost NO boiunces due to low/no reserve pulls. SOme are saved by AAD and many - we will never know......but they do exist simply from the statisticall number dropping.

I remember why we put them there in the first place, been jumpign for that long.

I think too many people have started in recent years and do not know those reasons. Maybe we need to restate them once in a while.

I will stand by RSLs for pretty much everyone. Watched my friends die and watched many people who maybe would have - maybe would not have pulled after a cutaway. Glad they are here to talk about it, not groping anf flailing all the way to their deaths.

DO you actually have any idea how many are saved each year by the RSL? I doubt it and I doubt I can prove it other than the 70's stats the 80's statst and the 90's stats comparisons.

Take your 99% number and stuff them, they are meaningless and pulled out of your head. Show me some real numbers that tell me RSLs kill and I will believe you.

TK


mattjw916  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 4:36 PM
Post #53 of 183 (1139 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
An RSL is for the worst times, not the best times. When you find yourself cutting away at 500 feet for whatever reason, let me know how comfortable you are. Of course you never plan to do something so stupid. Neither did all those people whose fatality reports say "an RSL may have helped..."

You think you're better than them. I don't know anything about them so I see no reason to think I'm any different.

It's not about being "better" as you put it, it's about not betting your life on a little snap-shackle and a tiny length of nylon to do what your brain should be trained to do in a split-second. How many cutaways happen at 500ft or less? VERY few, I'd wager. In fact, in all my travels, I have only met one person that cutaway at that altitude (lower actually) and deployed his reserve in time, all without an RSL.

I have had several spinning malfunctions and had no problem keeping track of altitude whilst arguing with the canopy, the last one was on Sunday in fact, so I seriously doubt I will ever end up that deep in the basement.

The same incident reports often gloss over the fact that an RSL likely caused the problem or at least was the fatal ingredient.


(This post was edited by mattjw916 on Aug 22, 2005, 4:39 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 22, 2005, 5:09 PM
Post #54 of 183 (1130 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>Apples and oranges. How could an RSL have helped me on those 14 mals?

How could a reserve help me when my main doesn't mal?

>Your reserve would have been a great help if your main had mal'd.

Your RSL would have been a great help if you hadn't been able to find your reserve.


hobbes4star  (B 24739)

Aug 22, 2005, 5:49 PM
Post #55 of 183 (1122 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Doesnít this argument sound a lot like the whole argument concerning cutting away a pilot chute in tow? Half of the people say cutaway and deploy reserve and the other half say no donít cut away. (Scratches head as I walk away)


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 6:18 PM
Post #56 of 183 (1114 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mattjw916] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
It's not about being "better" as you put it, it's about not betting your life on a little snap-shackle and a tiny length of nylon to do what your brain should be trained to do in a split-second.

RSLs aren't for the untrained. They are for when properly trained skydivers find themselves in a terrible situation. Nobody's advocating the use of SOS systems or using an RSL instead of pulling the reserve handle here.

Some accidents scare the crap out of me. It's not the guy that screws up a hook turn, it's the guy that cuts away and doesn't pull on time or something else that just doesn't make sense. The accidents that I'll probably never understand. They seem so simple to avoid, but people didn't avoid them for some reason. I don't assume that those people were especially stupid or anything. I assume they were just like me. Why would someone just like me make such a dumb mistake or not be able to pull their reserve for some reason? They knew better. Yet they still managed to screw up in the worst possible way. I have seen absolutely no evidence to lead me to believe that can't happen to me. So I've got a cypres and the best RSL available.

I've jumped without an AAD and I've jumped without an RSL. Some people see a positive in that. I simply don't.

Dave


mattjw916  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 6:53 PM
Post #57 of 183 (1095 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
RSLs aren't for the untrained. They are for when properly trained skydivers find themselves in a terrible situation. Nobody's advocating the use of SOS systems or using an RSL instead of pulling the reserve handle here.

Plenty of people do, I hear the "Everyone should have an RSL until X number of cutaways or X number of jumps." argument constantly. I do a little CReW now and again, mostly bumping end-cells and such, plus I plan on jumping camera in the not-too-distant-future. There is no way that I am going to have an RSL on for either activity or have to disconnect/reconnect it constantly.

Of course, if you are a "hard-core" belly flyer that insists on dumping at just over 2k on every jump, perhaps you should keep it on. You probably will need it.


dbattman  (D 27577)

Aug 22, 2005, 7:12 PM
Post #58 of 183 (1088 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mattjw916] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Finally, there we have it. It only took THREE pages for someone to finally point out that the RSL/NO RSL argument should be dependent on the situation, not on the possibility of it could help you or it could cause another problem.

You do CRW? Fine, no RSL.
You jump a camera? Fine, no RSL.
You jump a tiny VX? Fine, no RSL.

You jump a square at 1:1? Why not have one?
You do a lot of big way stuff where you can get sucked low tracking for air? Why not have one (small canopy, maybe ?)
You're a new jumper working on awareness and learning the sport? Why not have one?


If I'm not mistaken, we lost two people at WFFC from low cutaway/no pull. Yes, the RSL is NOT to be depended on. Yes, the RSL is NOT a replacement for acting appropriately in executing your procedure. Yes, we DO NOT rely on electro-mechanical devices, AADs, altimeters to be accurate, or RSLs to pull our handles for us.

BUT- if the shit is really going down, they can throw the odds in your favor. Do you have a GOOD reason for NOT having an RSL? Fine, don't have one. If you DON'T have a good reason for taking it off, perhaps you should reconsider.

It's a personal decision and we should not push people in one direction or the other, but give them enough information to make an informed choice.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 22, 2005, 7:14 PM
Post #59 of 183 (1087 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mattjw916] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>Plenty of people do, I hear the "Everyone should have an RSL until
>X number of cutaways or X number of jumps." argument constantly.

That statement has nothing to do with "advocating the use of SOS systems or using an RSL instead of pulling the reserve handle." Most people recommend AAD's for new jumpers; that does not mean they advocate not deploying a parachute before impact.


mattjw916  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 7:44 PM
Post #60 of 183 (1077 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Sure it does, those people assume that you won't deploy the reserve for whatever reason, so here's a wiz-bang gadget that will solve all your problems.

The problem is that people use devices like AADs, RSLs, traditional red/silver handles, etc to lull themselves into a false sense of security.

I can't count the number of people that have made a stupid comment about my blue/orange pillow handles as I have traveled around the country. Like I'm going to forget which one to pull first. Crazy

Of course, those are the often the same people that think dumping at 2k every jump is perfectly reasonable and a Sabre 1 is a great canopy. Crazy


EvilLurker

Aug 22, 2005, 7:44 PM
Post #61 of 183 (1075 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I'll get rid of my RSL when they pry it from my cold, dead.... no, wait a minute, bad example. Wink


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 7:54 PM
Post #62 of 183 (1064 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mattjw916] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
The problem is that people use devices like AADs, RSLs, traditional red/silver handles, etc to lull themselves into a false sense of security.

Is that something you have seen, or is that something you've read about?

I don't doubt that many skydivers feel safer than they really are. But it's not the ones with metal reserve handles and RSLs that are the most mistaken, it's the ones that think they've got the skills to stay out of the situations that have repeatedly killed jumpers in the past, and therefore don't need the safety equipment that would have saved those that came before them.

Dave


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 7:59 PM
Post #63 of 183 (1058 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [tkhayes] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
1. they deploy the reserve EVERY time you cutaway if it is connected.

That isn't necessarily a good thing. Deploying the reserve immediately after cutting away has led to fatalities.

Quote:
2. they help EVERY time by getting your reserve out faster that you ever could, allowing more time under your reserve to find a nice safe place to land

I would rather be stable for the reserve deployment, giving my reserve the best chance to open cleanly, than watch my freebag go between my legs.

Quote:
3. they save many lives every year, given that we USED to have bounces due to low/no reserve pulls and now we have almost NO boiunces due to low/no reserve pulls. SOme are saved by AAD and many - we will never know......but they do exist simply from the statisticall number dropping.

Unfortunately there are no real numbers to use. Taking my experiences with malfunctions as an example, an RSL would not have helped me one bit in any of my mals, and only could have made things worse with an unstable reserve deployment.

I never found myself low on my back after cutting away, but if I had, I would have deployed immediately and taken my chances. I was always able to take a small delay, getting my shoulders even to the relative wind with my chest into the wind before firing off the reserve. If I would have had an RSL, I would have had some interesting reserve deployments, especially the tandem bag-lock where one riser was slow to release.

Quote:
Show me some real numbers that tell me RSLs kill and I will believe you.

Look in the fatalities lists. RSL's have killed people. They don't very often, but they do too often.

As Ron put it very well, they take away options and complicate emergency procedures.

We'll never know how many real RSL's saves there are since the jump that has one and has a mal never gets the chance to save themselves. We'll also never know how many people go in sub-consciencly expecting their RSL to deploy their reserve. I strongly believe that some of the cutaways without a reserve pull are because the jumper was used to the RSL and it either wasn't connected or they were jumping a rig without one. They have a cutaway, the RSL beats them to the reserve pull, so they don't bother pulling it. Next time, no RSL, they expect the familar "G's" of the reserve deploying, but feel nothing and panic sets in. They never pull the reseve handle thinking something is wrong. So, they go in and people say an RSL would have saved them. Well, it would have, but it caused the initial problem in the first place. Never having one would have saved them too.

I have seen a lot of non-RSL reserve rides, where the RSL would have caused the reserve to deploy while the jumper was un-stable. Instead the jumper cutaway, got stable, and deployed the reserve in plenty of altitude.

You can always deploy the reserve very quickly after cutting away if you wish. Without an RSL, you can take a delay. With an RSL, you cannot.

Are there times when an RSL saved a jumper? Yes, definately. Of course the jumper could have saved themselves by deploying at safe altitude, picked appropriate gear, maintained their gear, etc and avoid the situation entirely. You have to make several mistakes to be cutting away that low.

Derek


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 8:02 PM
Post #64 of 183 (1053 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
>Apples and oranges. How could an RSL have helped me on those 14 mals?

How could a reserve help me when my main doesn't mal?

You didn't answer the question. Let me re-phrase it. On those 14 skydives where my main malfunctioned, would I have been better off with or without an RSL?

Derek


mattjw916  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 8:26 PM
Post #65 of 183 (1046 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Is that something you have seen, or is that something you've read about?

I don't doubt that many skydivers feel safer than they really are. But it's not the ones with metal reserve handles and RSLs that are the most mistaken, it's the ones that think they've got the skills to stay out of the situations that have repeatedly killed jumpers in the past, and therefore don't need the safety equipment that would have saved those that came before them.

Yes, I have had every comment I listed made directly to me, or to another person and I overheard it, such as when sitting in on student training, etc.

By your logic then, you must also drive a Volvo since a lot of people have been killed in car wrecks, that they could have otherwise survived, were they to have been driving a car with better crash protection. And I am sure you always have a pilot-emergency rig when you fly since they would have saved countless pilots in the past as well.

You seem fixated on the concept that I somehow think myself "better" than others since I don't perceive a need for an RSL. Quite the contrary in fact. Things that are more important than RSLs: don't attempt mid-air rigging, don't set breakoff at 3.5 on group jumps, don't consistently pull-low, respect your hard-deck, maintain your gear, don't go on jumps with people who are over their head and will potentially force you to hum it down for separation, etc, etc.

Pay more attention to those and an RSL becomes moot, such as Derek has pointed out ad nauseum.


brettpobastad  (D 12823)

Aug 22, 2005, 9:26 PM
Post #66 of 183 (1036 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
An RSL can hurt you if:

1) You cutaway and do not fail to deploy your reserve in time.

How can an RSL hurt you if "You cutaway and do not fail to deploy your reserve in time"? The statement that you are making is that the only time an RSL can hurt you is when you jettison the malfunctioning main canopy and then deploy your reserve...?!? You don't really believe that do you? What examples do you have to back that up?

Brett


brettpobastad  (D 12823)

Aug 22, 2005, 9:38 PM
Post #67 of 183 (1032 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
So, in conclusion, an RSL can help 1% of the time, in situations that can be easily avoided, and hurt you 99% of the time. The RSL doesnít know if you are low or not. If it Ďarmedí itself at, say 750 feet, it would be a great device. But is doesnít. It is armed unless you disconnect it.

Derek

You cannot be that much of an idiot, can you? Even if what you said is true, which it isn't, the fact remains that jumpers...

Quote:
1) Deployed your main too low.
2) Rode a malfunctioning main too long.
3) Failed to get hard riser inserts and maintain your 3-rings and cutaway cables creating a hard cutaway.

These things happen! Unfortunately, they happen too often! Apparently, one or more of these situations happened at the convention this year. Having an RSL almost certainly would have affected the outcome for the better in both of these cases. That's two more examples of where having an RSL would have made the difference between life and death. Facts are facts; RSL's can save lives. RSL's do not cost lives.

It's scary that there are people out there that listen and believe dumbshits like you.

Get out of this business before you get someone killed!

Brett


nate_1979  (B 27889)

Aug 22, 2005, 9:43 PM
Post #68 of 183 (1028 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [brettpobastad] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Facts are facts; RSL's can save lives. RSL's do not cost lives.

RSLs can cost lives, it may be rare, but it can happen... I can save my own life, I'd rather trust myself to save my own life than count on an RSL that *COULD* kill me. Like people have said, it's like the airbag, good most of the time but sometimes tragic... Only difference is that I can choose not to accept the possibility that some safety device is gonna hurt me here.


brettpobastad  (D 12823)

Aug 22, 2005, 9:44 PM
Post #69 of 183 (1027 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
That isn't necessarily a good thing. Deploying the reserve immediately after cutting away has led to fatalities.

WHaaaat? When? Where?

Goddamn, you're a menace!

Brett


brettpobastad  (D 12823)

Aug 22, 2005, 9:55 PM
Post #70 of 183 (1021 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Unfortunately there are no real numbers to use. Taking my experiences with malfunctions as an example, an RSL would not have helped me one bit in any of my mals, and only could have made things worse with an unstable reserve deployment.

Of course not, you stupid fuck! That's because you deployed your reserve! You actually DID IT RIGHT! Will wonders never cease?

Have you ever heard of the saying 'You can't prove a negative'?

The reason why RSL's exist is because of idiots like you!

You wouldn't have lasted two months had you started jumping 30 years ago.

Brett

NOTE: will one of you moderators PLEASE ban me for life? PLEASE! There are just too many stupid people on this thing!


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 22, 2005, 10:01 PM
Post #71 of 183 (1027 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>On those 14 skydives where my main malfunctioned, would I have
>been better off with or without an RSL?

Without. Similarly, in the 2000 or so jumps I've made in the past five years (with zero mals) I would have been better off without a reserve - had I known I would have had zero malfunctions. Needless to say, I prefer to jump with one (usually) because I think they help more often than they hurt - if you're not omniscient. Same with RSL's.


brettpobastad  (D 12823)

Aug 22, 2005, 10:14 PM
Post #72 of 183 (1026 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [nate_1979] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
RSLs can cost lives, it may be rare, but it can happen... I can save my own life, I'd rather trust myself to save my own life than count on an RSL that *COULD* kill me.

Nate

You are simply wrong. With all due respect, you have not been around long enough and had enough experiences to be able to make the above statement. Of course you believe that you can save your own life. And hopefully, you can and will. Unfortunatley, statistics do not back up your statement. The facts remain that you are far more likely to jettison your malfunctioning main parachute and do nothing else (in these cases, having an RSL would most likely make a positive difference) as opposed to having a RSL and it causing any kind of problem.

The choice to employ an RSL or not is a personal one, of course. It's a free country. But know the facts when you make the decision.

Please, PLEASE don't listen to just anybody.

Brett


nate_1979  (B 27889)

Aug 22, 2005, 10:43 PM
Post #73 of 183 (1015 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [brettpobastad] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
You are simply wrong. With all due respect, you have not been around long enough and had enough experiences to be able to make the above statement. Of course you believe that you can save your own life. And hopefully, you can and will. Unfortunatley, statistics do not back up your statement. The facts remain that you are far more likely to jettison your malfunctioning main parachute and do nothing else (in these cases, having an RSL would most likely make a positive difference) as opposed to having a RSL and it causing any kind of problem.

I, having had more malfunctions than some people with thousands of jumps (a whole nother issue in itself), can confidently say that I dont think I will ever cut away and do nothing else... I have had my handles in my hands BOTH TIMES i've chopped before I felt the reserve do crap, even with the RSL. I have performed my EPs twice, and done it flawless both times.. One was spinning on my back, I didnt even get freaked out by this, everything was just "automatic" because I take the time to practice my EPs before EVERY JUMP and I think about what I will do in emergency situations on a regular basis. The first one, which I say the RSL fired on my back, I had even waited to flip back belly to earth before pulling the handle, still didnt feel the reserve before I pulled (although I realize the reserve may have been assisting in my flip back belly to earth).. When I chose not to pull the reserve immediately, I knew what my altitude was and that I had plenty of time to get stable before pulling (even though I had RSL, honestly the fact that RSL was pulling my reserve ripcord never even crossed my mind at that point).

I feel that in my case, the chance of an RSL firing my reserve before I want it (such as on my back when I have time to get belly to earth stable) or in a situation where my main is still attached in some way (riser brake / release problem) is much higher than me just not performing my EPs... I know, others have said the same, they have died saying the same, and they thought they were different too, but I think having chopped twice in my low jump numbers gives me something to stand on for my feelings about RSL. I've read the fatality reports, RSL would have saved many people, but there are also those reports where the RSL may have made things worse. I think that those "may haves" need to be taken into consideration when people choose RSL or NO RSL, saying that an RSL has only helped people is just wrong.

With respect, and I really mean that... I dont wanna be that low jump # punk who thinks he's right, but I just dont understand how people can say the RSL doesnt ever hurt people when it has.


brettpobastad  (D 12823)

Aug 22, 2005, 10:54 PM
Post #74 of 183 (1009 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [nate_1979] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
but there are also those reports where the RSL may have made things worse.

What reports? Are you sure about that? Better re-read whatever reports you think you saw.

Hey Nate! Thanks for the 'respect' thing. Not so much for me , but for you! I can tell you're wanting to learn and I appreciate that.

Brett


hookitt  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 10:59 PM
Post #75 of 183 (1005 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [brettpobastad] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Facts are facts; RSL's can save lives. RSL's do not cost lives.
In reply to:

But they can... and sometimes do

Read that post and This from the same thread. Look at the date of this incident.

Do not say things so matter of factly when clearly you are not correct.


brettpobastad  (D 12823)

Aug 22, 2005, 11:03 PM
Post #76 of 183 (1037 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [nate_1979] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
but there are also those reports where the RSL may have made things worse.

I have had 29 malfunctions in 29 years in the sport and over 6000 jumps with well over 3000 tandems (incidently, all but eight of those are tandem malfunctions). I feel pretty goddamn qualified to offer a very educated opinion. OF COURSE, an RSL did nothing to affect the outcome for the better in any of my particular situations. That's because I DEPLOYED THE RESERVE! But what about the many jumpers who did not deploy the reserve after a cutaway?

Show me an incident where a properly installed Reserve Static Line caused an injury or fatality?

Please know the facts!

Brett


hookitt  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 11:04 PM
Post #77 of 183 (1037 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [hookitt] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

That person did not do things right since he pulled the cutaway first but it still stands that a main was cutaway and a forced unstable reserve deployment did cost his life.

Sucks


hookitt  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 11:06 PM
Post #78 of 183 (1036 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [brettpobastad] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Show me an incident where a properly installed Reserve Static Line caused an injury or fatality?

Look at the post above the one quoted here.


brettpobastad  (D 12823)

Aug 22, 2005, 11:12 PM
Post #79 of 183 (1034 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [hookitt] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
This student was doing his first PRCP on a static-line jump. He pulled his cutaway handle. The main parachute released cleanly, and the RSL initiated deployment of the reserve. I do not know whether he also pulled his reserve handle. Unfortunately, he was not entirely stable, and in a stroke of incredible bad luck, the bridle of the reserve's freebag entangled with his leg, preventing deployment. The rig was equipped with an in-date and functioning AAD, an FXC Astra. It would have made no difference in the outcome of this jump, but it was turned on. Unlike "schulzkk" who chooses to hide under a cloak of anonimity to post malicious lies and rumour, I am happy to identify myself. See you on OysterFest weekend, Tom.
Friend of Fido

Now WHERE IN THE HELL DO YOU GET OUT OF THIS INCIDENT THAT THE RSL CAUSED THIS PROBLEM!!@!!

Are you people DAFT?

What if this person did not have an RSL and deployed his reserve right after he cut away (as he was taught to do)? Would maybe the same thing have happened?

And how about this scenario: He cuts away his main canopy and does nothing else? A far more likely scenario!

Use your fucking head! How can you make the statement that an RSL caused this problem?

Goddamn you people!


brettpobastad  (D 12823)

Aug 22, 2005, 11:20 PM
Post #80 of 183 (1028 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [hookitt] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Hook...

With all the respect that I can muster, and Lord knows you deserve it, how can you make that statement? You simply cannot make the statement that a 'forced resreve deployment' cost this person their life!!! And even if you could make that statement, which you cannot, that still is not even close to the POINT!!!

Let us assume for a moment that you or anyone else can come up with an example that having an RSL caused a problem, which you cannot!!! I say again WHICH YOU CANNOT! That still means that the odds of an RSL helping a situation versus hurting a situation are astronomically greater!

An educated and experienced man such as yourself must be able to comprehend this?

Brett


hookitt  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 11:26 PM
Post #81 of 183 (1047 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [brettpobastad] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Here's a quote from my post a few up from this one.
Quote:
That person did not do things right since he pulled the cutaway first but it still stands that a main was cutaway and a forced unstable reserve deployment did cost his life.

The part where a forced unstable reserve deployment did cost his life matches perfectly with ...

Quote:
(brettpobastad)Show me an incident where a properly installed Reserve Static Line caused an injury or fatality?

Well, here's the catch 22 Brett. A properly installed reserve static line did not cause the initial problem but the death was an end result from a chain of events.

The root cause... He pulled the cutaway during a PRCP.

The end result was caused by the final link of a properly installed RSL doing it's job.

Relax a little bit. Your points are fine without asking to be banned. I'm saving screen shots this time though.


hookitt  (D License)

Aug 22, 2005, 11:34 PM
Post #82 of 183 (1042 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [brettpobastad] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Ok, I'll try to be more clear. I understand your intent. RSL's have saved lives. In fact a properly installed and attached RSL would have changed the outcome, in the death of my friend Kevin Clements.

But that said, unstable reserve deployments have left no outs remaining.

I'm torn sometimes whether to recommend an RSL or not however, for the most part, I'm an advocate of the RSL. I have to be an advocate because the fact that Kevin would be alive if he had one. He screwed up and didn't get his reserve out.


(This post was edited by hookitt on Aug 22, 2005, 11:57 PM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 6:09 AM
Post #83 of 183 (998 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [brettpobastad] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Of course not, you stupid fuck!

http://www.angercoach.com/

Derek


billbooth  (D 3546)

Aug 23, 2005, 7:26 AM
Post #84 of 183 (974 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Wow! 87 replies to a post in only one day. Is that a record?


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 7:26 AM
Post #85 of 183 (974 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
>On those 14 skydives where my main malfunctioned, would I have
>been better off with or without an RSL?

Without.

Exactly. It is better that I did not have an RSL. If I had been vvery low and failed to pull my reserve immediately, then I would have been much better off with one. But the RSL cannot make those distinctions. So it'll help if you are very low and don't pull the reserve yourself immediately as an RSL would, but can cause problems in a 'normal' cutaway.

Quote:
Similarly, in the 2000 or so jumps I've made in the past five years (with zero mals) I would have been better off without a reserve - had I known I would have had zero malfunctions. Needless to say, I prefer to jump with one (usually) because I think they help more often than they hurt - if you're not omniscient. Same with RSL's.

The difference bewteen your reserve and an RSL, is the chances of the reserve causing a problem vs. saving you are much different than an RSL. You are much more likely to need your reserve than have the reserve pre-maturely deploy and cause a problem. With an RSL, you could have a bunch of mals where you don't need it (like I didn't) and it only make things worse for you.

You can deal with a malfunction just fine without an RSL, you can't deal with a malfunction just fine without a reserve.

They are very different things.

Derek


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 7:28 AM
Post #86 of 183 (973 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billbooth] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Wow! 87 replies to a post in only one day. Is that a record?

I dunno, but discussions like this are excellent for people to look at both sides and make better choices or themselves. There is no right or wrong, but the more information out there, the better people can make the right choice for them.

When will Skyhooks be an option on all rigs?Wink

Derek


nicknitro71  (D 26704)

Aug 23, 2005, 7:56 AM
Post #87 of 183 (954 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
There is no right or wrong, but the more information out there, the better people can make the right choice for them.

According to you there is right and wrong Wink

Given my own very small sample number I would like you to explain the outcome of my two cutaways.

The first one was a spinning mal under a highly loaded FX. I was spinning on my BACK pulling some serous Gs. I cutway, the RSL was connected, and I was under a fully inflated reserve WITHOUT line twists in under 100'.

The second cutaway I released my main at 6000' (after disconnecting the RSL) due to a high speed premature deployment that blew up my main. I went back in FF to 2000' pull my reserve very, very stable, ended up with two line twists. The reserves were both Tempo 150s. I packed them the same way. Only the containers were different: Jav in the first one, Wings in the second one.

So how do you explain a perfect reserve deployment after a RSL deployment due to a severely spinning main and a two line twists after a super stable terminal deployment?

Quote:
I would rather be stable for the reserve deployment, giving my reserve the best chance to open cleanly, than watch my freebag go between my legs.

Those two guys at the WFFC sure got stable after cutting away, that did not seem to help much.

You don't feel you needed RSLs and AADs because you think you had superior training and skills. I know that one of those two guys felt exactly like you.


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 7:59 AM
Post #88 of 183 (950 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
When will Skyhooks be an option on all rigs?

So what's the future? The RSL is clearly an imperfect device. In 10 years, will new jumpers know what an RSL was? Is the SkyHook going to be a standard part of every rig? What's your prediction?

Dave


airtwardo  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 8:04 AM
Post #89 of 183 (941 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In 10 years, will new jumpers know what an RSL was?

Quote:

I'm sure they will...probably call it something else~

Like a "Stevens Lanyard"Wink


EvilLurker

Aug 23, 2005, 8:24 AM
Post #90 of 183 (929 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [hookitt] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
...but the death was an end result from a chain of events.

Most fatalities are. Often times an RSL interrupts that chain of events before the jumper has shown that they would have deployed their reserve at sufficient altitude to save their life. That doesn't show up in an incident report, so we've got no accurate data regarding how often it happens.
Every so often, the RSL can't interrupt the chain, whether it's due to an unrealeased riser, horseshoe, canopy wrap, etc. (which will still have to be dealt with before manual reserve deployment) or by deploying the reserve while the jumper is unstable. The seriousness of that situation varies, depending on deployment altitude. Reserve line twists (IF they happen) at 3000 feet scares you and makes you cuss an RSL as "having almost killed you". At 500 feet, it just saved your life, if you were going to wait for stability or couldn't find a handle. That doesn't show up in an incident report, so we've got no accurate data regarding how often it happens.
The data that does show up is "died following impact under a malfunctioning reserve", we should see quite a number of those, since RSLs are common and they deploy the reserve after a cutaway very close to 100% of the time. I'm not seeing many.
The other big thing missing from this discussion is input from jumpers that cutaway from a malfunctioning main and never pulled a handle. There's plenty of speculation why they didn't, or what "we" would have done differently (all ending in a safe landing, of course), but no first-hand account of what went wrong or any suggestions. Dead men tell no tales, and a lot of them don't use an RSL, from the looks of the reports.

That said, anyone that personally chooses to not use an RSL, for whatever personal reason, I have NO problems with. Presenting it as an option that increases your chances of death by impact, I do have a problem with, especially for jumpers that don't have previous experience(s) with malfunctions.


EvilLurker

Aug 23, 2005, 8:25 AM
Post #91 of 183 (927 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [airtwardo] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
In 10 years, will new jumpers know what an RSL was?

If they read this thread, they'll figure it out:

Really Stupid Logic

Wink


MarkM  (C 35089)

Aug 23, 2005, 9:07 AM
Post #92 of 183 (907 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [nate_1979] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
I, having had more malfunctions than some people with thousands of jumps (a whole nother issue in itself), can confidently say that I dont think I will ever cut away and do nothing else

The RSL for experienced jumpers isn't for some remote possibility that they may forget to pull their reserve. It's for when they're in the basement and getting out their reserve that much faster can save their lives.

Better jumpers than you have bounced pulling their reserve too low after trying to get stable. There are some jumping situations where it totally makes sense to not use a RSL, but for most jumpers RSLs are more likely to save them than kill them.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 9:07 AM
Post #93 of 183 (907 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [nicknitro71] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
According to you there is right and wrong

LOL- Nope, just my opinion.

The concept is a good-natured discussion/argument where people learn. Maybe seen things from an angle they haven't seen them before.

Quote:
So how do you explain a perfect reserve deployment after a RSL deployment due to a severely spinning main and a two line twists after a super stable terminal deployment?

Anything can happen. A reserve canmal when the jumper is stable and open great when they are not. there are no definates when it comes to parachutesWink

Derek


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 9:09 AM
Post #94 of 183 (904 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [nicknitro71] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Those two guys at the WFFC sure got stable after cutting away, that did not seem to help much.

they could have deployed their reserves though. They didn't do that. The end result was a long chain of events. An RSL is a band-aid fix to those mistakes.

Again, you can always see the ground.

Derek


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 23, 2005, 9:27 AM
Post #95 of 183 (891 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>The difference bewteen your reserve and an RSL, is the chances of
> the reserve causing a problem vs. saving you are much different
>than an RSL.

No they're not. In my case the chances of either one causing a problem over the past five years is the same - zero. But that's because I _know_ neither one caused a problem. Since I am not omniscient, that doesn't apply for the future. It may for you, since you have stopped jumping. But most people here are not in the same situation.

>With an RSL, you could have a bunch of mals where you don't need
>it (like I didn't) and it only make things worse for you.

And with a reserve, you can have a bunch of good deployments (like I did) and it could only be a hindrance/hazard. But again, that's only if you're omniscient, and know you will never have a mal.

If a skydiver does not make mistakes, and has perfect knowledge of the future, then they don't need an RSL, or a reserve, or an AAD, or a helmet. Since many people make mistakes, and often can't tell what's going to happen on a given jump, all these things can (and have) saved lives.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 10:08 AM
Post #96 of 183 (876 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
No they're not. In my case the chances of either one causing a problem over the past five years is the same - zero.

The odds of a reserve causing someone a problem and the odds of an RSL causing someone a problem are not the same and they are not zero.

Derek


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 23, 2005, 10:21 AM
Post #97 of 183 (868 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>The odds of a reserve causing someone a problem and the odds of
> an RSL causing someone a problem are not the same and they are
> not zero.

I can say with 100% authority that neither an RSL nor a reserve caused me, or ever will cause me, a problem over the past five years - even though I have jumped with both.

Now, why is that even an interesting thing to say? It's really not. It's just history. It doesn't mean all that much that I didn't need a reserve in the past 5 years, because I might need one tomorrow. If you were still jumping, then your history of never needing an RSL isn't that interesting either, because you might need one tomorrow.

We use RSL's, AAD's, reserves and helmets because of what might happen - not what did happen. The recent fatalities in Rantoul may inspire people to use RSL's, and that inspiration may save a few lives. It may also expose them to more risk, but the odds of an RSL saving your life far exceed the risks of them causing you a serious problem.


billbooth  (D 3546)

Aug 23, 2005, 10:26 AM
Post #98 of 183 (867 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

"When will Skyhooks be available on other rigs?"

There are other rigs?


wmw999  (D 6296)

Aug 23, 2005, 10:33 AM
Post #99 of 183 (859 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billbooth] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Bwahahaha!

Wendy W.


goose491  (A 7123)

Aug 23, 2005, 11:00 AM
Post #100 of 183 (842 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
An RSL is for the worst times, not the best times.

Tell that to the RSL Crazy

This is something I keep hearing. The RSL is not for when things go right, it's for when things go wrong.

Thing is... it doesn't know the difference.


goose491  (A 7123)

Aug 23, 2005, 11:18 AM
Post #101 of 183 (1322 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [nicknitro71] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
You don't feel you needed RSLs and AADs because you think you had superior training and skills. I know that one of those two guys felt exactly like you.

It should not be considered "superior training and skills" to:

a) have chopped a mal by or before your harddeck, or
b) pull a reserve handle before it's too late

The three rules are:

1) pull
2) pull at altitude
3) pull at altitude with stability

It seems to be argued that the RSL's only benefit is for those that break rule number one.

Ron and I had had it out once because he thinks that safety in this sport is hindered by AADs as people get into the sport relying on them. I would still disagree but THIS type of discussion is just how that happens. When defending the RSL, you say "Hey, if you think you have superior skills, then don't jump one."

It is important that we not downplay the "pull" skill. It should not be considered a superior skill. Mad


nicknitro71  (D 26704)

Aug 23, 2005, 11:51 AM
Post #102 of 183 (1311 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [goose491] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

My point is that EVERYONE can fuck up and if you think you cannot then IMHO you are in a very dangerous territory.

I've heard a zillion of times "I know what I'm doing, I don't need no stinkin' RSL, I got 3000 jumps, 40 non-RSL cutaways and I'm still walkin, I invented skydiving, so piss off"

Then one day you pull a little lower than usual to track the shit away from a 30 way, you get line twists on a 2.4 Velo, you are on your back spinning like a mother eating 500' every 360, you go for the red and it feels like your hand is holding a 50 LB dumbell, so you use two hands and chop. Now you are at 800' and you wait to get stable to pull...splash.

When things go wrong they go wrong fast, very fast, sometimes just two seconds can make a difference between life and death.


goose491  (A 7123)

Aug 23, 2005, 11:55 AM
Post #103 of 183 (1309 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [nicknitro71] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Sure everyone can fuckup.

RSL shoud be treated exactly like AAD. Jump one if you want or don't jump one if you don't want to. But most importantly, don't critisise others decisions.

But today we have to be very careful about the attitudes we develop for tomorow. We already have people deciding the "RSL will do it faster then me anyway". I'm positive there are some that are thinking that nomatter how low they are, they would pull the cutaway and focus on stability, leaving the RSL to do the trick for them.

Just a thought.


Actually, the idea I'm developping is that perhaps Students should be required to jump them (as they are now) and that they should NOT be allowed after student status. At least by diong that, people will have a benchmark moment in time where they remember the responsibility to pull landed on them. Unsure


(This post was edited by goose491 on Aug 23, 2005, 12:07 PM)


nicknitro71  (D 26704)

Aug 23, 2005, 12:10 PM
Post #104 of 183 (1300 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [goose491] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I'm with you that additional safety gear should not lead to lack of training or different emergency procedures. However if you carefully read incidence reports for the past 15 years you'll find out that many lives could have been saved if an RSL was properly connected. Those who died I guarantee you that they did not want to fuck up, get low, cutaway low, pull the silver low and many probably felt that they had the right training to overcome any circumstance.

I once read a woman who died because the airbag broke her neck so airbags must kill people Crazy

Same with the RSL, there have been probably few incidences where an RSL might have contributed to the tragic outcome BUT I assure you that in general RSLs could have saved more lives than they have killed.

I do CRW and don't have an RSL there. My emergency procedures are not any different if I jump with or without one. For all non-CRW jumps I want one because I know I can fuck up as I have in the past and probably will in the future. Again if you think you have all the training and answers you are in a very dangerous territory.

Socrates used to say "Know to know nothing"...

PS
Only day you will fuck up. When it heppens you will need all the help possible: Training, skills, and additional safey gear.


(This post was edited by nicknitro71 on Aug 23, 2005, 12:24 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Aug 23, 2005, 12:19 PM
Post #105 of 183 (1295 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Seatbelts are completely different. How often is someone injured in an accident because they were wearing a seatbelt? Not very often, not enough to worry about being harmed by your seatbelt. Can it happen? Sure, but the chances are very remote. You are far better off wearing a seatbelt in any accident that not. You are not far better off with an RSL with a malfunctioning main than you are with one.

My ex-wife'as cousin and her husband were killed when they couldn't get their setabelts undone after their car overturned into a water filled ditch. Death due to drowning. Their daughter, who was not wearing a seatbelt, got away unscathed. Irrelevant, of course, because on balance seat belts save more than they kill.

You present totally misleading (as well as being fabricated) risk analysis. The relevant ratio is not how often they help vs do nothing, it's the ratio of the risk of bouncing without an RSL vs the risk of a fatal reserve mal due to an RSL. AFAIK this ratio is >>1 in normal sport skydives. So unless you can predict the future or have specific special need (such as CRW) then RSL's are beneficial.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Aug 23, 2005, 1:11 PM
Post #106 of 183 (1273 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mattjw916] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
But if more people used RSLs, I'd bet that we'd see a LOT more RSL incidents.

My polling is running pretty close to 50/50 for experienced (over 100 jumps) folks having an rsl on their rig, though a handful tend to disconnect, so it's more like 46/54% with 130 votes.

Unless you believe this self selecting sample is radically different from the general population, I don't see the potential for RSLs becoming a common factor in fatalities.


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 1:36 PM
Post #107 of 183 (1258 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kelpdiver] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Just set up another one: "Poll: Have you ever died because of an RSL?" Then you'll get some real data to work with. I bet it'll show that RSLs are REALLY safe! Tongue

Dave


white_falcon  (A License)

Aug 23, 2005, 1:52 PM
Post #108 of 183 (1249 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [pilotdave] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

And people think you cant make a poll say what you want it to.


LMAO, Thats a GOOD one Dave.

Scott


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 2:02 PM
Post #109 of 183 (1245 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
I can say with 100% authority that neither an RSL nor a reserve caused me, or ever will cause me, a problem over the past five years - even though I have jumped with both.

Of course, but which has the higher probability of causing you a problem vs. helping you with a malfunctioning main?

We already agreed that in a 'normal' cutaway situation, a skydiver is better off without an RSL. The same cannot be said for a reserve.

Derek


mattjw916  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 2:05 PM
Post #110 of 183 (1245 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kelpdiver] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

If you'd have ever taken a statistics class you would realize that your poll results are meaningless beyond saying, "of the people who chose to respond, here is the result".

The people who post, click buttons on polls, etc are in no way an accurate representation of the skydiving community as a whole. Your sample size is way too small as well.

Your poll is flawed.


(This post was edited by mattjw916 on Aug 23, 2005, 2:15 PM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 2:24 PM
Post #111 of 183 (1233 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [brettpobastad] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Let us assume for a moment that you or anyone else can come up with an example that having an RSL caused a problem, which you cannot!!! I say again WHICH YOU CANNOT!

Quote:
Facts are facts; RSL's can save lives. RSL's do not cost lives.

Quote:
WHaaaat? When? Where?

Wrong again Brett. Here ya go:

"Description: The Navy was at Elsinore training Seals; they had their own instructors and their own equipment. At the time of this report, no detailed analysis of the rig has yet been made. This report is based on preliminary examinations and eyewitness accounts. The student ( training under the Navy's equivalent of AFF) deployed his main normally at around 4500 feet. During the main deployment the RSL somehow deployed his reserve which then entangled in the main. Someone supposedly had seen that his main was square and apparently flyable while the reserve was completely fouled and entangled in his main lines. No one directly witnessed the incident while the student was between 4000 and 2500 feet. Somewhere during that interval the student apparently cutaway his main which then collapsed and remained entangled with his fouled reserve. It was believed that if he had not cutaway, he may have been able to land relatively safely on his main. The reserve was apparently NOT deployed by his CYPRES: the preliminary examination revealed a kink in the reserve ripcord where the RSL must have pulled against it while it was still under tension from the closing loop. As soon as the rig is released by the coroner more detailed examinations are going to happen by the DZO, the USPA, the rig manufacturer and the Navy. It is unknown at this time what pulled the RSL, it may have been improperly routed and was pulled on line stretch, or it may have been caught by a toggle. It is also unknown if this type of malfunction is particular to this type of rig or is an industry-wide concern. The Navy has stood down their training and grounded all of their equipment until more is known about the true cause of the incident"

Date Location Category Age # Jumps AAD?/RSL?
1/30/1997 Taupo, New Zealand MAL,DMAL? 35 2500 ?/Y
Description: After cutting away from a malfunction, it appears one riser hung up, while the side with the RSL released, casuing the reserve to deploy between the remaining riser. This riser then seperated, and the main ending up choking off the reserve. The pair decended on the partially inflated main which was caught on the wholly uninflated reserve.
Lessons:Some of the above is speculation, but it's a good reminder to perform your three ring maintenance regularly. If you don't know what I'm referring to, you should talk to your local rigger. In a nutshell, disconnect your main, flex the webbing of the three ring, clean the yellow cable with a dry cloth, (for metal housings) lightly oil the cable, reconnect the main, perform a line check, and pack it.

How about this one?

6/22/1997 Umatilla, FL MAL? 42 7500 Y?/Y
Description: At the end of a normal tandem skydiver, the student pulled the ripcord at about 5500 feet. The left main riser broke, which in turn activated the reserve static line lanyard (RSL). The RSL immediately pulled the reserve ripcord cables while the right-hand main riser was still attached. The reserve pilot chute and free-bag cleared, but the reserve canopy entangled with the spinning main. The main was then cut away, but failed to clear the reserve. The student survived the landing, the JM did not. The Master 425 main was equipped Dacron with suspension lines. The type VII risers were manufactured in May 1996 and had the new heavy duty 3-rings. The rings were properly positioned during drogue fall, and appeared normal. The type VII webbing broke about 1" above the lower end; the type IV holding the small ring broke just below the grommet. Neither of the two rings from the left riser were recovered, nor was the cutaway handle or the reserve ripcord. All equipment was less than three years old and in good condition. Instructor and student total weight was about 380 pounds.
Lessons:Perhaps a defective riser?

Heres another:

Date Location Category Age # Jumps AAD?/RSL?
7/12/2000 Elsinore, CA DMAL 27 Y/Y
Description: The Navy was at Elsinore training Seals; they had their own instructors and their own equipment. At the time of this report, no detailed analysis of the rig has yet been made. This report is based on preliminary examinations and eyewitness accounts. The student ( training under the Navy's equivalent of AFF) deployed his main normally at around 4500 feet. During the main deployment the RSL somehow deployed his reserve which then entangled in the main. Someone supposedly had seen that his main was square and apparently flyable while the reserve was completely fouled and entangled in his main lines. No one directly witnessed the incident while the student was between 4000 and 2500 feet. Somewhere during that interval the student apparently cutaway his main which then collapsed and remained entangled with his fouled reserve. It was believed that if he had not cutaway, he may have been able to land relatively safely on his main. The reserve was apparently NOT deployed by his CYPRES: the preliminary examination revealed a kink in the reserve ripcord where the RSL must have pulled against it while it was still under tension from the closing loop. As soon as the rig is released by the coroner more detailed examinations are going to happen by the DZO, the USPA, the rig manufacturer and the Navy. It is unknown at this time what pulled the RSL, it may have been improperly routed and was pulled on line stretch, or it may have been caught by a toggle. It is also unknown if this type of malfunction is particular to this type of rig or is an industry-wide concern. The Navy has stood down their training and grounded all of their equipment until more is known about the true cause of the incident.
Lessons:Dual canopy out malfunctions are nasty. Discuss appropriate procedures with a local instructor. Cutting away from an inflated main when the reserve fouled is not a recommended course of action.

One that can show the drawbacks of an RSL.

Date Location Category Age # Jumps AAD?/RSL?
9/22/2001 Picton, Australia DMAL 34 360 ?/Y
Description: After a camera jump, this jumper experienced spinning line twists on his Stilleto 135. He was unable to clear them and cutaway at perhaps 1800'. His reserve (an Airforce 120) opened (via RSL, though reserve handle was also pulled roughly simultaneously) slider-up with line twists, and he impacted in a spin still trying to kick out of the twists. The reserve was very highly loaded, at 1.7 lb/ft^2. Video review of the incident shows that the deceased may have been kicking the wrong direction to get the reserve to untwist, and was not observed to be pulling the risers apart to aid the untwisting.
Lessons:There is some reason to believe that pausing briefly after cutting away from a seriously spinning malfunction can aid in reserve deployment. However, pausing also eats up valuable altitude, which is also an increased risk. An RSL removes your choice in this matter, but does insure a rapid deployment after a low cutaway. Note that this forum doesn't post the incidents where someone cutaway low, and their RSL saves them.

Another one.

9/30/2001 Opelika, AL DMAL 48 308 Y/Y
Description: Due to a hard opening, this jumper broke one of the D lines on his canopy, a 230 Rascal. it went into a spin, so he cut it away. The rapid deployment of the reserve via the RSL resulted in his capturing the reserve pilot chute on his right arm. One report indicates the reserve lines also entangled with his neck. The reserve never cleared the freebag. He was found dead at the scene. A second report from someone involved with the investigation reports that the RSL had nothing to do with it; I await further details.
Lessons:RSL's are a mixed blessing. For novice jumpers, they provide insurance against failure to pull the reserve after a cutaway, a relatively frequent occurrence in the pre-CYPRES past. This incident may illustrate the downside of an RSL.

For having been in the sport so long and claiming to know so much, Iím amazed that someone like me knows about these incidents and you donít. There are more, if you look for them.

BTW- Howís the anger management going?Sly

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Aug 23, 2005, 2:25 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 23, 2005, 2:30 PM
Post #112 of 183 (1225 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>We already agreed that in a 'normal' cutaway situation, a skydiver is
>better off without an RSL. The same cannot be said for a reserve.

You are a smart and determined guy, and you are applying your considerable talents towards misunderstanding this.

Any piece of gear can cause you problems. Often, that same piece of gear can save your life. You can jump without a reserve, without an RSL, and without an AAD, and live most of the time. I know people who have done this hundreds of times. That does not mean that RSL's, AAD's and reserves are useless. Indeed, they have saved a lot more people than they have harmed.

I also know people whose reserve and whose AAD have caused them trouble. A reserve nearly killed a planeload of people at Brown when it deployed over the tail. An AAD caused Amy some problems when it fired during a low deployment. We had an RSL cause an unintentional two-out at Brown when it snagged on a riser during deployment. That does not mean that AAD's, reserves and RSL's are dangerous. Indeed, such cases are rare.

I recommend that every skydiver out there jump with an RSL until they have a cutaway or two. At that point they will be better able to make an informed decision as to whether they want to continue to use one or not.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Aug 23, 2005, 2:32 PM
Post #113 of 183 (1222 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mattjw916] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

quite the contrary, Matt. A sample of 177 people is a pretty decent size. Many national polls during election only use a 1000 people.

There is a danger with self selection, but in this case it is greatly mitigated by the fact that the very active neighbor thread on RSLs (this one) has a lot of people on both sides. The Safety and Training forum may have a bias towards low timers - that's why I made it a two variable survey to separate out the less experienced jumpers. Internet forums used to have a high bias towards urban/tech people, but that's pretty much a past tense attribute. We got plenty of rednecks here!

So in short, it's a solid a polling process as dropzone.com allows. And the results aren't very surprising. I thought it would be over half, Derek thought it would be under half. Seems to be inbetween.

Your claim was that RSL incidents are rare only because so few people use them. Since camera guys and crewdogs never will, I see no reason to think the usage rate could go up more than 100%. Twice nearly nothing is still pretty small. If you want to banter about sample size - tell me the significance of the number of confirmed RSL deaths? And how many saves are you willing to credit to it?

So what do you think is the real usage rate then? And to clarify, is it per jumper or per jump?


mattjw916  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 2:42 PM
Post #114 of 183 (1216 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kelpdiver] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

You really have never taken more than a 200-level stat class have you. Crazy

If the 177 people were chosen at random, from the current USPA membership list, your poll would mean more. You can't even guarantee that people didn't vote more than once. Plenty of people have multiple usernames.

The only thing your poll says is that amongst the skydiving community, those with access to a computer, free time to read the poll, who chose to respond, here is the result.

I am willing to bet that I have been to 4 or 5 times as many dropzones as you and I can say with quite certainty that this website is not the best representation of those who choose to participate in this sport.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 2:51 PM
Post #115 of 183 (1207 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

A jumper can be very safe without an RSL.

During a Ďnormalí malfunction and cutaway, an RSL is not a good thing to have.

Of course any piece of gear can cause you problems. An RSL makes it likely you will deploy your reserve unstable. That is bad. It is only good when there is the greater evil of otherwise impacting the ground with nothing out.

So, an RSL is good when it is the lesser of two evils and bad during the vast majority of cutaways.

The problem is the RSL will activate the reserve in either scenario. It doesnít know if it is helping or not.

For my 14 cutaways, we agree an RSL would have been a bad idea. But if I would have had one for just in case, I would have had 14 cases where I gave the RSL the opportunity to make things worse and none to make things better.

I think we can agree for the majority of reserve rides, where the jumper cuts away and deploys the reserve just fine, the RSL would not have helped and could have made things worse. This means, for the majority of reserve rides where the jumper had an RSL, it made things worse and not better.

If you have an RSL, you are betting that it is more likely to save you than hurt you, but the odds are against you. You are more likely to have a normal cutaway and reserve deployment, not needing an RSL, than be in a situation where you need the RSL.

Out of 100 RSL-equipped malfunctions, how many did the RSL save the jumper? How many does the RSL make things worse. I believe that the RSL makes things worse more often than it saves people simply because on most reserve rides it isnít needed. If it isnít needed, it is making things worse.

Quote:
I recommend that every skydiver out there jump with an RSL until they have a cutaway or two. At that point they will be better able to make an informed decision as to whether they want to continue to use one or not.

A cutaway or two doesnít change the odds of the RSL helping the jumper or hurting the jumper.

If you must have an RSL, get a Skyhook.

Derek


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 23, 2005, 3:11 PM
Post #116 of 183 (1197 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>A cutaway or two doesnít change the odds of the RSL helping the
>jumper or hurting the jumper.

No, but it allows the jumper to better understand what happens during a cutaway, and that's the time when an RSL might save his life. Once he has a cutaway or two he will have a better opinion on whether he needs it or not. And if he's not sure, it's better to leave it connected (which is why we use them for students.)


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Aug 23, 2005, 3:11 PM
Post #117 of 183 (1197 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mattjw916] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
You really have never taken more than a 200-level stat class have you. Crazy

If the 177 people were chosen at random, from the current USPA membership list, your poll would mean more. You can't even guarantee that people didn't vote more than once. Plenty of people have multiple usernames.

man, you need to check that ego in at the door. Now you suspect RSL advocates are so passionate that they'll cheat on a poll? How many times did you vote? If anything, I'd expect self selection to favor the I'm too cool to need an RSL vote.

You can make it as complicate as you want. Sure the DZ.com population isn't an exact match of the population. But how different do you really think it will be on a $29 option endorsed by the inventor of the BOC and three ring release? And avoid answering the obvious questions asked of you. Because unless the usage is under 10%, my points hold up.

I think I'm going to do pilotdave's poll suggestion - 'have you ever died from an RSL?' Then see if you argue that the sample isn't valid for that result as well.

In reply to:
I am willing to bet that I have been to 4 or 5 times as many dropzones as you

You've been to 30-40 dropzones? Somehow I doubt this.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 3:12 PM
Post #118 of 183 (1195 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
No, but it allows the jumper to better understand what happens during a cutaway, and that's the time when an RSL might save his life. Once he has a cutaway or two he will have a better opinion on whether he needs it or not. And if he's not sure, it's better to leave it connected (which is why we use them for students.)

OK, that makes sense to me.

Derek


doorgirl  (B License)

Aug 23, 2005, 3:17 PM
Post #119 of 183 (1191 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I'm a newbie and just got my first rig - with a RSL. I understand that sometimes it can fail even when I'm not cutting away, but it's probably a lot more likely that I'll get hit by car car than have that particular malfunction do me in.

So my thought is that if I am cutting away well above my hard deck and everything is "going well" (no broken limbs, not passing out, etc) I will have the time to disconnect my RSL as I move my right hand down to red and left goes to silver. If I don't have time or I don't locate it on first pass, I leave it to do it's thing.

I figure this takes out *some* of the risk of RSLs, and because this was part of my thinking from my first EP and stays in my mind I *think* that I'll be able to do this in an "uneventful" cutaway. And if it is an "eventful" I'll be damn happy have an RSL there to back me up.

So, wise sages, do you think this will get me killed or does this make sense? My procedure is:

1. Oh Shit (realize I need to cut away)
2. Where am I? (think of my altitude, decision may be made for me. and this is when we also may need to just dump the reserve w/o cutting if we're too low)
3. Right to red, pulling on RSL only if a) I've had time to think if I should and b) I should
4. Left to silver
5. Peel/punch right
6. Peel/punch left
7. Look over right

Thanks in advance!


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 23, 2005, 3:25 PM
Post #120 of 183 (1186 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [doorgirl] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>So my thought is that if I am cutting away well above my hard deck
> and everything is "going well" (no broken limbs, not passing out,
> etc) I will have the time to disconnect my RSL as I move my right
> hand down to red and left goes to silver. If I don't have time or I
> don't locate it on first pass, I leave it to do it's thing.

I strongly recommend that, when you do emergency procedure drills, you keep them as simple as possible. Recognize malfunction, pull red, pull silver (with whatever details about which hands on which handles you deem wise.) The incident reports are full of people who didn't do those three things quickly enough. There is very little advantage to disconnecting an RSL in the middle of a mal; if you don't want an RSL during a malfunction you should just take it off. However, at your stage, I recommend you keep it on until you have a cutaway or two.


mattjw916  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 3:25 PM
Post #121 of 183 (1195 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kelpdiver] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

At has nothing to do with ego, it has to do with a chronically uncurrent jumper trying to pass off an unscientific poll as some sort of factual data that represents a cross-section of the populace, which it doesn't.

It ranks up there with your (and others) attempt to architect an new wingload BSR to govern those of us who jump all time, when you yourself rarely jump. At least when hooknswoop makes recommendations regarding such things, he has years of experience and thousands of jumps to back them up. You have neither, since doing one tandem 7 years or whatever ago doesn't mean you have 10 total years in sport dude. Even your profile is misrepresentative.


doorgirl  (B License)

Aug 23, 2005, 3:34 PM
Post #122 of 183 (1192 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Thanks for the advice Bill.

I always assume my first will be a cutaway with no time to spare and drill that way, but if I ever find myself under a canopy that flies OK in the air but won't land I'll probably go for the release first. In that context, do you think that's ok? My AFF instructor thought that it was ok to do that in that situation as long as I knew it was much more likely a cutaway would not be "nice" and I would need to cut it away as fast as I can and not even think about the release. I'm just looking for other opinions for that situation.

And as a bit of background I'm an ex-floor trader so I'm quite good at split second decisions, although those only FELT like they were life or death. Smile


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 23, 2005, 3:52 PM
Post #123 of 183 (1184 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [doorgirl] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>but if I ever find myself under a canopy that flies OK in the air
>but won't land I'll probably go for the release first.

Hmm. Why? If you cut away from a canopy that can fly straight, and you have an RSL, you will get a rapid reserve deployment in the ideal body position - head high, not spinning. If you take a delay you may well find yourself unable to get stable right away. It's dead air - you've got nothing to work with, and it feels really creepy the first time you try it. It's similar to a balloon exit.

You can certainly disconnect your RSL if you want to, but I can't see an advantage to it in that situation.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Aug 23, 2005, 4:21 PM
Post #124 of 183 (1176 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mattjw916] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

your post is an admission that you got nothing to say. 2005 will be a 100+ jump year, so currency is a non issue. Don't like profile...too bad. It's not germain to the discussion. 5 incidents between 1997 and 2001 will still lack the signficance you claim.

As for the WL wars, I'm sure you remember I was more on your side than against you, even though you choose to portray otherwise now. My compromise proposal was exactly that - trying to eliminate the obvious outliers without affecting people like you. Funny - they thought you had a skygod complex then. Now I do, but Derek probably doesn't because you're on his side here.

BTW, so how many DZs have you been to?


doorgirl  (B License)

Aug 23, 2005, 4:22 PM
Post #125 of 183 (1176 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Guess I was just over reacting to the incomplete riser release fear.

I think that you have thought this through more than I have, which is not surprising considering how much more experienced you are.

I will delete the "detach RSL" idea from my head. Thank you.


mattjw916  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 4:53 PM
Post #126 of 183 (1286 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kelpdiver] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
your post is an admission that you got nothing to say.

So if articulating a point, i.e. your poll is worthless and here's why, is nothing to say, I guess I said nothing, or least you chose to hear nothing.

Quote:
2005 will be a 100+ jump year, so currency is a non issue.

I'll believe it, when I see it.

Quote:
Don't like profile...too bad. It's not germain to the discussion.

It speaks volumes about your ethics, or lack therof.

Quote:
5 incidents between 1997 and 2001 will still lack the signficance you claim.

5 documented ones, could there be more? Quite possibly, there isn't exactly a crack forensics team on-site when someone goes is.

Quote:
As for the WL wars, I'm sure you remember I was more on your side than against you, even though you choose to portray otherwise now. My compromise proposal was exactly that - trying to eliminate the obvious outliers without affecting people like you.

The point was not your position, but that you are quick to try and foist your views on others without experience or currency.

Quote:
Funny - they thought you had a skygod complex then. Now I do, but Derek probably doesn't because you're on his side here.

Participating in a discussion does not make someone a skygod. Launching a fiery sermon from the mound without experience does, and you sir, do a LOT of that.

Quote:
BTW, so how many DZs have you been to?

Over a dozen in five states.

To get this back on track here are the words of a couple people whose opinions I often do not agree with, but do in this instance.

Ron: "...they take away options and complicate emergency procedures"

Derek: "My point is RSL's aren't useless, but their benefits don't outweigh their problems."

My point: "...it's about not betting your life on a little snap-shackle and a tiny length of nylon to do what your brain should be trained to do in a split-second."

If you need clarification on my reasoning behind this, go read the rest of the thread, I'm not going to rehash it.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Aug 23, 2005, 6:13 PM
Post #127 of 183 (1267 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mattjw916] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Ron: "...they take away options and complicate emergency procedures"

Derek: "My point is RSL's aren't useless, but their benefits don't outweigh their problems."

My point: "...it's about not betting your life on a little snap-shackle and a tiny length of nylon to do what your brain should be trained to do in a split-second."

If you need clarification on my reasoning behind this, go read the rest of the thread, I'm not going to rehash it.

Oh, I have no issue with the choice made, though I tend to agree with the number of experienced people on the other side of the fence. Everyone should make up their mind based on a good understanding of the options.

It was your bullshit claim that if everyone used an RSL, we'd see how dangerous this safety device really is that I disagreed with. And Derek's made up 99 to 1 ratio.

The safety section already has an article by billvon - top 5 RSL myths. Perhaps someone on the opposed side should summarize the counterpoints and place it next to it.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 6:22 PM
Post #128 of 183 (1264 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kelpdiver] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Perhaps someone on the opposed side should summarize the counterpoints

http://www.dropzone.com/...rsl%20myths;#1073236

Quote:
Everyone should make up their mind based on a good understanding of the options.

I agree 100%

Quote:
And Derek's made up 99 to 1 ratio.

People got hung up on that. It was to make a point, not a real number. Since people didn't grasp that, I use "vast majaority" instead. Moving on.

Derek


Ron

Aug 23, 2005, 7:08 PM
Post #129 of 183 (1251 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Darius11] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
I donít see what the huge discussion is.
If you have an RSL and have time you can disconnect it so you can be stable for your reserve deployment.
If you donít have enough time to disconnect the RSl then you probably should not discounted as every second counts.

I can reach mine in 1 sec and discounacted in half more.
------

Dude, no offense, but I really doubt you will have the presence of mind to disconect it.....Think about it, folks that are saved by an RSL didn't have the presence of mind to pull the reserve....What really makes you think you will have the presence of mind to disconnect it?

Also you time would be better spent as the recent accidents have shown pulling handles to say your life, not trying to disconnect an RSL.

If you have an RSL.....Really don't unhook it, don't even plan to unhook it.

It will be just one more thing you fuck with, and the time spent fucking with it will put you low...And ironicly thats when an RSL is good.


Ron

Aug 23, 2005, 7:13 PM
Post #130 of 183 (1250 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [bmcd308] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
The analogy is pretty clear - your rsl could have helped you if one of those cutaways had been at 800 feet.

I have a cutaway sub 800 feet without an RSL and I am here.

So you don't need one even if you are low.


Ron

Aug 23, 2005, 7:18 PM
Post #131 of 183 (1249 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [dbattman] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
You jump a square at 1:1? Why not have one?

Because they can also kill. And you have trained and pay attention to your altitude.

In reply to:
If I'm not mistaken, we lost two people at WFFC from low cutaway/no pull

And in BOTH of those cases they lost track of altitude...AND we just had a student in AZ DIE due to an RSL.

See? They can cause problems.


Ron

Aug 23, 2005, 7:22 PM
Post #132 of 183 (1249 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [brettpobastad] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Dude, you said show me one, and he showed you one from THIS MTH.

You say alot of things and then the facts slap you in the face.


Ron

Aug 23, 2005, 7:27 PM
Post #133 of 183 (1248 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [goose491] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Actually, the idea I'm developping is that perhaps Students should be required to jump them (as they are now) and that they should NOT be allowed after student status. At least by diong that, people will have a benchmark moment in time where they remember the responsibility to pull landed on them.

No offense, this I find funny.

Didn't I say the sorta same thing about AAD's?

I think RSL's and AAD's are good for the most part, but I would really love folks to see the bad sides of both devices.


Ron

Aug 23, 2005, 7:28 PM
Post #134 of 183 (1248 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [nicknitro71] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
I once read a woman who died because the airbag broke her neck so airbags must kill people

Do you let your kid in a car seat sit in the front seat with an armed Airbag?


Ron

Aug 23, 2005, 7:36 PM
Post #135 of 183 (1242 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

You find it funny that people were allowed to flat out attack you and nothing has happend?

You have been called an idiot, and a dumbshit by one guy.

Others have been throwing around the "Skygod" BS.

Funny.

Oh and then there is this:
Quote:
Of course not, you stupid fuck! That's because you deployed your reserve! You actually DID IT RIGHT! Will wonders never cease?

Have you ever heard of the saying 'You can't prove a negative'?

The reason why RSL's exist is because of idiots like you!

You wouldn't have lasted two months had you started jumping 30 years ago.

Brett

NOTE: will one of you moderators PLEASE ban me for life? PLEASE! There are just too many stupid people on this thing!

Too funny


(This post was edited by Ron on Aug 23, 2005, 7:38 PM)


dbattman  (D 27577)

Aug 23, 2005, 7:37 PM
Post #136 of 183 (1240 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Ron] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I'm sorry Ron, but will you kindly point out where I said they can't cause problems? Perhaps I missed something in my own post.

Sure, it can kill you on a 1:1 if you have a really bad situation and a streak of bad luck. It can also save your dumb ass when you have fucked up multiple times in a row and are now chopping at under a grand over the high voltage power lines.


Ron

Aug 23, 2005, 7:46 PM
Post #137 of 183 (1235 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [dbattman] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
I'm sorry Ron, but will you kindly point out where I said they can't cause problems? Perhaps I missed something in my own post.

You said on a 1:1 why not have one right?

heres a 1:1 that killed a guy.

9/30/2001 Opelika, AL DMAL 48 308 Y/Y
Description: Due to a hard opening, this jumper broke one of the D lines on his canopy, a 230 Rascal. it went into a spin, so he cut it away. The rapid deployment of the reserve via the RSL resulted in his capturing the reserve pilot chute on his right arm. One report indicates the reserve lines also entangled with his neck. The reserve never cleared the freebag. He was found dead at the scene. A second report from someone involved with the investigation reports that the RSL had nothing to do with it; I await further details.
Lessons:RSL's are a mixed blessing. For novice jumpers, they provide insurance against failure to pull the reserve after a cutaway, a relatively frequent occurrence in the pre-CYPRES past. This incident may illustrate the downside of an RSL.

All I said is that they can and have killed.

In reply to:
Sure, it can kill you on a 1:1 if you have a really bad situation and a streak of bad luck. It can also save your dumb ass when you have fucked up multiple times in a row and are now chopping at under a grand over the high voltage power lines.

I have cutaway below 1,000 feet and Im here. The powerlines have nothing to do about anything.

See an RSL is not needed in MOST situations. They can help if you fuck up. People do fuckup. However, it is a device that can be negated by training. A cutaway is a TWO step system. Of the three folks that died this month, after the inital fuckup (and we all fuckup) two would have been saved by an RSL *OR* if they had done the proper procedures. ONE died and there was nothing they could have done to prevent it.

So an RSL would have saved two, but they could have saved themself....One died due to an RSL and their was nothing they could have done to prevent it.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 23, 2005, 7:54 PM
Post #138 of 183 (1230 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Ron] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
You find it funny that people were allowed to flat out attack you and nothing has happend?

Yes, yes I do. It would seem it is open season on PA's.

Derek


dbattman  (D 27577)

Aug 23, 2005, 8:28 PM
Post #139 of 183 (1214 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Ron] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

And again, where did I say that they can't kill you?

Sure, a guy died from an RSL on a 1:1. I've never suggested it can't happen.

Let's look at THE REST of the section where you have taken a fragment and singled it out.

Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, we lost two people at WFFC from low cutaway/no pull. Yes, the RSL is NOT to be depended on. Yes, the RSL is NOT a replacement for acting appropriately in executing your procedure. Yes, we DO NOT rely on electro-mechanical devices, AADs, altimeters to be accurate, or RSLs to pull our handles for us.

BUT- if the shit is really going down, they can throw the odds in your favor. Do you have a GOOD reason for NOT having an RSL? Fine, don't have one. If you DON'T have a good reason for taking it off, perhaps you should reconsider.

Did I correctly state that they are NOT substitutes, that they are NOT to be relied on? Yes, people fuck up- you said it yourself. I don't know why those two guys didn't pull silver- maybe the handle got knocked out of the harness and he couldn't find it. Maybe his glasses got knocked off and he couldn't see where he was or if he was on his back before he pulled. No one knows why but the two deceased, but the simple fact remains that they fucked up and they were trained to know better..

A good reason to not have an RSL is they can kill you. They can and have caused problems and I have not read anyone with acceptable experience in this thread suggest that they CAN'T cause a problem.

Fine.

Do they not have an upside as well, considering that we all fuck up? Sure, but as I closed my post it's a personal decision to have one or not.


Ron

Aug 23, 2005, 8:49 PM
Post #140 of 183 (1207 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [dbattman] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Well maybe I read part of your post wrong.

You seemd to ave said why not have one...And a very good reason is they can kill you and that proper training can do the SAME thing as an RSL and as the AZ fatality (and others) have show is that an RSL can kill.

So is a safety device that can kill you really a safety device?

So, we have two deaths where an RSL could have saved lives....And those same lives could have been saved by not taking a mal low or by ACTUALLY DOING the Emergency procedures like they learned....In the students case NOTHING could be done.

I heard a guy once say that he wanted an RSL and an AAD so he could avoid sitting at the gates to Heaven and having to tell old Saint Pete that he died when he could been saved by some really good devices.......Not a bad logic.

Another guy said imagine how stupid he would feel if he GOT KILLED by the safety devices...Another good point.

My main problem with RSL's are that they remove the choice to delay or not. You have no choice when they will work...Some out there think that even though people die every year when they don't pull TWO handles, they think they will be able to decide and then disconnect the RSL if they don't want it durring a mal?

I think choice is good. If I can take a delay to ensure a stable deployment...Then I can. If I don't have the time, I can pull.

An RSL will not give you that option.

My biggest fear about RSL's is a canopy collision...Which just like a CRW wrap where most think an RSL is bad if you have one, I really doubt you will be able to disconnect it.

But thats my opinion.....I think an RSL is good thing until you have proven you will handle a mal.


billbooth  (D 3546)

Aug 24, 2005, 4:48 PM
Post #141 of 183 (1159 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [dbattman] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I have read all 140 posts and feel I must put in my two cents.

First, if you say an RSL "can't be relied on" (by which I assume you mean it might accidentally disconnect and not do its job), then you must also say that parachutes can't be relied on. Parachutes fail to open in about 1 in 1,000 deployments. RSL's are more reliable than that. Also, somewhere around 1 in 1,000 members of USPA die every year skydiving. Again, RSL's are more reliable than that. Simply put, RSL's are much more reliable than either the people who use them, or the parachutes they jump.

Secondly, I am going to stop calling the Skyhook an RSL. All of the oft quoted problems RSL's have caused would NOT have been caused by the Skyhook. That's the whole point of the design.

Thirdly, the only line twists we have ever filmed in the whole Skyhook test program were on the simulated total malfunction jumps, where the reserve was deployed by the pilot chute, not the Skyhook. We get letter after letter about Skyhook breakaways from BAD spinners that result in NO reserve line twists. After watching hundreds of reserve deployments on video, I can safely say, believe it or not, that Skyhook deployments, even from spinning malfunctions, yield far fewer line twists than stable pilot chute deployments.

Just ten years ago, an experience jumper wouldn't be caught dead jumping an AAD, (although many of them were caught dead without one). Then the first really good AAD, the Cypres, was invented. Now everyone thinks you have a death wish if you don't jump an AAD. How soon we forget.


nate_1979  (B 27889)

Aug 24, 2005, 5:03 PM
Post #142 of 183 (1154 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billbooth] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

And mabey someday I will happily own a rig thats compatable with the skyhook, I think that's an awsome safety feature and I wouldnt hesitate having one of those hooked up in my rig... Wink

But as far as the RSL, the answer is simply *NO THANKS, I'll pull my own ripcord, thank you very much* Tongue


klafollette  (D 26795)

Aug 24, 2005, 5:38 PM
Post #143 of 183 (1144 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billbooth] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I got my new Vector-3 with the Skyhook about 3 weeks ago, along with my new Samurai main. On jump number 10 I got to experience the Skyhook in action. I can confirm what Bill is talking about. It works as advertised.

On the jump, my main opened with a couple of line-twists, no big deal....then the fun began. Before I could get the line-twists out, the canopy started diving. The line twists got worse, and I couldn't kick them out. Here I am on my back, twisting as the canopy diving towards the ground, looking between my legs at the horizon. I've never had a cutaway before, so the adrenaline was really pumping. It didn't take long to figure out I wasn't going to fix this.

Reached for the Red - pulled, went for Silver. By the time I started pulling the reserve handle, I already had a perfect reserve over my head with no line twists, despite my spinning on all axis. I estimate that I was under my reserve in about 100-200 feet after chopping.

Forget about that "need to get stable first" stuff people post about. The Skyhook did its job, despite my less than desirable attitude. If I had waited to get stable before deploying my reserve, I could have been dangerously close to being another statistic like the folks at WFFC this year. The added bonus was that the free-bag stayed with my main, so no extra searching through the corn fields.

Thank you Relative Workshop (and Bill Booth). I may have had a successful cutaway if I didn't have the Skyhook, but it was sure nice to be under reserve high enough to take a breath, collect my thoughts, pick a safe landing spot, and practice flare. Without the Skyhook I definitely would have been hundreds of feet lower, with much less time to deal with an off-DZ reserve landing.

Now if I could only get a Skyhook on my backup rig...a Mirage with a standard RSL.


EvilLurker

Aug 24, 2005, 6:00 PM
Post #144 of 183 (1134 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [klafollette] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Bill Booth:

I have a question for you:
You have obviously filmed a lot of cutaway situations; can you explain what actually takes place with the jumper as the 3-rings disconnect, i.e. is the jumper " spinning on all axis. ", or are they flung away at a tangent? I can see someone possibly spinning about one axis, but at the moment following cutaway, are they pretty much traveling in a straight line?

Thanks.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 24, 2005, 7:10 PM
Post #145 of 183 (1116 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billbooth] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Secondly, I am going to stop calling the Skyhook an RSL. All of the oft quoted problems RSL's have caused would NOT have been caused by the Skyhook. That's the whole point of the design.

It isn't fair to the Skyhook to call it an RSL. It is like comparing a round parachute to a square canopy. When we talk about rounds, we make sure to say round canopy, not just canopy.

An RSL is an RSL AKA Steven's Lanyard. A Skyhook is a Skyhook, a Steven's Lanyard, Collin's Lanyard and a Skyhook all rolled into one.

If I were to buy a new rig, I would get the Skyhook. It's not your father's RSL.

Derek


jtlmd

Aug 24, 2005, 7:55 PM
Post #146 of 183 (1106 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billbooth] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

There is an old saying from the bomber pilots in WW Two: "....when we saw the flack coming up through the clouds, we always knew we were right over the target...".


Ron

Aug 24, 2005, 8:11 PM
Post #147 of 183 (1100 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billbooth] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
First, if you say an RSL "can't be relied on" (by which I assume you mean it might accidentally disconnect and not do its job), then you must also say that parachutes can't be relied on.

Thats why you make a container that fits two canopiesWink

In reply to:
Secondly, I am going to stop calling the Skyhook an RSL. All of the oft quoted problems RSL's have caused would NOT have been caused by the Skyhook. That's the whole point of the design.

And I agree that the Skyhook is totally different than a normal RSL. My only reason for not having a Skyhook is that I still think about canopy collisions and entanglments, and I think it might be better to be able to chose when to fire the reserve in that situation. With any RSL you lose the choice of when the reserve fires.

In reply to:
Now everyone thinks you have a death wish if you don't jump an AAD.

Do you feel that way? Do you think that jumping without an RSL is stupid?

One thing I can say is that you clearly saw a problem with the current RSL's...Otherwise there would have never been a need for a Skyhook.

I remember a very well written letter from you that said that RSL's were not for experienced jumpers.

Before I post this I will say that this is not including the Skyhook. And that the Skyhook was created to eliminate many of these problems.

Quote:
"Facts about the "Reserve Staticline Lanyard"
Posted Thursday, October 15, 1998
By Relative Workshop

Facts about the "Reserve Staticline Lanyard"Lately there has been a big push towards the use of the reserve staticline lanyard (RSL) for experienced jumpers.

Most proponents of the RSL have only been dwelling on the positive aspects of the RSL without considering the negative consequences.

The Relative Workshop wants to educate each jumper regarding the pros and cons of the RSL system so you will be able to make an informed decision about this popular, yet controversial modification.

For those of you unfamiliar with the RSL system, a short description is in order. The RSL is a simple lanyard connecting one or both of the main canopy risers to the reserve ripcord. In the event of a main canopy malfunction, and following a successful breakaway, the reserve ripcord is pulled as the main risers depart with the released main canopy.

In essence, the RSL indirectly connects the breakaway handle to the reserve ripcord handle. Unfortunately, this simple lanyard can easily complicate a routine emergency for those who are more than capable of handling the problem manually.

The RSL has gained much of its notoriety through its use on student equipment. The RSL is ideal for students because the probability is high that a student might breakaway from a malfunction lower than the recommended altitude, and delay longer than necessary before deploying the reserve. Having the reserve deploy in a unstable body position, while far from ideal, is preferential to not having the reserve deploy at all. Waiting for the AAD to fire if the breakaway is extremely low is a chancy situation at best. For these reasons, the RSL is quite compatible for student gear and most instructors would probably agree!

RSL's work great on tandem systems as well. The tandem instructor really has his hands filled during a malfunction so the speedy deployment of the reserve is a big advantage. Stability after a breakaway is generally not a problem as the tandem pair have inherent stability qualities due to the positioning of the passenger and tandem master. If the tandem master has properly prepared the passenger's body position, a tandem breakaway has a greater potential for instant stability than a solo breakaway.

Both student and tandem jumps are carried out at higher altitudes and rarely involve other jumpers in the same airspace, minimizing the chance of canopy entanglements which can complicate matters severely.

RSL's and the experienced jumper - Pros vs. Cons
Remember, the RSL does one thing and one thing only: It will activate (providing it does not physically fail) the reserve container following a main canopy breakaway. That's it! Now lets talk about the disadvantages of the RSL.

1) Most jumpers don't realize that utilizing a RSL correctly requires changing their emergency procedures. Why? The reason is simple: Most RSL systems offer the ability to disconnect it from the riser. If it's disconnectable, then there will be situations that may require a disconnection before proceeding with the breakaway. An obvious one that comes to mind is a canopy entanglement with another jumper. If one or both jumpers have an RSL and they mindlessly breakaway without considering the consequences, they might very well find themselves entangled again, possibly for the last time! Canopy entanglements are happening more frequently now than ever before due to several reasons:

A) More inexperienced jumpers engaging in larger RW formations. B) The recent popularity of ultra-fast zero porosity canopies. The result is: Skies crowded with more inexperienced jumpers flying faster canopies.

Emergency procedures for systems fitted with RSLs would change in the following manner: Before the breakaway, you must ask yourself (considering your present malfunction) if an immediate reserve deployment will be in your own best interest. If not, the RSL must be released before proceeding with the breakaway.

NOTE: Anytime the RSL remains active during a breakaway, the jumper should automatically plan on pulling the reserve handle anyway just in case the RSL connection fails to activate the reserve container for whatever reason. This lack of awareness regarding the need to back up the reserve pull manually is an increasing and disturbing trend among some of today's jumpers.

2) The average jumper will take more than several seconds to analyze and determine if the RSL disconnection is necessary. This can obviously consume valuable time. No doubt the average jumper would be better off handling the emergency manually by pulling both handles, which is not a difficult task.

3) Lets examine the cause of malfunctions in the first place. The biggest culprits are improper packing and rigging, or bad body position during deployment. (Bad body position can be defined as shoulders not perpendicular to the relative wind.)

s almost impossible to be stable within the first second and a half following a breakaway from a malfunctioning high performance main canopy. Therefore, the typical RSL user is most likely unstable during the reserve deployment.

Instability causes malfunctions and allowing the RSL to open the reserve container for you will increase the chance that the reserve canopy will malfunction as well.
One might argue that this would be a rare occurrence, but why would an experienced jumper take the chance? Some would consider this an unacceptable risk!

4) CRW enthusiasts, for the obvious reasons mentioned in point 1, do not want or need a RSL. For those that have one, it should be disconnected prior to boarding the aircraft on a planned CRW jump.

Freefall videographers should never jump with an active RSL systemThe last thing a camera-person needs is the reserve deploying while they're unstable. Just recently in France a fatality occurred when a RSL-activated reserve canopy entangled with the jumpers helmet-mounted camera equipment.

6) The RSL will not work during a total malfunction of the main container, and do not assume that it can take the place of a functioning, properly calibrated automatic activation device. An RSL is not an AAD.

Summation
The RSL system was developed over 25 years ago and found its proper place on student equipment. Due to the fact the skydiving community encounters several deaths each year attributed to the "no-reserve-pull-following-a-breakaway scenario," we have many individuals who feel the RSL is the answer for the experienced jumper. Our belief is quite simple: If every jumper had a RSL, then the amount of RSL related deaths each year would be many more than we now encounter with no-pull situations.

Naturally we have tremendous concern whenever someone wants to take a simple, 3-handle system and turn it into some complicated apparatus in an attempt to make up for the inadequacies of the poorly trained or ill-prepared jumper. We believe if you stick to the basics, constantly rehearse your emergency procedures, and assume you'll have a malfunction on every jump - you'll be much better off.

Remember: The RSL is not a safety device for experienced jumpers because it takes more time to operate it correctly than to pull the breakaway and reserve handles manually. Now that you have been presented with the all the facts, we hope you'll make the right decision for yourself regarding the RSL.

If you would like to have a consultation on your personal skydiving equipment needs, please call Relative Workshop at anytime during the hours of 8am - 6pm EST. We have a highly experienced staff of riggers and instructors who are anxiously awaiting to assist you. If we don't have the answers to your questions, we probably know who does! Remember, we're here to help you make the right decisions concerning your skydiving equipment and its proper use."

The Skyhook dos NOT solve the collision problem yet....And it is the reason I don't want one yet.

But I really feel that a standard RSL is not that great of a device for an experienced jumper for all the reasons you mentioned.


mnealtx  (B 30496)

Aug 25, 2005, 2:54 AM
Post #148 of 183 (1076 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Ron] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
The Skyhook dos NOT solve the collision problem yet....And it is the reason I don't want one yet.

But I really feel that a standard RSL is not that great of a device for an experienced jumper for all the reasons you mentioned.

Skyhook is no different from an RSL in a collision/wrap situation - you unhook it and cut away...or am I misunderstanding you?


billbooth  (D 3546)

Aug 25, 2005, 5:17 AM
Post #149 of 183 (1057 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [EvilLurker] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

There is a frame-by-frame shot of a breakaway from a spinning malfunction, with the jumper face to earth, on the Skyhook video at relativeworkshop.com. You will see that the test jumper rotates about 170 degrees on the horizontal axis between breakaway and opening. This is a toggle induced spin, and is probably not as violent as you might get in a real malfunction. There is also a breakaway from a spinner with the main attached to the jumper backwards. In both of these clips, notice that even while spinning, the Skyhook deploys or "places" the reserve right where the main was, in a direct line with the jumper's vertical axis, resulting the the beautifully even line groups you see. But, because the jumper is sliding, as well as rotating, a pilot chute controlled deployment, initiated at the same moment would, of course, deploy into the relative wind, or across the jumper's body, which would result in uneven line lengths at line stretch, which could cause line twists or induce a spin. As I've said before, Skyhook deployments simply look "better" and "cleaner" than freefall deployments, and this is the only way I can explain it.


kallend  (D 23151)

Aug 25, 2005, 5:52 AM
Post #150 of 183 (1049 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [nate_1979] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
And mabey someday I will happily own a rig thats compatable with the skyhook, I think that's an awsome safety feature and I wouldnt hesitate having one of those hooked up in my rig... Wink

But as far as the RSL, the answer is simply *NO THANKS, I'll pull my own ripcord, thank you very much* Tongue

I wonder how many now-dead skydivers who went in with nothing out were absolutely, supremely confident that they would pull their own ripcord when the time came?


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 25, 2005, 6:54 AM
Post #151 of 183 (1113 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kallend] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
I wonder how many now-dead skydivers who went in with nothing out were absolutely, supremely confident that they would pull their own ripcord when the time came?

I wonder how many of the now-dead skydivers that thought the RSL was a great safety device, right up until it killed them working EXACTLY as it was designed to?

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Aug 25, 2005, 7:33 AM)


1010  (B 28561)

Aug 25, 2005, 7:11 AM
Post #152 of 183 (1107 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Quote:
I wonder how many now-dead skydivers who went in with nothing out were absolutely, supremely confident that they would pull their own ripcord when the time came?

I wonder how many of the now-dead skydivers that thought the RSL was a great safety device, right up until it killed them?

Derek


This for me is not a bad summary of the discussion. I believe the numbers weigh heavily on the side that RSLs may have saved many more lives than they may have cost. I'll be getting a Skyhook.


EvilLurker

Aug 25, 2005, 7:15 AM
Post #153 of 183 (1106 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billbooth] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Bill,

Yes, those slo-mo videos answered my question. Everyone that states cutting away from a spinning malfunction sends you cartwheeling around all your axis should watch those carefully, in my opinion. I have no doubt it "feels" like you are doing that, after what you have just been through, but in reality, you've got a single axis of rotation that is arrested fairly quickly by the drag of the deploying reserve. That's what I'm seeing, at least.
"the test jumper rotates about 170 degrees on the horizontal axis between breakaway and opening."

That's what I saw, too. That was a fairly violent spinner for the canopy size. That last clip (video guy) was chilling. He's very lucky to have lived, he had less than a second to spare. Pirate

After watching those, I have less concern about having line twists on my reserve from an unstable cutaway from a spinner with a standard RSL, and I'd say a Skyhook would actually benefit you (unless you were REAL high) by preventing them. If anyone has a link to a video showing a clear example of an RSL causing reserve line twists, could you post a link?

Bill, excellent device. If I replace my current rig, you'll get my business. Wink


Premier skydiverek  (C 41769)

Aug 25, 2005, 7:50 AM
Post #154 of 183 (1094 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [EvilLurker] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

ALL TSO'd reserves are dropped with three 360 degree twists in the lines (just like in the RWS video). The reserve must be fully functional within few seconds (I forgot how manyexactly). So, why are we worriend about the line twists on the reserves?!? They are designed to fly with them and "untiwist" from them quickly (TSO).


EvilLurker

Aug 25, 2005, 8:19 AM
Post #155 of 183 (1082 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [skydiverek] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
why are we worriend about the line twists on the reserves?!?

It's one of the pillars of the "why I don't use an RSL" argument. While I agree with the dangers in some of the anti-RSL points, the "I want to have time to get stable to prevent line twists" one is bogus. I might concede one twist, from what I've seen so far.
(Now watch a movie show up that makes me look like a moron). Wink


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 25, 2005, 8:56 AM
Post #156 of 183 (1069 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [EvilLurker] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
It's one of the pillars of the "why I don't use an RSL" argument. While I agree with the dangers in some of the anti-RSL points, the "I want to have time to get stable to prevent line twists" one is bogus.

No, unstable deployments is a cause of malfunctions, not just line twists. Read the incidents, posted in this thread and others, caused by an unstable RSL reserve deployment. The RSL did exactly what it was designed to do, launch the reserve PC immediately after a cutaway, which caused a reserve malfunction and fatality.

Derek


EvilLurker

Aug 25, 2005, 9:19 AM
Post #157 of 183 (1059 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I agree it's optimal to be stable during a reserve deployment, and yes, an RSL could result in a reserve malfunction, and yes, if you have sufficient altitude to cutaway, get stable, then manually deploy your reserve at a useful altitude, it gives you the best shot.
The argument (and you've seen it) that you don't want an RSL while cutting away from a spinner because you're going ass-over-teakettle in 3 axis and you'll get line twists, I don't believe. That's the only point I'm addressing right now. I'm willing to risk the dangers of an RSL for now because I would rather have the extra altitude rather than the extra stability when I deploy. Others may have different priorities. And that's okay. Wink


jlmiracle  (D License)

Aug 25, 2005, 9:48 AM
Post #158 of 183 (1046 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billbooth] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
"When will Skyhooks be available on other rigs?"

There are other rigs?

I thought advertising is not allowed in these forums?


kallend  (D 23151)

Aug 25, 2005, 9:55 AM
Post #159 of 183 (1043 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Quote:
I wonder how many now-dead skydivers who went in with nothing out were absolutely, supremely confident that they would pull their own ripcord when the time came?

I wonder how many of the now-dead skydivers that thought the RSL was a great safety device, right up until it killed them working EXACTLY as it was designed to?

Derek

Fewer, by far.


Praetorian  (B 27234)

Aug 25, 2005, 10:04 AM
Post #160 of 183 (1038 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kallend] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

(not a direct reply to anyone)

Anyone else find it funney that people are worried about choosing an RSL because it the worst case it could kill you... and yet not worried about their choice of Reserve loaded at or above their already agressive main, which they can land just fine, .... except maybe in a worst case, injured, unconcious, blinded by blood, or just plain disorientated .. like say after a low cutaway from a violent spinner.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 25, 2005, 10:09 AM
Post #161 of 183 (1038 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Praetorian] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>people are worried about choosing an RSL because it the worst
>case it could kill you... and yet not worried about their choice of
>Reserve loaded at or above their already agressive main,

That's because most skydivers cannot picture themselves screwing up. They will be completely heads-up during their mal, always cut away by their hard deck, and land their tiny reserve in the peas (after a short planeout of course) with a flourish. And if that's what's going to happen, you don't need an RSL and you don't need a big reserve.

That's one reason I recommend people using RSL's until they have a cutaway or two. That way they will learn that most malfunctions aren't like most jumps. They are generally fast, violent, confusing events, and you have time to do one simple thing right (like cutting away and opening your reserve.) Often taking the time to add even one step to the process, like kicking out of line twists on a small main, or getting stable after cutting away, is enough to reduce your safety margin to zero.


jlmiracle  (D License)

Aug 25, 2005, 10:12 AM
Post #162 of 183 (1037 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Praetorian] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Anyone else find it funney that people are worried about choosing an RSL because it the worst case it could kill you... and yet not worried about their choice of Reserve loaded at or above their already agressive main

Because all those arguing over the RSL jump those overloaded reserve canopies... It's like the hook turn debate, its okay for "them" to do them but everyone else does not have enough experience.Crazy (I just don't like high performance landings/hookturns).

j


nate_1979  (B 27889)

Aug 25, 2005, 10:27 AM
Post #163 of 183 (1026 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [EvilLurker] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
The argument (and you've seen it) that you don't want an RSL while cutting away from a spinner because you're going ass-over-teakettle in 3 axis and you'll get line twists

How about the mal (like my first) where the jumper is already spinning on his back, so he doesnt have to be going "ass-over-teakettle in 3 axis" because he's already in a dangerous deployment position when he chops (on my back)? My RSL deployment went just fine, this time, but considering I was most likely still on my back when the reserve PC deployed .... I really dont need a reserve PC coming up between my legs or wrapping around one of them, I'm more worried about that than I am of line twists. I really dont need a reserve horseshoe or wrap to add to my list. Crazy


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 25, 2005, 11:00 AM
Post #164 of 183 (1010 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kallend] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Fewer, by far.

Let's see the numbers. You do have the numbers to back that up, right?

Derek


EvilLurker

Aug 25, 2005, 11:14 AM
Post #165 of 183 (1005 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [nate_1979] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

I was concerned with having 14 or so line twists if I cut away from a spinner. After watching the video, I'm convinced I won't, with or without an RSL. If my reserve PC deploys between my legs, or wraps me, I'll just have to try and clear it, won't I? I think the chances of that are pretty slim, too, actually. My reserve PC launches about 5 feet, and the relative wind is from feet-to-head at the moment you chop a spinner, from what I've seen so far.
But if you think it's that risky, don't use an RSL. No problemo.


goose491  (A 7123)

Aug 25, 2005, 11:26 AM
Post #166 of 183 (999 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [billvon] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
That way they will learn that most malfunctions aren't like most jumps. They are generally fast, violent, confusing events, and you have time to do one simple thing right. Often taking the time to add even one step to the process, like kicking out of line twists on a small main, or getting stable after cutting away... [SNIP]

.... or disconnecting the RSL in a wrap/entanglement situation....


Quote:
...is enough to reduce your safety margin to zero.

Just thought I'd stick that one in there... God knows it belongs. Wink

Nick


(This post was edited by goose491 on Aug 25, 2005, 11:41 AM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 25, 2005, 12:30 PM
Post #167 of 183 (971 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [EvilLurker] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
After watching the video

Which video? If it the Skyhook video, that is a whole different animal. The Skyhook doesn't result in unstable reserve deployments. The Skyhook is not just an RSL.

Derek


EvilLurker

Aug 25, 2005, 12:39 PM
Post #168 of 183 (960 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

The Skyhook video is fine to study for an RSL comparison, as long as you stop at the point where the main departs. Up to that point, there's no difference between RSL/Skyhook/no RSL at all. I just wanted to see whether a cutaway resulted in movement around more than one axis of rotation. I'd say no.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 25, 2005, 1:21 PM
Post #169 of 183 (945 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [EvilLurker] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
I just wanted to see whether a cutaway resulted in movement around more than one axis of rotation. I'd say no.

On most of my cutaways I was rotating on more than one axis.

Derek


kallend  (D 23151)

Aug 26, 2005, 5:57 AM
Post #170 of 183 (896 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Quote:
Fewer, by far.

Let's see the numbers. You do have the numbers to back that up, right?

Derek

Like your "99%" numbers?


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 26, 2005, 8:12 AM
Post #171 of 183 (875 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kallend] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
Like your "99%" numbers?

Like I already explained, it was to make a point, not a real number, I have since switched to useing the term "vast majority" in place of the 99%. I was using it as a figure of speech. not a real number.

Since you are so concerned about hard numbers, I'd like to see yours, unless you just made yours up. Pot meet kettle?

Derek


Ron

Aug 28, 2005, 4:41 PM
Post #172 of 183 (825 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kallend] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Fewer, by far.

Got any numbers to back that up, or are you just making stuff up?

You are the one that claims to demand hard numbers...so show me some.


Ron

Aug 28, 2005, 4:43 PM
Post #173 of 183 (825 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [mnealtx] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Skyhook is no different from an RSL in a collision/wrap situation - you unhook it and cut away...or am I misunderstanding you?

No you got what I was sending, both an old RSL and the new Skyhook BOTH require you to disconnect it before you cutaway if you want to fall clear from a canopy collision....

Having been wrapped up in a nother persons parachute spinning like hell twice, I can tell you that very few people will have the presence of mind to remember to disconnect ANY RSL.

It is that reason that I don't really like any RSL. It removes choice from you, and in some cases can make things worse.....Imagine cutting away from a canopy collision and now being wrapped with your reserve?


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 28, 2005, 7:04 PM
Post #174 of 183 (809 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Ron] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
You are the one that claims to demand hard numbers...so show me some.

He expects hard numbers, but the rules don't apply to him, he can make up anything he wants.

Derek


Ron

Aug 28, 2005, 7:22 PM
Post #175 of 183 (801 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
He expects hard numbers, but the rules don't apply to him, he can make up anything he wants.

Kinda like how some people can make personal attacks, and others get banned for a PM?


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Aug 28, 2005, 11:38 PM
Post #176 of 183 (685 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Ron] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
In reply to:
Fewer, by far.

Got any numbers to back that up, or are you just making stuff up?

Well, you guys keep posting descriptions of 5 events that happened as long ago as 1997 (and have phrases like 'preliminary'), plus this recent AZ incident where the student pulled the cutaway.

And then on the other side, there were two incidents as the same boogie this month alone. Go on to read the incident reports and you'll often see the note that an rsl would likely have prevented the outcome.

I'd do it, but given your attention span in the past with the wingloading review, I don't see the point. You'd prefer to cherry pick. Or instead merely move on to the ratio defense, rather than to yield the point.


Ron

Aug 29, 2005, 5:24 AM
Post #177 of 183 (670 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kelpdiver] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Well, you guys keep posting descriptions of 5 events that happened as long ago as 1997 (and have phrases like 'preliminary'), plus this recent AZ incident where the student pulled the cutaway.

You are picking now.

I said "RSL's have killed"...Then a bunch of folks said they don't.

I proved them wrong, but you refuse to see that.

The Student in AZ....The RSL contributed to his death, thats just simple logic. You want to discount it since he screwed up and pulled the cutaway? Fine, but then you have to discount both WFFC accidents since they also both screwed up and lost track of altitude.

See you claim an RSL would have saved the two at the WFFC, but I say without an RSL the AZ student might have lived.

You guys keep fighting, but you fail to see the clear fact that the two at the WFFC died since they failed to perform the EP as a two step process....The Student in AZ died because a piece of "Saftey gear" fired the reserve while he was unstable.

In reply to:
I'd do it, but given your attention span in the past with the wingloading review, I don't see the point. You'd prefer to cherry pick. Or instead merely move on to the ratio defense, rather than to yield the point.

Well you are being as obtuse now as you were during the WL debates.

You refuse to see my point at all....The RSL while it could save you if you screw up does nothing that you can't do yourself. However it removes your ability to delay after a cutaway...And that has killed.

You refuse to admit that and would rather stick your head in the sand and pretend your safety toys are perfect.


kallend  (D 23151)

Aug 29, 2005, 5:54 AM
Post #178 of 183 (662 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Ron] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

 

Ron, how many have been killed by RSLs in the last 5 years? Compare with how many have died no-pull after a cutaway. The data are all out there.

There's simply no comparison. RSLs, on balance, save lives. To argue otherwise is irresponsible. YOU and Derek ARE being irresponsible.


Ron

Aug 29, 2005, 6:10 AM
Post #179 of 183 (659 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kallend] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
There's simply no comparison. RSLs, on balance, save lives. To argue otherwise is irresponsible. YOU and Derek ARE being irresponsible.

A Safety device that can kill you is not a good safety device.

You are encouraging device dependancy by ignoring the fact that RSL's have killed people. You refuse to admit the dangers. THAT is irresponsible.

Also if you had bothered to even read any of my posts I have said time after time that I recomend an RLS till you have a Malfunction that you handled properly....You of course would rather just run around calling people irresponsible than bother to educate people to the risks of your favorite toys.


(This post was edited by Ron on Aug 29, 2005, 6:18 AM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Aug 29, 2005, 6:38 AM
Post #180 of 183 (653 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kallend] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

Quote:
The data are all out there.

Quote the numbers.

The poeple killed by their RSL's, for the most part, did everything right, or at least would have probably lived had they not had an RSL. Those that went in without deploying their reserve after cutting away could have easily saved themselves by pulling the handle, they still had a chance.

No one wants to answer my repeated question:

Out of 100 RSL-equipped malfunctions, how many will the RSL save the jumper, i.e. the jumper wouldn't pull their reserve in time or at all. 1? 10? Give me a number.

The rest of the cutaways, the RSL is making the situation worse for the jumper.

That is the point I am making and people fail to see.

Quote:
Ron, how many have been killed by RSLs in the last 5 years? Compare with how many have died no-pull after a cutaway.

How many of the no-pull after cutaways was the jumper depending on the RSL to activate the reserve for them, based on previous experience and/or training, but were jumping a rig without a functional RSL?

Quote:
There's simply no comparison. RSLs, on balance, save lives. To argue otherwise is irresponsible. YOU and Derek ARE being irresponsible.

RSL's are not perfect, to pretend otherwise is not responsible. Speaking the truth is not irresponsible. Just answer my questions in this post.

Still waiting for your hard numbers. If you are going to expect them from me, then hold yourself to the same standard and produce them.

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Aug 29, 2005, 6:39 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Aug 29, 2005, 8:31 AM
Post #181 of 183 (634 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Ron] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

 

Ron, can you point to a single post where I have denied that RSLs can and have caused problems? If not, quit accusing me of saying that.

Unless you have a crystal ball you cannot predict what type of malfunction you will get that may kill you.

On balance, then, you are better off with an RSL unless you have specific reason (such as CRW) for not using one.


kallend  (D 23151)

Aug 29, 2005, 8:35 AM
Post #182 of 183 (632 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Hooknswoop] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

In reply to:
Out of 100 RSL-equipped malfunctions, how many will the RSL save the jumper, i.e. the jumper wouldn't pull their reserve in time or at all. 1? 10? Give me a number.

The rest of the cutaways, the RSL is making the situation worse for the jumper.

That is the point I am making and people fail to see.

Derek, you knolw perfectly well that no-one keeps track of that data.

What we DO know for sure is that since the introduction of AADs and widespread use of RSLs (both of which you ceaselessly denigrate at every opportunity) the number of no/low pull fatalities has been cut by around 80%.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 29, 2005, 9:38 AM
Post #183 of 183 (623 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [kallend] RSL's-Again [In reply to]  

>Ron, can you point to a single post where I have denied that
>RSLs can and have caused problems?

I can see where this is going. This thread has reached the end of its useful life as a safety and training thread, so I'm going to lock it rather than move it to Speaker's Corner. Kallend, Ron, please don't snipe at each other if you don't have anything to say.



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)