Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
skyhook

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

longtall  (D 7244)

Mar 20, 2007, 4:56 AM
Post #1 of 128 (6127 views)
Shortcut
skyhook Can't Post

With the Texas collision and the skyhook save; (see incidents) any discusion about the skyhooks ?.....J..


sid  (D 20135)

Mar 20, 2007, 6:41 AM
Post #2 of 128 (6011 views)
Shortcut
Re: [longtall] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

yes! It's useful in certain conditions but it's not infallible, it won't make you live forever, it is not the holy grail and it should not be the overiding decision on whether you jump a certain rig or even whether you jump or not. It has been seen to fail, it is open to being installed incorrectly in the field.... etc etc. etc.


Travman  (E License)

Mar 20, 2007, 8:39 AM
Post #3 of 128 (5936 views)
Shortcut
Re: [longtall] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

The skyhook is a very impressive addition to the resume of the man that brought us the three rings and the throwaway pilot chute.
I am seriously looking at getting a Micron as my next rig, partly due to the skyhook, as well as a few other factors.
I agree its not infallible.
The best solution to these things is not to get yourself into that situation, but if you do end up in a bad place the skyhook MAY be your get out of gaol free card.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 20, 2007, 8:45 AM
Post #4 of 128 (5927 views)
Shortcut
Re: [longtall] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

> With the Texas collision and the skyhook save; (see incidents) any
>discusion about the skyhooks ?.....J..

Per the incident report, the jumper who survived cut away at 500 feet, and the jumper who did not cut away at 200 feet. I think that "don't cut away at 200 feet" is a better lesson than "get a skyhook so you can cut away really really low."

I think the skyhook is a great idea, but this incident hasn't changed my opinion about it.


ChrisL  (C 35323)

Mar 20, 2007, 10:56 AM
Post #5 of 128 (5855 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
> With the Texas collision and the skyhook save; (see incidents) any
>discusion about the skyhooks ?.....J..

Per the incident report, the jumper who survived cut away at 500 feet, and the jumper who did not cut away at 200 feet. I think that "don't cut away at 200 feet" is a better lesson than "get a skyhook so you can cut away really really low."

I think the skyhook is a great idea, but this incident hasn't changed my opinion about it.

That should not be confused with "Dont get a skyhook, because if you do you would be tempted to cut away really really low".

I think some folks are of that very mindset. Thats the same mindset that thinks the added safety features we have available today actually make people less safe because they will then push the envelope farther than they would otherwise.

Fact is, if we take advantage of the additional safety things like the skyhook offer by exercizing common sense, not relying on them to save our asses, and NOT pushing the envelope farther we actually ARE safer.


(This post was edited by ChrisL on Mar 20, 2007, 10:59 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 20, 2007, 11:02 AM
Post #6 of 128 (5841 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisL] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

>Thats the same mindset that thinks the added safety features we
>have available today actually make people less safe because they will
>then push the envelope farther than they would otherwise.

Sadly, this has happened and people have been injured and killed because of it. Bill Booth even has a 'law' that concerns this.

Again, the skyhook is a great idea, but will probably not save you if you cut away from a nasty wrap at 200 feet. If someone thinks it will - they may be relying on it to deliver more than it can.


ChrisL  (C 35323)

Mar 20, 2007, 11:27 AM
Post #7 of 128 (5814 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sadly, this has happened and people have been injured and killed because of it. Bill Booth even has a 'law' that concerns this.

Sad but true.
The added safety is not magically bestowed simply by having these devices in our rigs.
We have to choose to skydive as if we did not have them in order to take advantage of the added safety they offer.

Thats what I try to do, and I believe that because of that I do offset the risk just a touch more than if I didn't have them.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 20, 2007, 4:01 PM
Post #8 of 128 (5707 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sid] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
it should not be the overiding decision on whether you jump a certain rig

That's a bold statement, If someone wants a rig that has skyhook, I can surely understand that would be an overiding decision. Some people make an overiding decision based on looks, so skyhook would be fine by me.


RIGGER  (D 7933)

Mar 21, 2007, 11:07 AM
Post #9 of 128 (5532 views)
Shortcut
Re: [longtall] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile Hi

The skyhook is a great "BACK UP" system to save the user no matter if it is a "normal" altitude or a "Low Altitude" (???) cutaway.

It will NOT replace the basic skydiving emergency process & keeping the right altitude for deployment & safe cutaway BUT it might save the user life when he/she failed to do the right thing at the right time/altitude.

Yes, I would say that the skyhook is a good positive point to look into it when you look for a new rig.

We have it today on Vector 3 & Javelin h/c & I believe it will be on more h/c soon.

Again, any back up system like AAD, RSL or SKYHOOK are not replacing the RIGHT attitude & the right training but it might save life.

Safe Jumps !!!


(This post was edited by RIGGER on Mar 21, 2007, 11:32 AM)


kenneth21441  (B License)

Mar 21, 2007, 3:14 PM
Post #10 of 128 (5424 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RIGGER] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

Well said and I completly agree.

Too many jumpers these day feel that I have a skyhook, AAD, RSL... etc.. and this will save me.

Somewhat true and somewhat not.
These are great backups in the just in case. But not the best if you think it will as your only save.

I remember the jumper who decided to let his crypress save him by not pulling and letting it fire at its firing range. This person earns my TSTO Award (Too Stupid Too Live).


longtall  (D 7244)

Mar 21, 2007, 11:31 PM
Post #11 of 128 (5357 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kenneth21441] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

Wasnt the skyhook based on a device developed in base jumping?...............................................J....


labrys  (D 29848)

Mar 22, 2007, 3:03 AM
Post #12 of 128 (5324 views)
Shortcut
Re: [longtall] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Wasnt the skyhook based on a device developed in base jumping?.

Not according to Bill Booth:

Quote:
I first started working on the Skyhook system over 15 years ago. Mark and Marta (who make the Sorcerer) were working for me during my early tests of "Skyhook-like" systems. The Sorcerer system system is really an outgrowth of those early Relative Workshop tests. I didn't put it on the market earlier, because I couldn't yet solve the automatic release problem, which must be solved before you can use such a system on the internal, spring-loaded pilot chute reserve system we all use. (The Sorcerer use an external, hand deploy pilot chute on the reserve.)


KellyF  (D 13826)

Mar 22, 2007, 7:43 AM
Post #13 of 128 (5268 views)
Shortcut
Re: [labrys] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Wasnt the skyhook based on a device developed in base jumping?.

Not according to Bill Booth:

Quote:
I first started working on the Skyhook system over 15 years ago. Mark and Marta (who make the Sorcerer) were working for me during my early tests of "Skyhook-like" systems. The Sorcerer system system is really an outgrowth of those early Relative Workshop tests. I didn't put it on the market earlier, because I couldn't yet solve the automatic release problem, which must be solved before you can use such a system on the internal, spring-loaded pilot chute reserve system we all use. (The Sorcerer use an external, hand deploy pilot chute on the reserve.)
It was my understanding, having worked for Mark and Marta in the early '90's, that Mark had developed the Sorcerer system before they moved to DeLand and worked at RWS. I believe the first test jump of the Sorcerer system was done at Z-Hills. This doesn't mean that one is an "outgrowth" of the other, since often many people can conceptualize something around the same time, independent of each other.


Premier skydiverek  (C 41769)

Mar 22, 2007, 8:00 AM
Post #14 of 128 (5255 views)
Shortcut
Re: [KellyF] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

Also, Eric Fradet developed a similar system years ago on the Advance system. Check these posts on this design:

http://dropzone.com/...p;sb=score&mh=50

From KellyF:
"I have never seen this system installed on a rig, but have seen a sample of it 8 or 9 years ago, so it may not be exactly the same. The Parafun system had a long pin installed on the bridle and further down (closer to the bag) there was a stiffened section with two loops on it. The RSL had a section with two grommets in it that the loops passed through, and then the pin was inserted through the loops to lock the RSL to the bridle.

In a cutaway, the RSL would pull the bag out of the container and deploy the reserve, and in a total the reserve pilot chute would launch, tension the bridle (thereby removing the pin and disconnecting the RSL), and then extract the reserve from the container. My details may be a bit off, but that's the basic idea. In basic function, both systems work the same, they just go about it in different ways. The skyhook does add the Collins lanyard to the system for a bit of an advantage if the RSL riser breaks."

Does anyone have pictures of this system???

Also, from Bill Booth:
"In answer to:
1. IS THE SKYHOOK BASED ON THE SORCERER? Actually, it's the other way around. I did my first of many series of tests on what would become the "Skyhook" in the mid 80's. During one of thoses test series, Mark and Marta Hewitt (who developed the Sorcerer) were working here at the Relative Workshop. The system that ended up on their Sorcerer seems to be an adaptation of one of my early designs. It however, will not work on an internal, spring loaded pilot chute rig...only on a rig like the Sorcerer, which has an external, hand deployed RESERVE pilot chute. It requires you to pull the reserve's hand deployed pilot chute out of the pouch to release the connection between the reserve pilot chute bridle and the main riser. If the reserve container comes open prematurely, you have a horse shoe malfunction of the reserve. You can see that this would not be a good system to have on a normal skydiving rig where the reserve container can also be opened by a Cypres, broken loop, or pushed out pin. I could not use such a system until I solved that nasty little problem. I needed a system that automatically released the connection, no matter how the reserve container was opened.

2. IS THE SKYHOOK LIKE ERIC FRADET'S SYSTEM? As far as I know, Eric's system (while designed many years after my early attempts) was developed independently, (Eric is a very smart guy, who I admire tremendously) It was not put on the general market however, because it failed to address several key problems, which needed to be solved before the system would truly be ready for the mass market. (For instance, if the RSL riser released prematurely, it pulled the reserve bag right into the still attached side of the main canopy...not a good thing, generally."


(This post was edited by skydiverek on Mar 22, 2007, 8:01 AM)


NickDG  (D 8904)

Mar 22, 2007, 9:30 AM
Post #15 of 128 (5210 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydiverek] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

Not disparaging either system, but it may be useful to know the only BASE jumper (I know of) that used a Sorcerer in an actual emergency was killed.

He cutaway a spinning main canopy and the reserve deployed with line twists that didn't clear before he reached the ground. This was on a big wall BASE jump in 1994 so the initial opening altitude wasn't as low as on more modern BASE jumps.

On the other hand Sorcerers have been, and still are, successfully used for funaways . . .

The above jumper is number #31 on the BASE Fatality List.

http://www.basefatalities.info/

NickD Smile
BASE 194


AlRedler  (D 6021)

Mar 22, 2007, 3:40 PM
Post #16 of 128 (5128 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kenneth21441] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

This raises a point I have been wondering about. With the skyhook, the main deploys the reserve, but if the reserve handle is pulled fast enough, then the reserve pilot chue deploys the reserve, disconnecting the rsl. In a collision like at Texas, especially if you are the one under the collapsed canopy but the other jumper has a full or mostly full canopy that you are tangled with, are you better off letting the skyhook do the deployment, and not immediately pull the silver handle? That way you have the benefit of a huge pilot chute (the other person's) instead of a small one.

I can see a situation where that would get the reserve out quicker than relying on a normal pilot chute deployment if I deploy fast enough to beat the skyhook.

It would have to be a very fast decision but at 500' should I trust my skyhook over the pilot chute?

I also ask because I have just changed my Javelin order to add a skyhook and the main reason for wanting one is the ability to have a fast opening at low altitude, especially in a collision. I have had no problem at higher altitudes getting my reserve deployed calmly when required,.

Al


IanHarrop  (C 1152)

Mar 22, 2007, 5:10 PM
Post #17 of 128 (5101 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AlRedler] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

I am no expert but I suspect that if you have a Skyhook and you cutaway your main, I doubt that there is much chance that you can pull silver fast enough for you to beat the Skyhook at deploying your reserve.

As I said I am no expert and I am open to finding out that I am wrong...


AlRedler  (D 6021)

Mar 23, 2007, 12:50 AM
Post #18 of 128 (5047 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

In which case going for both handles fast covers all safe options. If skyhook is that fast then having it seems like the most sensible thing to do.


IanHarrop  (C 1152)

Mar 23, 2007, 1:22 AM
Post #19 of 128 (5036 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AlRedler] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In which case going for both handles fast covers all safe options. If skyhook is that fast then having it seems like the most sensible thing to do.

Seems to me that you're over thinking the plumbing and potentially, accidental, pulling silver first and doing things out of sequence. Why not just do things in sequence as trained and if the Skyhook beats you there is no shame in it.

I think per chance is better to use the KISS system and follow established EPs. Then if you're ever jumping a rig that is not your own and doesn't have a Skyhook, you won't have practised EPs that are inappropriate. Remember in an emergency you have time to do it right, but not time to do it wrong.


USPA  (D 81812)

Mar 23, 2007, 1:35 AM
Post #20 of 128 (5028 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AlRedler] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

I think you not have a full understanding yet on skyhook operation.

The Skyhook starts functioning, directly after cutaway, whatever you do with your reserve ripcord. With a Skyhook you should ALWAYS pull the reserve ripcord. If the canopy, or canopies, produce more drag (=quicker opening of reserve) than the reserve pilot chute, the reserve will open due Skyhook deployment, if the reserve pilot chute produces more drag (=quicker opening) (very unlikely), the reserve will open due to reserve pilot chute deployment.

In other words, pulling your reserve ripcord will not affect the skyhook at all. Therefore you should ALWAYS pull the reserve ripcord.


AlRedler  (D 6021)

Mar 23, 2007, 1:38 AM
Post #21 of 128 (5025 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USPA] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks, that is really helpful. Seeing it in terms of the drag on the reserve makes perfect sense.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 23, 2007, 10:51 AM
Post #22 of 128 (4961 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AlRedler] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

>It would have to be a very fast decision but at 500' should I trust my
>skyhook over the pilot chute?

At 500' you should be preparing to land. Cutting away will kill you most of the time, Skyhook or no. In a wrap scenario, generally it's a better idea to communicate, try to clear it, and get more fabric out as a last resort. (i.e. deploy your reserve without cutting away.)

Most jumpers have a "never cut away below" altitude; for me it's about 1000 feet. Having one simple set of rules simplifies decision-making, and can make the difference between living and waiting just a second too long to take action.


AlRedler  (D 6021)

Mar 23, 2007, 3:00 PM
Post #23 of 128 (4911 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

Is that right though? Being wrapped at 500' and dropping will kill. Cutting away with a skyhook that opens in 100' or so does seem to give a chance rathe rthan just waiting for the impact.


gearless_chris  (D 29012)

Mar 23, 2007, 3:32 PM
Post #24 of 128 (4901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AlRedler] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm pretty sure the skyhook won't make your reserve open in 100'. The reserve in the video of the 100' cutaway was packed slider down. You probably will get line strecth though.


AlRedler  (D 6021)

Mar 23, 2007, 3:49 PM
Post #25 of 128 (4892 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gearless_chris] skyhook [In reply to] Can't Post

Fair enough. So is 1000' the lowest safe cutaway height or is 500' a fair chance?

In Texas, both jumpers decided that a cutaway was their best chance and one was right. The reports seemed to think the skyhook saved at around 500'.

As an ex military jumper 1000' doesn't seem that low to me, and not low enough to cause me panic. I wouldn't trust my slow opening Spectre to open in time from there but the reserve will be quicker. On the other hand cutting away too low to be any good is obviously pointless. In addition, a spinning malfunction will be likely to get a faster deployment anyway from a skyhook.

My query comes from seeking the best response to something like a collision where two wrapped canopies, or even 2 people under a partially closed single main, are going to get badly hurt, and getting off high enough is a fair risk to take.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)