Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
Skyhook input wanted

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

celayne  (D 14528)

Dec 9, 2012, 3:12 PM
Post #1 of 64 (5104 views)
Shortcut
Skyhook input wanted Can't Post

I am in the process of building a new rig and I am trying to decide whether or not to put a skyhook in it. I would like to hear your thoughts and input on skyhooks and if you have used one please tell me about it.


jtiflyer  (D 27430)

Dec 9, 2012, 3:18 PM
Post #2 of 64 (5074 views)
Shortcut
Re: [celayne] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

2 skyhook chops on spun up velos. Never want to own another rig that does not have one again. Both were camera jumps and absolutely no problem with getting clear of the risers.

Highly Recommend one.


sundevil777  (D License)

Dec 9, 2012, 3:23 PM
Post #3 of 64 (5067 views)
Shortcut
Re: [celayne] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.dropzone.com/...p;sb=score&mh=25


Deci  (D 1046)

Dec 9, 2012, 7:06 PM
Post #4 of 64 (4924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

Here's my opinion:

http://bard.ca/should-i-get-a-skyhook/


ctrph8  (D License)

Dec 9, 2012, 10:56 PM
Post #5 of 64 (4843 views)
Shortcut
Re: [celayne] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

My next rig will have one. An RSL and a MARD system accomplish the same thing but do it differently. My view is that under most conditions, an RSL would work just fine. The Skyhook just accomplishes it faster. This would be no big deal at altitude but if you are super low and every last foot counts, I'd prefer a Skyhook.



In reply to:
I am in the process of building a new rig and I am trying to decide whether or not to put a skyhook in it. I would like to hear your thoughts and input on skyhooks and if you have used one please tell me about it.


nigel99  (D 1)

Dec 9, 2012, 11:41 PM
Post #6 of 64 (4825 views)
Shortcut
Re: [celayne] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

My opinion. Any MARD adds complexity and increases the 'interaction' between the main and reserve.

The only valid argument I see for a MARD is a cutaway resulting from a canopy collision at low altitude. If you are cutting away below 1000 foot for pretty much any other reason, I think you need to question your competence or safety as a jumper.

I tend to subscribe to the KISS principle and so any MARD is not something I'd choose at the moment. But when I order a new container, I'll re-evaluate my stance.


woppyvac  (D 33147)

Dec 10, 2012, 8:41 AM
Post #7 of 64 (4669 views)
Shortcut
Re: [celayne] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

The never ending discussion. :)

Personally. I ordered my rig without a RSL or Skyhook. NOT BECAUSE IM CHEAP but because 99% of the time I pull 3K or higher giving me enough time to cut away and return to an arch before deploying my reserve. I dont want to be in a spinning mal cut away, be butt backwards, and my reserve tangling around me etc. knock on wood - 0 reserve rides thus far.


danornan  (D 11308)

Dec 10, 2012, 8:53 AM
Post #8 of 64 (4654 views)
Shortcut
Re: [woppyvac] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The never ending discussion. :)

Personally. I ordered my rig without a RSL or Skyhook. NOT BECAUSE IM CHEAP but because 99% of the time I pull 3K or higher giving me enough time to cut away and return to an arch before deploying my reserve. I dont want to be in a spinning mal cut away, be butt backwards, and my reserve tangling around me etc. knock on wood - 0 reserve rides thus far.

Skyhook or RSL is not for that 99% of the time! It's for that 1% of the time.....


fluffyduckie  (B 33293)

Dec 10, 2012, 9:10 AM
Post #9 of 64 (4636 views)
Shortcut
Re: [celayne] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

You always have the option to disconnect your RSL. It will add value to the rig at resale.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Dec 10, 2012, 9:11 AM
Post #10 of 64 (4632 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ctrph8] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
My view is that under most conditions, an RSL would work just fine. The Skyhook just accomplishes it faster.

Not necessarily, See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze0Rcp7E0to


erdnarob  (D 364)

Dec 11, 2012, 6:56 PM
Post #11 of 64 (4418 views)
Shortcut
Re: [celayne] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

I have had two total malfuctions and deployed my reserve without any problem. Since in this case my reserve pilot chute was in charge of the deployment, my skyhook released from the RLS as designed.


ctrph8  (D License)

Dec 11, 2012, 11:27 PM
Post #12 of 64 (4378 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

I meant that all things being equal, a skyhook accomplishes it faster. Different rigs, different jumpers and different canopies would not be a reliable way to determine what was faster. I have no idea whether or not any of those were the same or different beyond the obvious difference in rig manufacturers. In that case, the Racer was faster. If you were comparing a skyhook equipped Javelin to an RSL equipped Javelin with the same jumper and same reserve canopies, that would give some useful information.






In reply to:
Quote:
My view is that under most conditions, an RSL would work just fine. The Skyhook just accomplishes it faster.

Not necessarily, See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze0Rcp7E0to


ChrisHoward  (D 28490)

Dec 12, 2012, 5:50 AM
Post #13 of 64 (4307 views)
Shortcut
Re: [celayne] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I am in the process of building a new rig and I am trying to decide whether or not to put a skyhook in it. I would like to hear your thoughts and input on skyhooks and if you have used one please tell me about it.

They are awesome. I have at least 8 skyhook cut aways and am always impressed with the results.


ChrisHoward  (D 28490)

Dec 12, 2012, 5:56 AM
Post #14 of 64 (4300 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

[replyThe only valid argument I see for a MARD is a cutaway resulting from a canopy collision at low altitude. If you are cutting away below 1000 foot for pretty much any other reason, I think you need to question your competence or safety as a jumper.That is a very un-educated opinion right there. The benefits of a skyhook extend far beyond the circumstances you have described. Jumping with a skyhook has nothing to do with competence.


ChrisHoward  (D 28490)

Dec 12, 2012, 6:00 AM
Post #15 of 64 (4293 views)
Shortcut
Re: [woppyvac] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The never ending discussion. :)

Personally. I ordered my rig without a RSL or Skyhook. NOT BECAUSE IM CHEAP but because 99% of the time I pull 3K or higher giving me enough time to cut away and return to an arch before deploying my reserve. I dont want to be in a spinning mal cut away, be butt backwards, and my reserve tangling around me etc. knock on wood - 0 reserve rides thus far.
Firstly, you can still get yourself into as much trouble cutting away at 3000ft as you can from 1500ft. Secondly, my skyhook has always performed well for me and I can assure you that a Velo at 3-1 wingloading gets to spinning pretty fast.


nigel99  (D 1)

Dec 12, 2012, 2:33 PM
Post #16 of 64 (4199 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisHoward] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
[replyThe only valid argument I see for a MARD is a cutaway resulting from a canopy collision at low altitude. If you are cutting away below 1000 foot for pretty much any other reason, I think you need to question your competence or safety as a jumper.
That is a very un-educated opinion right there. The benefits of a skyhook extend far beyond the circumstances you have described. Jumping with a skyhook has nothing to do with competence.
Please could you explain more? I certainly didn't mean to imply that jumpers with skyhooks are in anyway incompetent, just that one of the most common reasons that I've heard for having a skyhook is that you can cutaway at 300ft. I hear that much more frequently than anything else and find it worrying, as with one exception the person couldn't explain why they would be cutting away below 1k.


Quagmirian  (A 110392)

Dec 12, 2012, 3:22 PM
Post #17 of 64 (4165 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

Not many people plan to cutaway below 1000 feet. The videographer in Bill Booth's Skyhook video demonstrates this. Even though he responded well to his malfunction and made the decision to cutaway pretty early on, he took a long time to go for his reserve handle.


jtiflyer  (D 27430)

Dec 12, 2012, 3:33 PM
Post #18 of 64 (4154 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
[replyThe only valid argument I see for a MARD is a cutaway resulting from a canopy collision at low altitude. If you are cutting away below 1000 foot for pretty much any other reason, I think you need to question your competence or safety as a jumper.
That is a very un-educated opinion right there. The benefits of a skyhook extend far beyond the circumstances you have described. Jumping with a skyhook has nothing to do with competence.

Please could you explain more? I certainly didn't mean to imply that jumpers with skyhooks are in anyway incompetent, just that one of the most common reasons that I've heard for having a skyhook is that you can cutaway at 300ft. I hear that much more frequently than anything else and find it worrying, as with one exception the person couldn't explain why they would be cutting away below 1k.
There is also the case at the Dubai cup 2011 when a Petra canopy collapsed mid turn. Pilot cut away and lived because he had a skyhook.

Canopies can also collapse in turbulence, which is more severe and dangerous closer to the ground naturally.


nigel99  (D 1)

Dec 12, 2012, 4:04 PM
Post #19 of 64 (4136 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Quagmirian] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Not many people plan to cutaway below 1000 feet. The videographer in Bill Booth's Skyhook video demonstrates this. Even though he responded well to his malfunction and made the decision to cutaway pretty early on, he took a long time to go for his reserve handle.

You say that not many people plan to and yet in my personal experience it has been a common reason for getting a skyhook. I see far too many jumpers who have never bothered to think about what they are jumping. AADs are prime examples, and I've been in the situation of being the least experienced person on a ferry flight, but the only one who knew what to do. The most experienced person switched their aad on, flew to a new dz 1500ft higher and didn't realise there might be a problem with that approach. So you'll find I think lots, ask a bucket load of questions and then make a decision.

Clearly lots of people with thousands of jumps see significant value in a MARD, and as I would be shocked if their motive was the ability to cutaway at 300ft (the commonly touted figure). That's why I'm pretty keen to hear why they made the choice.


ChrisHoward  (D 28490)

Dec 13, 2012, 5:59 AM
Post #20 of 64 (3990 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
[replyThe only valid argument I see for a MARD is a cutaway resulting from a canopy collision at low altitude. If you are cutting away below 1000 foot for pretty much any other reason, I think you need to question your competence or safety as a jumper.
That is a very un-educated opinion right there. The benefits of a skyhook extend far beyond the circumstances you have described. Jumping with a skyhook has nothing to do with competence.

Please could you explain more? I certainly didn't mean to imply that jumpers with skyhooks are in anyway incompetent, just that one of the most common reasons that I've heard for having a skyhook is that you can cutaway at 300ft. I hear that much more frequently than anything else and find it worrying, as with one exception the person couldn't explain why they would be cutting away below 1k.So lets agree that if somebody touts a 300ft cut away as the only reason for having a skyhook then they are obviously a moron. I too would be worried about people who express that as the only benefit.
I personally feel that the biggest benefit of the skyhook is the greatly reduced chance of incidents between cut away and reserve deployment. Everyone knows that you need to get stable again for a clean reserve deployment after cutting away. The skyhook will have a reserve over your head before you ever have a chance of getting unstable therefore eliminating the chance of a myriad of problematic scenarios.
I have also had my fair share of non-skyhook cutaways so I have no problem dealing with that too. But it is a much more drawn out process where you need to be on your A game. Can every one perform their best immediately after a cut away? I doubt it. Hell I have at least 14 cut aways and my heart still gets to pumping every time.
The skyhook simplifies cut aways and has multiple safety benefits over a free fall cut away. Why wouldn't you want to utilize that added security?
P.S. This obviously doesn't account for canopy wraps.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Dec 13, 2012, 9:32 AM
Post #21 of 64 (3944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Not necessarily, See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze0Rcp7E0to
I have been nit picked on this as to which one is quicker. They are close, no question The Racer without a Skyhook and a Vector with one. You judge the risk and cost value.

Now lets look at the big canopies with the more demanding deployments, like tandem.
Try as I may I haven't seen a good tandem video with a Skyhook to compare with this actual field video. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtNKXDW0Ixo

The tandem deploys the reserve in 4 seconds after a cutaway from a 500 sq. Ft. canopy with a broken line. Very low deployment speed. You can hear the pair talking.

Show me a Tandem Skyhook video which is as fast.


airtwardo  (D License)

Dec 13, 2012, 10:05 AM
Post #22 of 64 (3915 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Show me a Tandem Skyhook video which is as fast.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srZqgJ8G85U


This one is pretty quick ya gotta admit.

Personally, I don't see the downside of the extra complexity as being worth it to 'me'...but in the right circumstances it does seem to do it's job.
Attachments: skyhook tandem.JPG (72.7 KB)


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Dec 13, 2012, 12:10 PM
Post #23 of 64 (3877 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srZqgJ8G85U


This one is pretty quick ya gotta admit.

Yeah, but not even close to as quick. The Racer Tandem does it in 4 seconds, the one on the video above takes almost 6 seconds. Hard to tell exactly when the canopy is landable. Win to the Racer by a bunch. Racer Tandem deployment: https://www.youtube.com/...&feature=mh_lolz

This certainly substantiates my assertion the Skyhook is not necessarily faster. In some cases (Tandem) it is still slower than the Racer.
Get out you stop watches folks or one of you video types could match them side by side.


airtwardo  (D License)

Dec 13, 2012, 1:04 PM
Post #24 of 64 (3841 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srZqgJ8G85U


This one is pretty quick ya gotta admit.

Yeah, but not even close to as quick. The Racer Tandem does it in 4 seconds, the one on the video above takes almost 6 seconds. Hard to tell exactly when the canopy is landable. Win to the Racer by a bunch. Racer Tandem deployment: https://www.youtube.com/...&feature=mh_lolz

This certainly substantiates my assertion the Skyhook is not necessarily faster. In some cases (Tandem) it is still slower than the Racer.
Get out you stop watches folks or one of you video types could match them side by side.


Obviously a lot of variables like canopy type & rigger influence can make a difference, but unless the clocks on the videos are way off...


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Dec 13, 2012, 1:07 PM)
Attachments: Cutaway~47sec.JPG (98.7 KB)
  Chop plus 10 sec..JPG (77.2 KB)
  Skyhook chop.JPG (75.5 KB)
  Skyhook chop pluse 7 seconds.JPG (79.8 KB)


ctrph8  (D License)

Dec 13, 2012, 8:38 PM
Post #25 of 64 (3735 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jtiflyer] Skyhook input wanted [In reply to] Can't Post

 
I was looking for the video of that for my first post. Could you find a link? That was what opened my eyes about the Skyhook.





In reply to:
There is also the case at the Dubai cup 2011 when a Petra canopy collapsed mid turn. Pilot cut away and lived because he had a skyhook.

/reply]


First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)