Attaching your canopy...

[JaapSuter 0]

To attach our canopies to our containers we have the option of three-rings, L-bars and sewing them on.

Why haven't we come up with a system that provides something in between L-bars and three-rings? Something that requires less frequent inspection than three-rings, but would still allow for fairly quick releases.

I'm thinking something climbing-karabiner like, releasable without tools. Somebody else pointed me to the capewell system, but I'm not entirely sure how it works. I'll have to look into that.

Thanks,

Jaap Suter

[Treejumps 0]

Hi Jaap,

What did you have in mind? The 3 ring system is incredibly reliable. To my knowledge, there has been one inadvertant release on one riser (one side) in the base environment in the entire history of base. The 3 ring requires very little maintenance, and needs only a quick visual check at packing or pre jump to they are still properly hooked up.

What do you find innadequate about the current technology?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

To my knowledge, there has been one inadvertant release on one riser (one side) in the base environment in the entire history of base.

I can think of three.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JaapSuter 0]

In a sport as young as base I don't think we can take our past safety record as any sort of garantuee for the future. Especially not considering the rate our sport is growing at and the alleged mentality of the new generation.

Nick once pointed out in a discussion about L-bars that they allow us to stay ahead of death instead of chasing after it.

If we can invent something that reduces the number of things to worry about on a base-jump, that can only be a good thing, right?

There have been numerous occasions in skydiving where three rings have failed. It is a matter of time before base jumping becomes statistically large enough for such an incident to happen as well.

Don't forget that base canopies are packed and used in environments that tend to be harsh on materials. I always dress up my riser-covers before dragging my container towards the canopy to stow the lines. Not everybody does this, and this can easily fray your three-ring loop.

[crwper 7]

Quote

To attach our canopies to our containers we have the option of three-rings, L-bars and sewing them on.

I have two containers with three-rings, and one with permanent risers. I got that last rig without rings because I couldn't think of a really good reason to have them on there, and also because it is simpler. When I went to the bridge in Colorado last year, I chose to use one of my rigs with rings, because the water below was moving fast enough that cutting away seemed a useful option.

So I guess what I'm wondering is this... How often do you need to cut away a canopy for maintenance and such? Part of my decision going with permanent risers is that I do this infrequently.

If you need to cut away, for example landing in fast-moving water, then you need three-rings, or some similar quick-release system. Off-hand, I think Capewells would be more prone to accidental release in the BASE environment, where you might bump against the steel getting to an exit point.

I'm not sure something like a karabiner would be easy enough to operate in a high-stress situation. Also, it would be difficult to remove risers from a karabiner if they were loaded, as I imagine they would be in the fast-moving water scenario. There is quick-eject hardware that might fit the bill, but it's bulky and not as simple as the three-ring system.

Michael

[Treejumps 0]

Those are good points Jaap. Education and knowlege are required to safely use todays' equipment. As more people are "deathcamped", the likelihood of people dying because of a lack of basic rigging skills does increase. L bars have their place, but not everyplace.

BASE requires critical thinking skiils. This applies to gear as well. The 3 ring has proven itself over the last 25 years, and it works well if properly maintained. If there was a better system for a release system, it probably would have surfaced by now.

The long and short of it seems to be that if you don't need to be able to release, use L bars, but if you jump near water, land in trees, or occaisionally need to run off without your canopy to avoid detention, the 3 ring is currently the best system.

YMMV

[vandev 0]

Hey Tom, Do you have any information on the causes of the 3 ? ie. old, worn, ring failure, loop failure or anything i did not mention?

Thanks chris

In the end...the universe has a way of working itself out.... "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle"

[TomAiello 25]

In one case, it was concluded that a camera mount had snagged the yellow cable and yanked it out of the 3 ring assembly, effectively cutting it away.

In the other two, which happened back to back on the same rig (even though it was inspected on re-assembly by a manufacturer who happened to be on site) no cause was found. That rig was later inspected by just about everybody, including the original manufacturer, without anything really turning up.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JaapSuter 0]

Quote

In the other two, which happened back to back on the same rig (even though it was inspected on re-assembly by a manufacturer who happened to be on site) no cause was found. That rig was later inspected by just about everybody, including the original manufacturer, without anything really turning up.

I'm guessing that was the last time that rig was jumped? Was the three-ring setup inspected by multiple persons before the second time, reducing the chances of misrigging? Does this person still jump three-rings?

Did any of these three incidents lead to injuries?

[BASE813 0]

seeing as a BASE canopy is not normally cutaway under tension, then why is not a BASE capewell system designed?

Just me being curious............

[vandev 0]

where these incidents or something that happened on the ground?/

Just currious..

Thanks chris

In the end...the universe has a way of working itself out.... "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle"

[BASE813 0]

Quote

where these incidents or something that happened on the ground?/

Just currious..

Thanks chris

surely something that happened on the ground is not somthing to worry about???

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I'm guessing that was the last time that rig was jumped?

The original manufacturer removed the 3 ring system and replaced it with a fixed riser setup.

Quote

Was the three-ring setup inspected by multiple persons before the second time, reducing the chances of misrigging?

I am uncertain. But I do know that I have 100% confidence in the skills and knowledge of the person who inspected it prior to the second jump.

Quote

Does this person still jump three-rings?

I don't know. I saw the rig in question up for sale a while back. I've got no idea if that original owner jumps 3 rings, or even jumps at all, anymore.

Quote

Did any of these three incidents lead to injuries?

Neither of the two back to back did. They were here, and resulted in medium speed water landings without injury.

The camera-snag release was at a terminal wall, and resulted in the level of injury you'd expect (fairly serious). That jumper has since returned to jumping (the incident was some time ago).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

where these incidents or something that happened on the ground?

All three incidents occured during deployment.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

seeing as a BASE canopy is not normally cutaway under tension, then why is not a BASE capewell system designed?

I've only ever done an "emergency" cutaway on my BASE rig while it was under tension. Twice in trees (I was hanging from the harness), and once in swift water. Especially in the water situation, I was very pleased to have the ability to cut away quickly and easily. In one of the tree cut-aways I was facing lights and sirens, so I was pretty happy to be able to get out of the tree, but it wasn't life threatening.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[crwper 7]

Quote

seeing as a BASE canopy is not normally cutaway under tension, then why is not a BASE capewell system designed?

Perhaps because they are not as low-profile as three-rings, so in addition to aesthetic issues they would be more prone to getting knocked by steel, rocks, etc. on the way to the exit point. I've never actually used Capewells, but my impression is that if the cover got knocked loose, you would be one step closer to an accidental release.

But also I'm curious about your reasoning... I would have thought that the only time a BASE canopy needs to be cut away is when it is under tension, e.g. pulling the jumper downstream in rapids. Otherwise, for maintenance and such, you could just undo the links. What did you have in mind?

Michael

[pbla4024 0]

I heard about one in France resulting in broken leg. Is it this camera one you are talking about?

Fido

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I heard about one in France resulting in broken leg. Is it this camera one you are talking about?

No. That would be a fourth one. The one I was talking about was in Italy.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[dploi 0]

Think less. Jump more.

[freeflysoul 0]

I don't know if this system is the same I've seen and jumped on my first jumps in Italy with a round canopy (military rig - CMP-55 / MT10), but during ground training I saw 2 times a riser release due to a bad closing sequence on a very similar system.
The 2nd plate which cover the 1st closing hook can easily hide a bad lock, giving you a bad day...
I don't like it at all for BASE...
If you are concerned about a riser release, go for integrity risers...

3,2,1,C-YA!!!
V.
BASE #1075 / BMI #I-002 / PFI #042 / EGI #104

[Colm 1]

Quote

Quote

seeing as a BASE canopy is not normally cutaway under tension, then why is not a BASE capewell system designed?

Perhaps because they are not as low-profile as three-rings, so in addition to aesthetic issues they would be more prone to getting knocked by steel, rocks, etc. on the way to the exit point. I've never actually used Capewells, but my impression is that if the cover got knocked loose, you would be one step closer to an accidental release.

I am somewhat familiar with Capewell connectors due to my job. I have had to release them before, but I've never had to cutaway a 3-ring setup. I think Capewells are probably pretty reliable based on their military record (just don't buy from the lowest bidder! ) but I would rather have a good 3-ring setup anyday.

A couple reasons I like 3-rings
-Familiarity (and lots of data on their use)
-Less painful if you get whipped in the head
-Easier to inspect

Dislike Capewells:
-I don't see how they're any less immune to rigging errors
-Extra bulk, & some pointy components
-Once it is set there are parts you can't examine
-It is possible (though unlikely) to set it wrong without getting an obvious visual clue.

One nice thing about capewells, you can selectively cut away one side or another, which I suppose could be handy under certain circumstances.

[audacium 0]

Tom wrote:

Quote

In one case, it was concluded that a camera mount had snagged the yellow cable and yanked it out of the 3 ring assembly, effectively cutting it away.

If one wants to avoid the possibility of yanking out the yellow cable with a camera, your fingers or whatever during deployment, my rigger has come up with a nice and simple solution.
He builds a little system called SuperLock where you simply thread another yellow cable from the other direction through the loop for the three-ring-system and then stow it in the riser where the cut-away-cable comes from. So, in case you yank out the cut-away-cable, there is still the cable from the SuperLock that holds the loop.

Look here: http://www.base-jump.de/47782.html
(Unfortunately only in German, you can see the system in the third picture.)

I do not know whether someone else already came up with this idea before, but it gives me peace of mind against an accidental release. And I thoroughly inspect my three-ring-system each time packing, so for me in sum the advantages of a three-ring-system are bigger than the possible risks. It seems to me extremely reliable when properly maintained. But I do not have any real statistics, so it is too bad that the cause of two failures (which Tom mentioned) is unknown.

Jaap wrote:

Quote

Don't forget that base canopies are packed and used in environments that tend to be harsh on materials. I always dress up my riser-covers before dragging my container towards the canopy to stow the lines. Not everybody does this, and this can easily fray your three-ring loop.

This is a very good point, Jaap, and worth a reminder. But in addtion to being nice with your three-ring-system to me it seems this is a very good reason why to have inverted risers where the loop is much better protected from abuse. You have to be more disciplined for checking because it is somewhat harder to look at. But maybe I am overlooking some inherent problem of inverted risers? (The higher cut-away-forces of inverted against conventional risers do not count, imho.)

--
Eduard

[vesatoro 0]

One more happened just two weeks ago in Switzerland. The jumper luckily survived with quite minor injuries compared to what happened (healing well and walking). The 3-ring loop failed in a hard opening, maybe also combined with other circumstances. So it makes five...

I wonder why the loop is not made from more durable material than the normal loop line. As in base, the main goal is not to detach the canopy in air during a malfunction, but allow release in water or treelanding. So, more compromise towards durability in the expense of flexibility could be better choise.

Vesa

"Fear is the path to the Dark side"
(Master Yoda)

[460 0]

I frequently check the length of my yellow cutaway cable at the risers before exit. Perhaps the cutway cable length should be made longer with a longer pouch on the riser. Further, perhaps the cable housing should be more hidden to reduce the chance of hangups on a helmet cam. Integrity risers are nice too regarding wear, since the white (retaining) loop for the three ring system is not exposed hile "dragging" the risers/container during the line stowing.

Looks like a death sandwich without the bread - Steve Deadman Morrell, BASE 174

[nicknitro71 0]

That looks like a neat simple system.
The only problem I see is in the case of a water landing where you have to cut-away ASAP before drawing and now you have to yank on three release systems instead of just one.

I think the single most important factor is the cable length. Please make sure you have at least 5" of slack.

I would like to know the actual reasons for the failure of the 3-ring systems. Where (in the system) did it actually happen? What did brake?

In one case where no apparent damage was seen I could speculate that the cause was the length of the cable/s.

Memento Audere Semper

903