Licencing the Skyhook?

[TrickyDicky 0]

Im just wondering when other rig manufacturers might licence the skyhook? Or whether Mr Booth wants to Licence it at all?

All manufacturers offer a normal RSL, but surely it has been seen that a skyhook is far superior. Or has it not been proven enough yet?

UK Skydiver for all your UK skydiving needs.

[tr027 0]

According to what I remember Mr. Booth saying in his last radio broadcast, this will happen once the Skyhook has such a bulletproof reputation that licensing it won't risk it's lifespan.

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[brianfry713 0]

Shows #16 and #17 here: http://www.skydiveradio.com/showdetail.htm

He's mainly concerned about other manufacturers making it incorrectly, so he wants to wait until it has been around long enough to prove to everyone that it works as made by RWS.

Hopefully it'll be available in all rigs soon

BASE 1224, Senior Parachute Rigger, CPL ASEL IA, AGI, IGI
USPA Coach & UPT Tandem Instructor, PRO, Altimaster Field Support Representative

[Dougiefresh 0]

Apparently the dimensions need to be totally exact. Mr. Booth said at the SDC spring expo last year that errors on the order of fractions of an inch make the skyhook useless. I applaud him for wanting to make sure it's done right.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. --Douglas Adams

[riggermick 6]

Quote

Im just wondering when other rig manufacturers might licence the skyhook? Or whether Mr Booth wants to Licence it at all?

All manufacturers offer a normal RSL, but surely it has been seen that a skyhook is far superior. Or has it not been proven enough yet?

To install a Sky Hook on an existing TSO'd rig would reqiure the rig to be re-dropped and new engineering drawings to be issued. Very expensive and time consuming. A new design undergoing drop testing and certification could incorporate the Sky Hook in it's reserve deployment system at almost no additional cost (except of course the licencing fee).

Mick.

[skyblu3 0]

It's all marketing. RWS is hoping to get people really worked up about the skyhook that they choose a Vector for their next rig.

It's much more profitable to sell a complete system with skyhook and all than have another company build everything and pay a samll royalty for your invention.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

It's all marketing. RWS is hoping to get people really worked up about the skyhook that they choose a Vector for their next rig.

It's much more profitable to sell a complete system with skyhook and all than have another company build everything and pay a samll royalty for your invention.

It’s probably your degrees in manufacturing and economics that give you this insight. Or was it your vast experience in designing life saving devices?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[BKR 0]

He cannot licencing it because he is not the inventor of this system. It has been developped by Eric Fradet and first commercialized by Parafun (French company) in 1999.

Jérôme Bunker

Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468

[RossDagley 0]

Quote

He cannot licencing it because he is not the inventor of this system. It has been developped by Eric Fradet and first commercialized by Parafun (French company) in 1999.

Jérôme Bunker

He can't licence it?

http://www.freshpatents.com/Skyhook-reserve-parachute-deployment-system-dt20040812ptan20040155153.php

[skybytch 259]

Quote

It's all marketing. RWS is hoping to get people really worked up about the skyhook that they choose a Vector for their next rig.

It's much more profitable to sell a complete system with skyhook and all than have another company build everything and pay a samll royalty for your invention.

If this were the case then why did Bill Booth license others to use his 3 ring system?

[MB38 0]

I believe that RWS actually loses money on every sport rig sold.

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[skydiverek 56]

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."

Can we see some pics???

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

It's much more profitable to sell a complete system with skyhook and all than have another company build everything and pay a samll royalty for your invention.

Regardless on your views about RWS or their marketing system (I personally think they do a damn good job increasing jumper safety overall--not just on RWS rigs), this statement is demonstrably incorrect.

Re-phrase it like this and you can see what I mean:

***It's much more profitable to sell a complete computer system with skyhook windows and all than have another company build everything and pay a small royalty for your invention operating system.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

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."

Can we see some pics???

Mark Hewitt created a similar system in the early 90's for the Sorcerer BASE rig. He even manufactured and sold it, and then Vertigo (sans Hewitt) did so, and I believe that Apex will still make them. Pictures of this may still be floating around somewhere on the Apex web site, but I haven't looked for them recently.

Almost no invention is ever totally new. Almost everything is a refinement, or built off of, or improving upon, some previous idea. The skyhook is no exception. However, the skyhook is a damn fine improvement upon what was previously available. In fact, it's so good that I've seen BASE jumpers using skyhook equipped Vector 3's for both reserves (unusual) and intentional cutaways.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Quote

It's much more profitable to sell a complete system with skyhook and all than have another company build everything and pay a samll royalty for your invention.

Regardless on your views about RWS or their marketing system (I personally think they do a damn good job increasing jumper safety overall--not just on RWS rigs), this statement is demonstrably incorrect.

Re-phrase it like this and you can see what I mean:

***It's much more profitable to sell a complete computer system with skyhook windows and all than have another company build everything and pay a small royalty for your invention operating system.

[masterrigger1 2]

Tom,
You beat me to the Mark Hewitt system.

Good post!

Blue ones,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[skydiverek 56]

Quote

Mark Hewitt created a similar system in the early 90's for the Sorcerer BASE rig

That system was NOT designed for a spring reserve pilotchute.

[BKR 0]

He does licencing it, but it doesn't have any value in a trial because of the previous one made several years ago.

Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I believe that RWS actually loses money on every sport rig sold.

Why would you think that? It wouldn't make much sense to have your primary product be a loss leader, to sell a smaller number of tandem rigs. And the list price of the V3 isn't on the low end of the scale. If they're not making money on it, they're doing something wrong.

I think BB is a good inventor and a good capitalist. Nothing wrong with him using the the skyhook to sell more containers, and I'm sure down the road he'll find a way to license it that he's comfortable with. I think it's better anyway that this device gets a few years of real world testing with a single manufacturer

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Why would you think that?

I think I remember hearing that on one of this SD Radio interviews.

[brianfry713 0]

Don't forget about the military market, which I think is bigger than the sport market.

BASE 1224, Senior Parachute Rigger, CPL ASEL IA, AGI, IGI
USPA Coach & UPT Tandem Instructor, PRO, Altimaster Field Support Representative

[Remster 24]

Quote

It wouldn't make much sense to have your primary product be a loss leader,

Their sport rigs arent their primary products.

Remster

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Why would you think that?

I think I remember hearing that on one of this SD Radio interviews.

I downloaded those episodes, but haven't listened to any yet. I'll check it out later this week.

Still a bit dubious though, both for the price and that they increased production capacity last year. Dotcom economics died in 2001.

[riggermick 6]

Quote

It's all marketing. RWS is hoping to get people really worked up about the skyhook that they choose a Vector for their next rig.

It's much more profitable to sell a complete system with skyhook and all than have another company build everything and pay a samll royalty for your invention.

Really?


When the three ring release was covered under a US utility patent Bill charged $1.00 per ring, that's six bucks a copy. Multiply that by any manufacturers yearly output, do this calculation for all manufacturers and add the total together, it's a pretty significant number. Finally multiply the annual totals by 17 (the run time of a US utility patent), doesn't sound like he made any money does it?



Mick.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

He does licencing it, but it doesn't have any value in a trial because of the previous one made several years ago.

US Patent Office:

"If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries."


Even if the systems were exactly the same, which I doubt, it appears Mr. Fradet forfeited his rights to the system by not taking action years ago.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals