Skyhook MANDATORY

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

At the DZ this past weekend... someone who was at the recent PIA convention was trying to tell me that at some point the Skyhook was going to become MANDATORY on all reserve systems.

Is this, in fact, true... or was it just something "talked about" at the recent PIA convention?

Anyone have any real in-site??

[IanHarrop 37]

I wasn't there but I would suggest that, since the RSL isn't mandatory, I have a hard time believing the Skyhook will be. Perhaps someone was speculating on what they thought might be a good idea and someone else over heard it.

BUT as I said I wasn't there... this is just my opinion.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[DSE 3]

If the conversation you heard was similar to one I was part of, the comment was indeed made that the Skyhook "should become mandatory" but not that it "would" become mandatory.

There was also a discussion about the stupidity of AAD's being mandatory, and the associated liabilities that the DZ takes on when they require an AAD. Any DZ that requires a Skyhook, and if a Skyhook doesn't make a save...the DZ becomes liable, according to the person who was speaking at PIA in two different venues on two different days.

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

that'd be a neat trick, wouldn't it? I would think the patent would prevent such legislation for 20 years or so even if they tried. But seriously... AAD's aren't, and RSL's aren't, why would skyhook be?

I wouldn't be surprised, however, if UPT made skyhook mandatory on new student rigs sometime in the future.

Go skyhook! I should get my rig back with a brand new shiny skyhook in a couple weeks.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[councilman24 36]

There was NO discussion at the PIA BUSINESS meeting about the skyhook, in any way shape or form.

If some presentor opinined that this should be or may be maditory it was their own individual opinion.

What was a topic of discussion at the PIA rigging committee was whether a rigger could remove ANY rsl lanyard if installed by the factory. It comes down to whether the rig manual states that it is maditory or optional. Both exist and it varys from rig to rig.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[DSE 3]

Quote

There was NO discussion at the PIA BUSINESS meeting about the skyhook, in any way shape or form.

If some presentor opinined that this should be or may be maditory it was their own individual opinion.

What was a topic of discussion at the PIA rigging committee was whether a rigger could remove ANY rsl lanyard if installed by the factory. It comes down to whether the rig manual states that it is maditory or optional. Both exist and it varys from rig to rig.

To clarify my earlier post, the discussion during which I was present (on the floor, and after the CSP gathering (this was at RumBullion's), was probably borne out of the riggers discussion, as the question of removing RSL's was a part of the discussion.

[klingeme 0]

Quote

I wouldn't be surprised, however, if UPT made skyhook mandatory on new student rigs sometime in the future.

The Skyhook is included with all New UPT Student rigs and Sigmas already.

Mark Klingelhoefer

[BMFin 0]

Quote

There was also a discussion about the stupidity of AAD's being mandatory, and the associated liabilities that the DZ takes on when they require an AAD

Care to lighten me up a little on this ?

[mktoson 0]

I think AADs are a requirement to jump at Skydive Orange.

So far, this is the oldest I've ever been.

[freeflygirlz 0]

The gerneral idea is:
The more rules you set, the more you personally commit to control these rules. If there is no legal law for an AAD for D-licence holders, and someone dies without an AAD and the accident might have been avoided by an AAD, no one will blame you as DZO.
IF you as DZO require an AAD to jump on your DZ and someone dies during a jump without ! an AAD, you could be blamed, because he was able to jump and break your rule.
By setting a rule you say, that you consider this 100% necessary to be safe. Even if the state of the art and the law say this is optional.

makes sense to you?

blue skies ffg

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

There was NO discussion at the PIA BUSINESS meeting about the skyhook, in any way shape or form.

If some presentor opinined that this should be or may be maditory it was their own individual opinion.

What was a topic of discussion at the PIA rigging committee was whether a rigger could remove ANY rsl lanyard if installed by the factory. It comes down to whether the rig manual states that it is maditory or optional. Both exist and it varys from rig to rig.

Thanks Terry. That's pretty much what I figured.

Regarding the topic of whether... "a rigger could remove ANY rsl lanyard if installed by the factory". That's a good one too, but can quickly degrade to arguments over wheter or not RSLs are "good" or "bad"... the two opinion camps on this are pretty polarized. Even so, its probably worthy of yet another thread if there is new info to share from the recent PIA convention. My understanding is there is at least one major rig mfgr out there that is now saying that since their rigs come standard from the factory with an RSL that it is illegal for a rigger (even a master rigger) to remove it totally from the rig... if the user chooses to jump without it hooked up, that's okay, just that a rigger cannot remove it from the rig altogether... even though this isn't specifically stated in their current issue of their owner's manual...

As for the ADDs Required or Not... hopefully this thread will not by hijacked by that...

[dorbie 0]

Quote

The gerneral idea is:
The more rules you set, the more you personally commit to control these rules. If there is no legal law for an AAD for D-licence holders, and someone dies without an AAD and the accident might have been avoided by an AAD, no one will blame you as DZO.
IF you as DZO require an AAD to jump on your DZ and someone dies during a jump without ! an AAD, you could be blamed, because he was able to jump and break your rule.
By setting a rule you say, that you consider this 100% necessary to be safe. Even if the state of the art and the law say this is optional.

makes sense to you?

blue skies ffg

There's another angle than makes more sense, if you mandate an AAD, and it fires in a swoop or in a low pull and the jumper dies or is injured, then since you have mandated it perhaps you've exposed yourself to some liability.

Same with a skyhook, all these systems have benefits and drawbacks. Dictating to someone what gear they should jump with imposes both the benefits and the risks on them.

[freeflygirlz 0]

I agree with you, I have not thought about this point yet.
blue skies

[johnny1488 1]

It's not because the rsl is standard that you can't remove it, it's because it was part of the system when the container was tso'd.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

It's not because the rsl is standard that you can't remove it, it's because it was part of the system when the container was tso'd.

4.3.6.2 Breakaway Drop Tests:

Eight drops shall be made by a person weighing not more than the maximum
operating weight by breaking away from an open and normally functioning main
parachute canopy with a vertical velocity of less than 20 FPS (6.1 m/s) at the time
of breakaway and actuating the reserve pack within 2 s of the breakaway. If a
reserve static line is part of the assembly, no less than 4 of the breakaway
drops shall be made with the reserve static line actuating the reserve pack.
The parachute canopy must be functionally open within the time +2 s, or
altitude, obtained in 4.3.6 from the time of breakaway.


True enough... but... per the above, if an RSL is part of the assembly, it has to be used to activate the reserve for SOME OF, but not ALL OF the drop tests... so, if I have a rig with an RSL, it makes no difference to the TSO if I jump with it un-hooked... right?... so, it would make no difference if the RSL lanyard itself was removed and in my gear bag when I jump, right?... but that gets into the muddy water grey area of how one person can read one thing and see it one way and another can read it a different way, depending on the language. Same thing, different words, I may choose to keep the RSL on my rig and just always jump with it disconnected. While another person with the same type of gear also doesn't want to jump with the RSL hooked up, but he or she chooses to remove it altogether. Effectively, both are the same, but in some folks eye's one of us is "wrong."

Anyway... RSLs... they'll be debated by skydivers until the end of time.


You do realize too that there are lots of things a mfgr can do to their system (i.e. make changes) without voiding the TSO and without having to re-do the tests? Go grab yourself any two rigs of the model by the same mfgr, but made a few years apart and I'll bet you can find differences... I know I have.

[divnswoop 0]

Quote

Effectively, both are the same, but in some folks eye's one of us is "wrong."

I don't think anybody said it was *wrong*....just that some riggers are UNWILLING to have the FAA make a judgement call if something did happened. Just cause one field officer in Tx gave a warning does not mean one somewhere else won't pursue it. But you seem to have a good grasp of the TSO process and how most of the FAA interprets it.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

...just that some riggers are UNWILLING to have the FAA make a judgement call if something did happened...

True enough... to date... my only direct dealing with the FAA was when I went to get signed off for my Authorization to Test when I got my rigger's ticket... and I'd like to keep it that way...

[tbrown 26]

I'd find it very difficult to believe that such a specialized system as the Skyhook could become mandatory for a long time. For one thing, it's only beginning to be licensed on a few rigs, the ones I've heard about are Icons and Jav Odysseys, thought there probably are/will be more soon.

Most rigs cannot be retrofitted with the Skyhook either. Sunpath has already said that it will only be available on new Odysseys, and that older Javelins can't be retrofitted. I think Aerodyne said that older Icons can't be retrofitted either.

To this day I don't think the 3 Ring release has ever been mandated for any rig. It's simply such a great idea it captured the market. I could still get a rig built with shot & a half Capewells, but why would I want to ? Likewise, it wouldn't surprise me if the Skyhook becomes universal in years to come. But it will come in the way the 3 Ring, hand deploy, and square reserve all came in, over time and because it's the better idea.

Nobody's going to tolerate having their rig banned just because it won't retrofit. I know I won't.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !