skyhook

[slotperfect 7]

The thread is about the Skyhook. This is not an RSL or not to RSL debate, nor is it an AAD or no AAD debate. A device dependency spin is inevitable, but please focus on keeping it relevant to the original post.

Dorbie & JP: please recognize that people are inevitably going to disagree here . . . continuing to bat the opposing opinion back over the net with a little heavier spin does not necessarily serve the discussion as a whole.

Keep it civil, please.

Arrive Safely

John

[bliston 0]

The skyhook is a great invention that increases our chances of survival if we end up in certain UNPLANNED situations. Just like deciding to wear leathers and a helmet if you are jamming around a sportbike (if you don't plan to go down, why not just shorts and sunglasses?), the skyhook might be the thing that saves you if you find yourself very low on a cutaway, in a low wrap, or with a hurt left arm a malfunction and no cypres.

Saying "just avoid those situations" is a weak argument - we all know talented, heads-up jumpers that have died because their reserves didn't have time to fully inflate.

Telling someone who wants the safest equipment money can buy that they shouldn't base there rig decision on whether or not it has a skyhook available is just plain irresponsible. Would you tell the same person that about an AAD if some rigs weren't able to be fitted with them? What other factors above SAFETY should people decide to buy equipment based on? Looks? Price? Resale Value?

Anything that helps people stay alive and safe is a good thing and should be encouraged. Before people get worked up, I'm not saying it should be mandatory, used for crew or camera flyers, etc. I'm just saying that discuraging younger jumpers from having it be a primary consideration when buying gear is foolish.

Skyhooks should not replace safe practices, good training, etc., but even if it's sole result in a normal cutaway is to allow an inexperienced jumper on a long spot to land at the DZ instead of a tight out, it's done a good thing.

We are all resistant to change, but even if you feel confident that you're so great that you'll never end up low, "long" on a cutaway where there are no safe outs, or in a low entanglement - don't be critical of those who decide they want something that might help them survive if everything else goes wrong.

Ben

Mass Defiance 4-wayFS website


sticks!

[AlRedler 0]

Ben, I agree. My earlier posts may have looked like I would take greater risks as a result of having a skyhook. I agree with others that such an attitude is foolish. However, if I open high and fly safely but get hit at 700' and my canopy collapses I will may choose to cut away and trust the skyhook than ride the mess down if I believe I am going to get hurt.

It is about having more options when the problem happens. However, we do need to have knowledge of how the equipment works. I feel better if I know what height the skyhook can be expected to still work so I can try to have a programmed response if I do end up in that situation. Cutting away too low is something I never want to do!

Al

[DougH 270]

I thought in the texas accident the collision was up high, even though the cutaway's were both low.

I wonder if you get hit hard __at__ 700 feet where you are going to be altitude wise by the time you actually react.

That is why my personal choice is to fire my reserve without cutting away. I doubt if I get clobbered at 700 feet I am going to react instantly. So where do I end up then? 600 feet? 500 feet? Lower maybe.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[billvon 2,384]

>However, if I open high and fly safely but get hit at 700' and my
>canopy collapses I will may choose to cut away . . .

For the most part I think the Skyhook will be a good thing for jumpers. But if it is really making jumpers lower their decision altitude to 700', it may well do more harm than good.

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

>However, if I open high and fly safely but get hit at 700' and my
>canopy collapses I will may choose to cut away . . .

For the most part I think the Skyhook will be a good thing for jumpers. But if it is really making jumpers lower their decision altitude to 700', it may well do more harm than good.

Any feature that adds to your margin of safety is good.

If some individuals change their EP's and decision altitudes because they believe that feature gave them more leeway to do so, then its their reliance on that feature and their mistaken belief thats harmful. Not the feature itself.

If they have a skyhook, and keep everything else (EP's & decision alt) the same, they have effectively increased their level of safety.

I dont think the skyhook is "making jumpers" do anything. The jumpers are doing it themselves through wrong thinking.

__

My mighty steed

[billvon 2,384]

>If they have a skyhook, and keep everything else (EP's & decision alt)
>the same, they have effectively increased their level of safety.

I agree!

>I dont think the skyhook is "making jumpers" do anything. The
>jumpers are doing it themselves through wrong thinking.

I agree there as well. The most that a new feature can do (an RSL, an AAD, a Skyhook) is to encourage wrong thinking. Hopefully most jumpers with new 'stuff' will avoid this pitfall.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

>However, if I open high and fly safely but get hit at 700' and my
>canopy collapses I will may choose to cut away . . .

For the most part I think the Skyhook will be a good thing for jumpers. But if it is really making jumpers lower their decision altitude to 700', it may well do more harm than good.

It is my personal oppinion (as I haven't seen any data to suggest otherwise) that a SkyHook will make a canopy transfer more dangerous.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[DougH 270]

Could you please elaborate JP.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>However, if I open high and fly safely but get hit at 700' and my
>canopy collapses I will may choose to cut away . . .

For the most part I think the Skyhook will be a good thing for jumpers. But if it is really making jumpers lower their decision altitude to 700', it may well do more harm than good.

There's a difference between decision altitude and finding yourself in the shit after a collision at 700ft.

Confusing the two does a disservice to the debate.

[labrys 0]

Quote

It is my personal oppinion (as I haven't seen any data to suggest otherwise) that a SkyHook will make a canopy transfer more dangerous.

How so? If you open your reserve without cutting away, the skyhook will disengage and the reserve pilot chute will deploy the reserve. At that point what's the difference?

Owned by Remi #?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

>However, if I open high and fly safely but get hit at 700' and my
>canopy collapses I will may choose to cut away . . .

For the most part I think the Skyhook will be a good thing for jumpers. But if it is really making jumpers lower their decision altitude to 700', it may well do more harm than good.

It is my personal oppinion (as I haven't seen any data to suggest otherwise) that a SkyHook will make a canopy transfer more dangerous.

How? With a skyhook the pilot chute will deploy the reserve if you pulled silver without chopping. The reserve bridle is slightly longer, but that's about it.

What are the chances of a canopy transfer working if you're spinning? A skyhook would still give you a chance.

[billvon 2,384]

>There's a difference between decision altitude and finding yourself in
>the shit after a collision at 700ft.

If you feel you can cut away at 700 feet after a collision, then your decision altitude for cutting away has been reduced. Call it whatever you like.

[labrys 0]

Quote

There's a difference between decision altitude and finding yourself in the shit after a collision at 700ft.

Confusing the two does a disservice to the debate.

If you're in the shit at 700 feet you should follow EPs and open your reserve. I think it's clear that billvon was referring to "do not cutaway below" decision altitude when he said that.

Owned by Remi #?

[billvon 2,384]

>I think it's clear that billvon was referring to "do not cutaway below"
>decision altitude when he said that.

Yes, and that's a better term. For many skydivers the two are the same, but others make a distinction between "decision altitude" and "do not cut away below" altitude.

[JeepDiver 0]

Quote

>There's a difference between decision altitude and finding yourself in
>the shit after a collision at 700ft.

If you feel you can cut away at 700 feet after a collision, then your decision altitude for cutting away has been reduced. Call it whatever you like.

Without discussing the level of ones hard deck in this comment, I only want to add. After reviewing the data from my last cutaway as reflected by the Altitrack I was wearing my max speed was reached after the moment I cutaway, shortly thereafter, no more than 170 feet my freefall speed returned to 11 mph under a fully inflated reserve.

I lost 900 feet in roughly 6 seconds after having spun up a perfectly functioning main, attempted to fix it, couldn't due to the spin, and then chopped.

I was impressed by the speed of the skyhook deployment I experienced on my VectorIII.

In this instance I had deployed at 3150 ft, and spun it up just under 2100 ft.

What I've always worried about were those final few seconds when a jumper simply runs out of time and altitude.

[dorbie 0]

Yup, there's the unfortunate truth that many jumpers without this safety device have jumped with every intention of abiding by their hard deck and gone under it, for some it was the last mistake they made and a skyhook might have changed the outcome.

[JeepDiver 0]

Quote

If you think not choosing a rig with a skyhook is a "mistake" then you've been reading too much advertising. Bill Booth used to be the biggest OPPONENT of RSL's in the industry. Now, with a marketing advantage, and an invention meaningful in very limited cases, he is the biggest proponent of his "RSL" system. Great for business, good for skydiving, a "mistake" not having it? Not hardly. And we're all welcome to change our opinions. BTW is seems Bill's opinion paper opposed to RSL's is no longer on the web site, but it is referenced in the options explination page. I used to offer it in the spirit of equal time to customers when they were deciding about an RSL when they were usually an option.

My advice is choose a rig, then choose a skyhook or not if available. Some people choose a rig based on the availability of a skyhook. Is this a good idea? Sure, if that is their CHOICE. Not choosing a skyhook is NOT a "mistake".

Perhaps you are unaware or are only offering a point of view to furthers your point.

It is my understand that Bill Booth was against other RSL's due to the fact that it would deploy a reserve canopy with out fully cutaway both right and leftside risers, hence the development of the Skyhook RSL.

A broken riser at the rings with an RSL attached would deploy a reserve canopy without cutting away the riser still attached. A reserve deploying into a malfunction main is an ugly prospect. My understanding of Bill Booths point of view regarding RSL's. Hence the modification in the name of further improving the safety of sport parachuting.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>There's a difference between decision altitude and finding yourself in
>the shit after a collision at 700ft.

If you feel you can cut away at 700 feet after a collision, then your decision altitude for cutting away has been reduced. Call it whatever you like.

I'm not going to ride a main down to 700 that has some problem after deployment, there's a margin of safety in there for good reason. However that doesn't mean I switch off and ride a ball of crap in if I find myself in the shit under my hard deck.

I'm sure there are jumpers who've chopped low knowing they were very probably screwed but just didn't have any better options.

That doesn't mean you change your other practices to make it more likely you'll find yourself in that situation.

[councilman24 36]

That was a secondary point and a reason he didn't develope the skyhook sooner and until he had the Collin's lanyard design.

The main arguement was that if you had an RSL you needed to add a step during an emergency to decide whether to disconnect the RSL and do it if so indicated. Below is the last two discussion paragraphs of the entire document. The "correctly" part is the decision to disconnect or not and the disconnection in the air during an emergency.

Exerted from "Facts about the "Reserve Staticline Lanyard"

By Relative Workshop


...."Naturally we have tremendous concern whenever someone wants to take a
simple, 3-handle system and turn it into some complicated apparatus in an
attempt to make up for the inadequacies of the poorly trained or
ill-prepared jumper. We believe if you stick to the basics, constantly
rehearse your emergency procedures, and assume you'll have a malfunction on
every jump - you'll be much better off.

Remember: The RSL is not a safety device for experienced jumpers because it
takes more time to operate it correctly than to pull the breakaway and
reserve handles manually. Now that you have been presented with the all the
facts, we hope you'll make the right decision for yourself regarding the RSL.....

Copyright © 1998 The Uninsured Relative Workshop Inc."

As I said before when RSL's were options and people were deciding I'd offer a copy of this article to them along with the reasons I and many others didn't agree.

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

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>I think it's clear that billvon was referring to "do not cutaway below"
>decision altitude when he said that.

Yes, and that's a better term. For many skydivers the two are the same, but others make a distinction between "decision altitude" and "do not cut away below" altitude.

I hope it's a distinction I never have to make in practice, I've grabbed my handles under 1k over the DZ and imagined having to chop, it is a very unpleasant thought but I have seen video of several saves under that altitude.

I wonder what altitude this guy would have said his hard deck was before this jump:
http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=1210

[dorbie 0]

Quote

It is my understand that Bill Booth was against other RSL's due to the fact that it would deploy a reserve canopy with out fully cutaway both right and leftside risers, hence the development of the Skyhook RSL.

The Collin's lanyard does this, not the skyhook. A Collin's lanyard is a prerequisite for a Skyhook system (according to Bill Booth) but RW fitted them to rigs before the invention of the skyhook.

[labrys 0]

Quote

I've grabbed my handles under 1k over the DZ and imagined having to chop, it is a very unpleasant thought but I have seen video of several saves under that altitude.

Having to chop? Have you ever considered adding your reserve instead?

Owned by Remi #?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

I've grabbed my handles under 1k over the DZ and imagined having to chop, it is a very unpleasant thought but I have seen video of several saves under that altitude.

Having to chop? Have you ever considered adding your reserve instead?

Yes, of course, obviously it depends a lot on circumstances and then there's theory vs. execution.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

It is my understand that Bill Booth was against other RSL's due to the fact that it would deploy a reserve canopy with out fully cutaway both right and leftside risers, hence the development of the Skyhook RSL.

The device that solves that problem is the Collin's Lanyard, NOT the SkyHook, and it has been around for some time.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.