0
jf951

skyhook price

Recommended Posts

i've asked them about the sizing of my rig - TWICE - and never got a reply; is it safe to say sunpath customer service sucks ASS!?

i'm happy i got myself a micron.. B|
“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

does anyone have a good ball park price on what it costs to purchase and instal a skyhook on a javelin odyssey?

Joey



From SunPath's price list found on their site:

Add Skyhook to Skyhook Ready Container (New Free Bag) 380.00
Add Skyhook to Skyhook Ready Container (Using Existing Free Bag) 275.00

Mike
ChutingStar.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

does anyone have a good ball park price on what it costs to purchase and instal a skyhook on a javelin odyssey?

Joey



From SunPath's price list found on their site:

Add Skyhook to Skyhook Ready Container (New Free Bag) 380.00
Add Skyhook to Skyhook Ready Container (Using Existing Free Bag) 275.00

Mike



awesome thanx for the responses you guys!

also, have any of you had any first hand experience with them?
Jump more, Bitch less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

does anyone have a good ball park price on what it costs to purchase and instal a skyhook on a javelin odyssey?

Joey



From SunPath's price list found on their site:

Add Skyhook to Skyhook Ready Container (New Free Bag) 380.00
Add Skyhook to Skyhook Ready Container (Using Existing Free Bag) 275.00

Mike



awesome thanx for the responses you guys!

also, have any of you had any first hand experience with them?



You'll want to do a search on the Skyhook and read the manufacturer's sites for SunPath and UPT for more info. There's plenty of technical and real-life info out there.

I've installed them, packed them and had reserve deployments that were Skyhook assisted. But also plenty without.

Mike
ChutingStar.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Sparky,

Quote

Because it has not been TSO'd with one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No more calls, we have a winner.



Whoa there, big fella. Who ever told you two guys that the SkyHook had any TSO approval?

Booth himself has told me that he never submitted anything about the SkyHook to the FAA. As, to the best of my knowledge ( in a conversation with Derek Thomas ), Sunpath never did either.

JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hi Sparky,

Quote

Because it has not been TSO'd with one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No more calls, we have a winner.



Whoa there, big fella. Who ever told you two guys that the SkyHook had any TSO approval?

Booth himself has told me that he never submitted anything about the SkyHook to the FAA. As, to the best of my knowledge ( in a conversation with Derek Thomas ), Sunpath never did either.

JerryBaumchen

Actually, Sunpath did submit the results of my Skyhook qualification program to the FAA, who "approved" the installation.

Trouble is, there is no mention of the Skyhook (or any other MARD system) in the current TSO. This, of course, means that there is no FAA approved series of tests to qualify any MARD system. To make things even more interesting, the Vector and Sigma series of rigs is TSOed under TSO C-23b...And there is not even a mention of RSL's in that document. So it's questionable as to whether even RSL's are "legal" of TSO C-23b rigs. There is mention of RSL's and MARD systems in TSO C-23e, but that document is in limbo because FAA meddling with the draft that PIA submitted last year has made it unworkable.

In other words, it's hard to pass the "official" tests when they don't yet exist. I ran into the same problem with tandem jumping. I knew the FAA would take forever to grant "approval", so I just did it, and then begged for forgiveness. They actually tried to fine me $100,000 for the first 100 tandem jumps I did to see if the concept was workable. Luckily, I somehow talked them out of it, with a lot of help from USPA and PIA. Somehow, they haven't tried to fine me for the Skyhook...at least not yet.

As far as I am concerned, the FAA knows little or nothing about skydiving equipment, and therefore should simply get out of the business of trying to certify and regulate it. This should be left to the industry itself via PIA. While this might not be a perfect solution, at least it wouldn't take 17 years to get tandem approved, or God knows how many years to get the reserve repack cycle changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Bill,

Quote

Sunpath did submit the results of my Skyhook qualification program to the FAA, who "approved" the installation



I happily stand corrected. Although I do wonder just how they did it when you say:

Quote

there is no mention of the Skyhook (or any other MARD system) in the current TSO. This, of course, means that there is no FAA approved series of tests to qualify any MARD system.



Inquiring minds want to know. :P

Quote

As far as I am concerned, the FAA knows little or nothing about skydiving equipment, and therefore should simply get out of the business of trying to certify and regulate it. This should be left to the industry itself via PIA.



I, for one, could not agree more.

Thanks for the info,

JerryBaumchen

PS) So when do we ( looks like just you & me ) start the campaign to get the feds out of parachute regulation? This is NOT a far-fetched idea!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry, Bill,

Sunrise and Sunpath are both certified under TSO-C23d. They were tested to the standards set forth in AS8015 Rev. B which makes direct reference to the testing of RSL’s if used.


2.1.8 RESERVE STATIC LINE: A device connected to the main canopy that is capable of actuating the reserve parachute assembly following a breakaway from the main canopy.

4.1.4 Primary Actuation Device/Ripcord/Reserve Static Line: The primary actuation device/ripcord/reserve static line, including all joints, shall withstand the test loads of 4.3.1 without failure and shall meet the functional requirements of 4.3.2.


Skyhook, by definition, is a variant of RSL’s and would fall under these testing requirements.

Sparky

Having been involved in a couple of TSO programs I, for two, could not agree more.
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FAA would be wise to follow the European example.
Circa 2000, the European Joint Airworthiness Administration/Authority (or whatever the heck they call themselves) photo-copied FAA TSO standards and insisted that all European-made parachutes conform.
After a year or two of confusion - caused by the bewildering variety of skydiving equipment - European JAA decided to limit their JTSO C23D to "aircraft accessories" like pilot emergency parachutes.

Remember that the first FAA TSO C23B focused on PEPs.
NAS 804 does not mention main parachutes and
AS-8015 only (briefly) mentions mains.
More recent TSOs have gotten very complicated with all the references to mains.

From an administrator's perspective, it would be much simpler to focus on PEPs and try to ignore skydivers - AS LONG AS SKYDIVERS KEEP THE FATALITY RATE LOW - like Transport Canada does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0