Wings Reserve Boost vs. Skyhook

[piisfish 135]

Joellercoaster

Strange, but true.

You need to pack the pilot chute with the fabric (and bridle) distributed properly, since because the pouch has less give, it's possible for the PC to bunch up at the mouth and refuse to extract.

I have seen it happen to two different people with cordura Wings BOC pouches, both resulting in reserve rides.

This is no slight on the container or even the cordura BOC, which is a fine idea if you only ever pack for yourself (or only use packers who know what they are doing) - but they are less tolerant of packing by the unaware than spandex!

strangely enough I found the exact contrary...
The Cordura being more slippery than the spandex, the PC extracts by sliding instead of bunching like with many spandex pouches....
The packer must be a pretty brutal donkey to mis-pack that.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[dpreguy 14]

At PIA the mfg's tell me if you go to the "silver" reserve ripcord no MARD's installation has any effect on the force for the extraction of the ripcord pin. I agree. The MARD is (for want of a better term) inert and just standing by when the parachutist pulls the reserve pin. No difference in pin extraction force.

After the reserve pin is extracted, and the pilot chute inflates and pulls up on the bridle, the disconnecting/unhooking (or whatever it is called) is all done automatically by the mfg's mechanism. The parachutist doesn't participate in that.

[billbooth 10]

There is one major difference between the Skyhook and any other MARD system, and that is, only the Skyhook has the Collins' Lanyard.

(So what is a Colins' Lanyard, and why is this important?) Let me explain:

I didn't market the Skyhook (my third attempt at a MARD system) for 5 years after I developed it, because it had a major flaw. If the RSL riser released before the non-RSL riser, the Skyhook (or any MARD system) would pull the reserve bag right into the lines of the still attached riser. The scenario almost guarantees a main-reserve entanglement, so putting out the Skyhook before this problem was solved, was out of the question.

The Collins' Lanyard solved this problem by making it theoretically impossible for the RSL riser to release without the non-RSL riser also being released. I introduced the Collins' Lanyard first, and gave it 5 years in the marketplace, to be sure it worked we'll enough so that the Skyhook would be a successful device, as tens of thousands of installations over the past 12 years have proven it to be.

(This is a very brief explanation of the Collins' Lanyard. If you wish to understand is design and function more fully, please go to uptvector.com and click on the Skyhook tab.)

As to another point brought up in this string: At first, I designed the Skyhook with a release force (in the event of a total malfunction) of under 2 pounds. Trouble was, we experienced a very high number of premature releases from backward spinning main malfunctions (a rather common event). Since increasing this release force to about 10 lbs. (when applied quickly, as it happens in a real malfunction) the number of premature releases has dropped drastically.

It generally takes many years of field experience to determine how well any component of a reserve deployment system will work out in the real world, so any meaningful discussion as to which MARD system is "best" will have to wait for a very long time. I give you the above facts, not to discredit any other MARD system, but to explain why I designed the Skyhook as I did. It is up to you to determine if my reasoning was sound.

[wicodefly 0]

billbooth

There is one major difference between the Skyhook and any other MARD system, and that is, only the Skyhook has the Collins' Lanyard.

(So what is a Colins' Lanyard, and why is this important?) Let me explain:

I didn't market the Skyhook (my third attempt at a MARD system) for 5 years after I developed it, because it had a major flaw. If the RSL riser released before the non-RSL riser, the Skyhook (or any MARD system) would pull the reserve bag right into the lines of the still attached riser. The scenario almost guarantees a main-reserve entanglement, so putting out the Skyhook before this problem was solved, was out of the question.

The Collins' Lanyard solved this problem by making it theoretically impossible for the RSL riser to release without the non-RSL riser also being released. I introduced the Collins' Lanyard first, and gave it 5 years in the marketplace, to be sure it worked we'll enough so that the Skyhook would be a successful device, as tens of thousands of installations over the past 12 years have proven it to be.

(This is a very brief explanation of the Collins' Lanyard. If you wish to understand is design and function more fully, please go to uptvector.com and click on the Skyhook tab.)

As to another point brought up in this string: At first, I designed the Skyhook with a release force (in the event of a total malfunction) of under 2 pounds. Trouble was, we experienced a very high number of premature releases from backward spinning main malfunctions (a rather common event). Since increasing this release force to about 10 lbs. (when applied quickly, as it happens in a real malfunction) the number of premature releases has dropped drastically.

It generally takes many years of field experience to determine how well any component of a reserve deployment system will work out in the real world, so any meaningful discussion as to which MARD system is "best" will have to wait for a very long time. I give you the above facts, not to discredit any other MARD system, but to explain why I designed the Skyhook as I did. It is up to you to determine if my reasoning was sound.

Wow, thank you for the reply. I really, really appreciate it. I watched your Skyhook videos and read much about it.

As I've tried to make my decision on which container to purchase (I have a used Mirage G4), I've researched containers (here on the manufacturer's websites at the DZ, etc.), asked riggers, read hundreds of incident reports and videos, and reviewed everything else I've been able to get my hands on.

I came to the conclusion that I should get one of your containers but it will take so long that I'll need something in the meantime. So then I started looking at Javelin because of Skyhook.

Afterwards, I won a coupon for a Wings and looked into Reserve Boost. I'm a really new skydiver so it's hard to discern the differences and there doesn't seem to be much info about Reserve Boost available that I can find. Very little actual data even in the USPA and other incident report databases.

But as I read through the manuals for Wings and Javelin the Skyhook system as applied to Javelin looks more simple to me. I'm no skydiving expert, but I do have an engineering background and the simplicity makes sense.

Thanks again for your input. I'm going to sleep on it, but I'm strongly leaning Javelin for now and likely a Vector in the long-run.

Maybe my thinking is totally flawed, I'm very open to expert opinions. I know it's also personal preference as very experienced riggers and folks I know have differing opinions about which rig is best.

All of them, however, have agreed that a MARD like Skyhook would be good for me (the ones that know me) at this stage in my progression.

Chance favors the prepared mind.

[skytribe 16]

Quote

The Collins' Lanyard solved this problem by making it theoretically impossible for the RSL riser to release without the non-RSL riser also being released

Bill

Just asking the question here but the Collins lanyard I seem to recall was about risers breaking and potentially firing the reserve with one side still connected.

The occurences of riser breaks - or reports of them, appear to have diminished significantly since the type 17 risers were reinforced a long while back.

That said, how many incidents are we seeing for all the non skyhook rigs with only single riser disconnecting on an RSL. I'm just trying to determine the amount of risk that is still there bearing in mind all the non Collins lanyard rigs out there.

[riggerrob 558]

Joellercoaster

Strange, but true.

You need to pack the pilot chute with the fabric (and bridle) distributed properly, since because the pouch has less give, it's possible for the PC to bunch up at the mouth and refuse to extract.

I have seen it happen to two different people with cordura Wings BOC pouches, both resulting in reserve rides.

This is no slight on the container or even the cordura BOC, which is a fine idea if you only ever pack for yourself (or only use packers who know what they are doing) - but they are less tolerant of packing by the unaware than spandex!

....................................................................................

IOW you need to be a full-fledged idiot to pack a no-pull on a Spandex BOC.
The disadvantage is that Spandex BOCs need to be replaced every "X" hundred jumps.

[billbooth 10]

True, since I reinforced type 17 risers, outright breaks have become more rare, but still happen. And goodness knows if even these risers are strong enough if someone comes out with a really hard opening new canopy in the future. Plus, there are many other ways a single riser can release without breaking:

1. The white loop can fray and break from sharp housing endings.
(There's a PSB out about this right now.)
2. The white loop cam break because of "lockdown" or mis-assembly, especially on tandem systems. (This happens dozens of times a year.)
3. The housing ending can come off because of poor swaging.
4. The riser can release because the white loop is not passed through the housing ending when assembling. (We have a video example of this in the Skyhook section of our website.)
5. One riser can release before the other because of incorrect cutaway cable lengths, especially if soft housings are involved.

I have personally seen each of these happen, and there are probably more I can't think of right now.

But the point here is this. Why put up with a known problem with MARDs, if there is a known and tested solution? Why take the chance? What do you gain?

[skytribe 16]

I'm playing devils advocate here and you have expressed some nice examples.

1. The white loop can fray and break from sharp housing endings.
(There's a PSB out about this right now.)
[SHOULD BE CHECKED REGULARLY]
2. The white loop cam break because of "lockdown" or mis-assembly, especially on tandem systems. (This happens dozens of times a year.)
[SHOULD BE CHECKED EACH TIME SYSTEM IS USED - I'VE SEEN THIS BUT SEEMS TO CCUR WHEN PACKING. I'VE NOT SEEN THIS OCCUR UNDER TENSION OR AS A RESULT OF MOVEMENT WHEN CORRECTLY PACKED]
3. The housing ending can come off because of poor swaging.
[POOR PRODUCTION]
4. The riser can release because the white loop is not passed through the housing ending when assembling. (We have a video example of this in the Skyhook section of our website.)
[INCORRECT ASSEMBLY]
5. One riser can release before the other because of incorrect cutaway cable lengths, especially if soft housings are involved.
[INCORRECT PRODUCT OR INTERCHANGE COMPONENTS]

So I have no doubt all of these have occurred and can occur when jumpers don't inspect and check there gear. If we consider the riser the RSL attaches to has to be the one that releases and the other remains attached that also should reduce down the likelihood of entanglements.

The comment that I made is that are we really seeing a wealth of incidents from all the non Collins lanyard equipped containers out there and should we be worried.

I think the Collins lanyard system is good along with the skyhook but if it was really that much safer and these incidents were occurring with frightening regularity would you know think the other manufacturers would embrace it - or perhaps the licensing is too costly for such a small gain.

I'm not baiting here but wanting to know the real risk/reward/cost benefits of Collins lanyard over existing RSL for the number of incidents occurring.

[billbooth 10]

Most skydiving fatalities happen because someone does something stupid, either on the ground before jumping, or during the jump. Very few people "need" any safety device if they always do everything right. However, people, being human, screw up all the time. I doesn't matter if your particular mistake is rare or common...you're just as dead. The main reason why jumpers haven't had a problem with main-reserve entanglements on MARD systems, is that the only MARD system in common use, until now, has had the Collins' Lanyard included. As I said above, it's way to early to have a meaningful debate about other MARD systems. See you in about 5 years.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

If you are so low that the difference between a MARD and a simple RSL makes the difference between life-and-death ... you have made a LOT of mistakes on your way to the scene of the accident.

As we know, a few low-altitude canopy collisions happen every year - and when they do, they do; and once the collision has occurred, fault has been rendered irrelevant, and the only issue is surviving the emergency.

(That said, sometimes at least one of the jumpers is not at fault.)

[Deyan 31]

billbooth

Most skydiving fatalities happen because someone does something stupid, either on the ground before jumping, or during the jump. Very few people "need" any safety device if they always do everything right. However, people, being human, screw up all the time. I doesn't matter if your particular mistake is rare or common...you're just as dead.

Good you came up with this one yourself. So how is the Collins Lanyard going to work, when a jumper fail to route the yellow cable through it after cleaning the release cables once a month? I've seen this not once, but twice.

Quote

The main reason why jumpers haven't had a problem with main-reserve entanglements on MARD systems, is that the only MARD system in common use, until now, has had the Collins' Lanyard included.

What about the negative side of the Collins Lanyard that forced you to release a product update and a PSB? I think it's also worth mentioning when you give an general overview of a product.

Happy new year everyone Stay safe out there!

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[lyosha 46]

billbooth

There is one major difference between the Skyhook and any other MARD system, and that is, only the Skyhook has the Collins' Lanyard.

First off, thank you for your in depth reply. It is quite informative.

What about these guys?

http://sws.aero/en/products/fire/features/drd/

[Deimian 43]

billbooth

There is one major difference between the Skyhook and any other MARD system, and that is, only the Skyhook has the Collins' Lanyard.

That is true for the US, but not worldwide: http://sws.aero/en/products/fire/features/drd/

I really like the idea of the Collins Lanyard. The skyhook is a nice device, but the idea of having a hook floating around during reserve deployment does not entirely convince me. The reserve boost or RAX system look to me slightly less trouble prone. To me, the SWS Fire container looks like a very serious rig on that regard, having RAX and Collins Lanyard.... it is a pitty that they are not too popular, to check them more in detail.

As the others have said, I wouldn't consider a rig just because it has a MARD. But if the rig that you like can have it, I can't think of any reason to don't get it, at least at my level of experience right now. Note: I jump a Wings with a Reserve Boost.

[Deimian 43]

lyosha

***There is one major difference between the Skyhook and any other MARD system, and that is, only the Skyhook has the Collins' Lanyard.

First off, thank you for your in depth reply. It is quite informative.

What about these guys?

http://sws.aero/en/products/fire/features/drd/

You beat me to it

[gowlerk 1,911]

My feeling is that as valuable as the Skyhook MARD is, the Collins Lanyard itself is even more vital. This is from seeing a main riser break on a Vector 2 tandem rig. Without the Collins Lanyard the chance of this event resulting in a double fatality is large. My strong belief is that any RSL needs one of these devices. BTW, who is Collins? In any case thank you to him and Booth for the double save.

Ken

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[woppyvac 0]

To the OP. For me... choosing a rig because of it's RSL / MARD is like buying a car because it can self parallel park... Cool feature. But I'd rather have the the controls in my hand. I prefer to KISS 'keep it simple stupid' -- cutaway handle then reserve ripcord handle.

Woot Woot!

[Southern_Man 0]

Somebody mentioned the issue of mis-rigging as being a point in the Skyhook's favor (mostly because of greater rigger familiarity). I honestly think the Boost is harder to mis-rig than the Skyhook. It is pretty simple and straight forward. I can see a lot more ways to potentially mis-rig a Skyhook. Of course there has been a lot of talk for a long time about the potential and there is not a huge long list of accidents from mis-rigging, so maybe it is more a theoretical danger than something that actual occurs all that frequently. I'm sure it happens and will happen with any system.

Curious to hear other riggers thoughts about whether the Skyhook or Boost has more potential for rigging error?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[skytribe 16]

I like the reserve boost because of its simplicity. That being said it doesn't have a Collins lanyard.

Looking at the story of the RSL (Stevens lanyard) in Parachutist. Perry Stevens invented the RSL and made it available to everyone. It said he didn't make a penny out of it but obviously saved many lives.

The Collins lanyard definitely is a step up, however perhaps its the licensing aspect that RWS/UPT have that has resulted in few in other manufacturers utilizing it.

Looking at the plexus tandem system the rsl attachment point was lower than the normal point of the break. Jump shack have there dual lanyard which John Sherman will tell you will only activate when both risers release (although this has other problems). The have been a few versions of skyhook and some variations. So it appears that none of the solutions is a perfect solution.

Sure, when your dead it doesn't matter how you died your still dead. But if you check you gear before and make sure its well maintained you chances of dying are reduced.

[riggerrob 558]

billbooth

True, since I reinforced type 17 risers, outright breaks have become more rare, but still happen. And goodness knows if even these risers are strong enough if someone comes out with a really hard opening new canopy in the future. Plus, there are many other ways a single riser can release without breaking:

1. The white loop can fray and break from sharp housing endings.
(There's a PSB out about this right now.)
2. The white loop cam break because of "lockdown" or mis-assembly, especially on tandem systems. (This happens dozens of times a year.)
3. The housing ending can come off because of poor swaging.
4. The riser can release because the white loop is not passed through the housing ending when assembling. (We have a video example of this in the Skyhook section of our website.)
5. One riser can release before the other because of incorrect cutaway cable lengths, especially if soft housings are involved.

I have personally seen each of these happen, and there are probably more I can't think of right now.

But the point here is this. Why put up with a known problem with MARDs, if there is a known and tested solution? Why take the chance? What do you gain?

................................................................................

Add: white loop breaks because it is badly frayed because you dragged it across the ground too many times and kept it in service long after it was visibly frayed.

This malfunction scenario raises another issue: longevity. There is a "bath-tub" curve with all new technology.
Everyone's first generation is crude, usually only stays in production for a year or two and often has a Service Bulletin to correct a malfunction scenario, that never crossed the designer's mind in his worst drunken nightmare.
Ten years later, a young rigger is asked to repack a first-generation "gadget." He cannot find the original manual nor the Service Bulletin - because the factory updated 90 percent of the first generation in short order. The only way to find replacement parts is to steal them off a grounded, not-updated, first-generation rig.
Holy built-in obsolesence Batman!

[skytribe 16]

Quote

This malfunction scenario raises another issue: longevity. There is a "bath-tub" curve with all new technology.
Everyone's first generation is crude, usually only stays in production for a year or two and often has a Service Bulletin to correct a malfunction scenario, that never crossed the designer's mind in his worst drunken nightmare.
Ten years later, a young rigger is asked to repack a first-generation "gadget." He cannot find the original manual nor the Service Bulletin - because the factory updated 90 percent of the first generation in short order. The only way to find replacement parts is to steal them off a grounded, not-updated, first-generation rig.

I think this is a good point - the skyhook on UPT I've seen with and without hesitator loops and grommets in place. I pack it according to the manual BUT nothing says it has to be upgraded to the latest. Hence you may have a V1 with the inherent problems still present. That said, I'm sure If the owner wanted it updated they could send it back to UPT.

However the versioning of various systems is something to consider. Most traditional RSL haven't changed much in years.... I guess this is the price you pay for having the latest stuff.

[riggerrob 558]

skytribe

Quote

This malfunction scenario raises another issue: longevity. There is a "bath-tub" curve with all new technology.
Everyone's first generation is crude, usually only stays in production for a year or two and often has a Service Bulletin to correct a malfunction scenario, that never crossed the designer's mind in his worst drunken nightmare.
Ten years later, a young rigger is asked to repack a first-generation "gadget." He cannot find the original manual nor the Service Bulletin - because the factory updated 90 percent of the first generation in short order. The only way to find replacement parts is to steal them off a grounded, not-updated, first-generation rig.

I think this is a good point - the skyhook on UPT I've seen with and without hesitator loops and grommets in place. I pack it according to the manual BUT nothing says it has to be upgraded to the latest. Hence you may have a V1 with the inherent problems still present. That said, I'm sure If the owner wanted it updated they could send it back to UPT.

However the versioning of various systems is something to consider. Most traditional RSL haven't changed much in years.... I guess this is the price you pay for having the latest stuff.

.................................................................................

If it contained a light-weight (e.g. less than 250 square foot) reserve, I would not care.

OTOH heavy-weight reserves (e.g. tandem) should have hesitator/staging loops installed, because of the risk of them pulling Colins lanyards .. after you have already made a series of mistakes on your way to the scene of the accident.
Remember that staging loops were fashionable on Wonderhogs - back when 26 foot diameter LoPos were the fashionable reserves, then staging loops fell out of fashion when reserves shrank to less than the size of your ex-wife's lacy under-pants. But the problem reared its ugly head when tandem reserves exceeded the weight of 26 foot LoPos.

[erdnarob 1]

««««b) It may take more force to unhook the skyhook in case you have to go straight for silver.»»»»»

I have 2 totals on my Vector III equiped with a Skyhook. First one because of my jumpsuit zipper which gave up and inflated my jumpsuit, second one because my packer put the hackey in the poach but too near my butt. In both cases, I tried twice to get my hackey, couldn't find it at its usual location and then go for the silver.
What I can say about the reserve deployment, is that it seems that the bridle unhooking from the Skyhook in those 2 cases was not a problem at all. My two deployments were so fast that when I looked up, my reserve was fully open and stable.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[nigel99 143]

Andy9o8

Quote

If you are so low that the difference between a MARD and a simple RSL makes the difference between life-and-death ... you have made a LOT of mistakes on your way to the scene of the accident.

As we know, a few low-altitude canopy collisions happen every year - and when they do, they do; and once the collision has occurred, fault has been rendered irrelevant, and the only issue is surviving the emergency.

(That said, sometimes at least one of the jumpers is not at fault.)

Ok this scenario is often quoted, but NEVER qualified. I was taught way back that below 1000ft you did not cutaway, but rather go straight to getting as much out as possible. I still live by this, as you have so many things that could result in going in at line stretch. BTW 1000ft is easy to reference as it is the start of your landing pattern for many people.

So at what point do you teach people with MARDs to go straight to reserve?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[dpreguy 14]

I'm replying to my own post. I now get what you were talking about. The detachment of the MARD mechanism from the bridle when the pilot chute leaves. My misunderstanding. Since the Boost has no hook, and relies on the extraction of a release cable, and there is no unhooking, I thought you were thinking the pin extraction of a UPT setup was affected by the MARD.

Booth explains it perfectly, and I now see what you were referring to.

[Southern_Man 0]

nigel99

Ok this scenario is often quoted, but NEVER qualified. I was taught way back that below 1000ft you did not cutaway, but rather go straight to getting as much out as possible. I still live by this, as you have so many things that could result in going in at line stretch. BTW 1000ft is easy to reference as it is the start of your landing pattern for many people.

So at what point do you teach people with MARDs to go straight to reserve?

A MARD is a backup device. People changing their emergency procedures to rely on their MARD working are being foolish, IMHO.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"