0
chuteless

Skydiving is like many other sports

Recommended Posts

Skydivers posted a photo of a new rig apparently with another belly band, and a remark about " those new funny capewells". It appears that every few years, skydiving equipment manufacturers feel the need to come out with some new fangled gadgets, with the expectation that everyone will just have to have the latest piece of junk, and they will make more money. They had good rigs back in the 1960s and 1970s, and some screwball decided it would be best to take the quick ejectors off and they could step through the leg straps. What a stupid idea, and yet almost every rig you see now has this abomination. They go from bad to very bad, and make lots of money. Its time to make some more changes, and lots more money by convincing skydivers they need something new, modernized, advanced, revolutionary, and costly. If I had a rig made for myself in Jan 2014, it would have 1 1/2 shots, 1 belly band , and quick ejectors on both leg straps. The RIPCORD would be where it should be, just below the front of the shoulder, NOT tucked in my ass. I wouldnt throw pilot chute out, I would pull the ripcord and let the pilot chute do its stuff like it did for years. People would have to learn how to spot again. Wouldnt that be great?
All the rig has to do is keep the chute folded sufficiently to get a good opening when I get to altitude, and then as long as my harness stays on, I'll get a satisfactory landing. You sure do have some nice looking rigs now, but beauty doesnt help a bit when you need your reserve. Functionality should be first consideration, not how much the manufacturers can make by selling some new gadget to skydivers who always find the money to get " the latest".




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Functionality should be first consideration, not how much the manufacturers can make by selling some new gadget to skydivers who always find the money to get " the latest".



So convince me why shot-and-a-halfs provide better functionality for their purpose than a three-ring cutaway system. So far all you've given me is "it's newfangled and you don't need it" but I don't find that a convincing argument.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NWFlyer

Quote

Functionality should be first consideration, not how much the manufacturers can make by selling some new gadget to skydivers who always find the money to get " the latest".



So convince me why shot-and-a-halfs provide better functionality for their purpose than a three-ring cutaway system. So far all you've given me is "it's newfangled and you don't need it" but I don't find that a convincing argument.



NWFlyer has a point; the 3 ring is the best newfangled thing they ever put on my rig. And I love step in harnesses, what's the need for all that heavy metal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What heavy metal.? The quick ejectors were so much better because immediately on landing you could pop your leg straps and your body was free from the lower harness restrictions. How many jumps did you ever make with quick ejectors....I will bet not a single jump. You new skydivers didnt know how good those things were because you never were on the scene when they were being used.




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fastphil

And I love step in harnesses, what's the need for all that heavy metal.



Convenience: getting your rig on without doing yoga contortions.
Safety: quick removal, when getting dragged on a windy day, or in a water landing.
And most important of all: Hit 'n Rock.

Besides, it's only a few ounces. Is that gonna break your back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most skydivers dont have a clue on how to spot a load. Better they try some jumps from a Cessna with a Para Commander, best parachute ever invented. The foils you use now are strictly to get you back after someone failed to drop you on the spot. Why not have a Para Commander built with modern materials, pack up small, and still be a fabulous flyer, right to dead center. Nothing wrong with a swoop canopy if that is your thing, but if you put some jumps on a PC, you would appreciate parachuting / skydiving much more. You haven't lived till you've put 100 jumps on a PC. That was skydiving.




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuteless

Most skydivers dont have a clue on how to spot a load. Better they try some jumps from a Cessna with a Para Commander, best parachute ever invented. The foils you use now are strictly to get you back after someone failed to drop you on the spot. Why not have a Para Commander built with modern materials, pack up small, and still be a fabulous flyer, right to dead center. Nothing wrong with a swoop canopy if that is your thing, but if you put some jumps on a PC, you would appreciate parachuting / skydiving much more. You haven't lived till you've put 100 jumps on a PC. That was skydiving.



And another thing....
Remster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuteless

How many jumps did you ever make with quick ejectors....I will bet not a single jump. You new skydivers didnt know how good those things were because you never were on the scene when they were being used.



Somewhere between 50 and 100, I can't recall exactly when I made the change. In 2004 and 2005. Both on my student rigs (roughly 30 jumps) and on the 2003 sport rig I bought used that had them. I chose to replace them because I saw them as another failure point, but I can also understand that you appreciate them, so I'm not going to argue on that one as I think it's more a matter of personal preference than better/worse.

Still waiting for you to tell me why shot-and-a-halfs out-function three rings, though. :)
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer the 1 1/2 shots, perhaps because I was raised on them. Ive had lots of use with them, including both chuteless jumps, and on one practice jump, I cutaway my reserve and opened my main. I never once had a problem in all the mals I had. I like the easy disconnect of the risors from the main lift webbing, and how simple it is to replace the risors to the harness. I suppose someone, somewhere, had snagged a canopy on a capewell, but I dont know of any personally. It sure didnt happen to me. The one shots are also as good, fast and clean cutaways.
A hangup isnt likely with the 3 ring circus, but that is the only real advantage.




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you prefer it because you're more comfortable with them.

I prefer three rings in part because I'm more comfortable with them.

I'll get off your lawn now.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill-
I hope this is taken with all due respect....here we go!

Your post is typical of a Dinosaur. As a Dinosaur you will probably want everything to be like it was in your prime, and resist any changes or advancements. You will be intimidated by how things have changed or are different from what you knew when you were the badass guy on the DZ. You may also have some odd dream of having people turn the clock back and use the gear and techniques you used in the past. You had an awesome past....but time marches on.

You can still get B12s if you want them. I bet you can get someone to install quick ejectors if you really wanted them. However the step throughs are not an issue for most of us. Loosening them to walk back in takes less than a second and is quite comfortable. It isn't a "cool" thing. You don't bang your shins/knees if the buckle isn't re-clipped after you take them off to walk in, and the chance of having a twisted leg strap is much lower with step throughs.

Shot and a halfs- Really? You think they are better and safer than the 3 ring system, and the 3 ring system is something only used to make the gear companies more money? I can't see any possible way a two step, two handed system is better than the tried and true 3 ring. A simple pull...one hand (for the most part) even under high G's, will simply get rid of your main cleanly and reliably. Again, I am sure they were awesome for the day, but 3 rings have been the standard for decades now, with little change to the design.

Belly Bands.... I can't see how a belly band PC is in any way better than BOC. Belly bands have a high risk of horseshoe, PC in tow, and premature deployment. They would also eliminate the ability to freefly. BOC's are safer because they are secure, stable, and have lower risk of nasty things like horseshoes and PCs in tow.

Yes- as skydiving has become more mainstream and automated some people lack the skills you had to have in the old days (like spotting). But jumping a para commander won't fix that.

Paracommanders were amazing for the time Bill, but they are far from the best ever made. We have come light years from that point, and I think you have a better chance of seeing horses and buggies on the highway than you will of seeing modern para commanders regularly in the air. They were great at the time... but that was a really long time ago.

The sport today is MUCH safer statistically than it was in your day. Things like MARDs, RSLs, AADs, digital visual and audible altimeters and modern equipment design have made things better...not worse.

You have the right to be proud of your prime! But trying to argue that the gear from 30-40 years ago is better or safer for the mainstream is, to be blunt, ignorant.

I know all of those things make you feel like that was "really skydiving", and all the new things seem foreign and different. But for us, all of these new features, designs and procedures are every bit as much "skydiving" as the shot and a halfs and para commanders were for you.

What you did was awesome. Things are still awesome... don't hate the change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Things are still awesome... don't hate the change.



There is some wisdom in that.

I've been around for a while - not nearly as long as Bill, who by the way - because of his high profile demos, was a hero of mine even before I started skydiving.

I've seen a lot of the changes being discussed, while they were being implemented.

Also seen a whole lot of new & revolutionary stuff fall by the wayside...everything new isn't always better.
(hey where's my blast handle...this plastic ripcord handle looks flimsy ?!)

My 1st two rigs had shot & a halfs...they worked fine, I wouldn't prefer them over a 3 ring though.

And though I have seen someone go in with a belly mounted reserve entangled..that alone isn't the reason - 3 ring is easier to use & safer overall IMO.

I too however like snap hardware on my harness, easier to put on and way more importantly - easy to get off in case of an emergency.

I've never had a twist issue, a failure or maintenance problem with them.

They DO require a bit more attention putting on & cost more...but arguments that step through is 'better' somehow is laughable.

I was a 'pioneer' back in the day with a BOC pull-out back when ya didn't see a whole lot of bellyband throw-outs yet.

I went with a ROL when they became popular because I felt the BOC was possibly having some negative effects on my right upper shoulder...reaching back didn't feel natural from a human engineering design. We sure seem to have a lot of shoulder injuries these days huh...;)

Over the years I've pretty much let the 'other guys' be the test pilots on a lot of this stuff...though I'm not quick to take up the 'new' ways I eventually do once proven & if it makes sense.

I try to keep an open mind & a positive outlook regarding the sport...sure I miss the 'good ole days' but I'm also damn impressed at how far we are from them, in such a short time.

I think back to when I started and how blown my little mind would have been to know soon there would be wingsuits, airlocks, turbines, tandems & tunnels.

I look back with fondness, look around in awe & look forward to possibilities not even imagined yet!










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a dinosaur isnt so bad. I think we had some good gear, and it wasn't the B-4 or B-12. I understand that you like the fast flying canopies of today, but I have flown both and didnt really like the modern stuff. I had numerous squares, and some flew well, some didnt. I found the PC was reliable and I wouldnt want to do intentional low openings on anything else.
As you stated, time marches on, and I agree, but I dont think every step it takes is necessarily a good one. To each his own.
The remarks about the belly bands was from an article which said a new rig has been designed with two belly bands. I don't like the look of it, so I have no argument with you on that.
I have walked many times with both leg straps undone, and the quick ejectors swinging, and never once felt like I was being injured by them.
I have cutaway a rig with the 3 ring, and it was fast and clean, but so was the 1 1/2 shots, many times. I guess its what you have lived with. If I jump any more, I will use whatever is handy...and maybe wish for something else.




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuteless

I prefer the 1 1/2 shots, perhaps because I was raised on them.



I think this may be the overall theme for this thread. Maybe an issue of being more comfortable/familiar more than being better/worse based on something you can quantify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ive had lots of use with them, including both chuteless jumps,



How did you possibly use any cutaway system on a chutless jump? Capewell’s killed a lot of people back in the day for a variety of reasons. They were never designed to do what skydivers used them for. Originally they were for hooking a pilot up to his ejection seat that held the canopy

And before you ask, yes I have jump them and have a couple of cutaway on them. I am sure fastphil has used them also.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Most skydivers dont have a clue on how to spot a load. Better they try some jumps from a Cessna with a Para Commander, best parachute ever invented. The foils you use now are strictly to get you back after someone failed to drop you on the spot.



Well that's the dumbest, most short-sighted comment I've heard about square canopies in a long time.

How about squares are there to expand on the spot? You don't need to be within 1/4 mile of 'the spot' to make it home, now you can be 3/4 or a full mile from 'the spot' and still get back.

But that's just because we're so dumb and can accurately spot, right?

Nope, it's because we're not all jumping 182s (or smaller) with 4 jumpers and a 60 knot jumprun speed.

If you want to jump something bigger and faster, you need a much better canopy than a Para Commander. If you want to get 23 jumper out of an Otter with a jumprun speed of 80 or 90 knots, you simply can't count on a round to get you home, it's just not going to happen.

News flash pal, just like you were pushing the limits of spotting and load capacity trying to get 4 rounds on the field out of a 182, we're doing the same with our planes and our canopies. Most loads are flown with the jumprun being used to it's fullest capacity, with the first and last groups being as far apart as possible while still making it safely to the field. What this does is allow us the most time between groups for a given load and the boost in safety that provides. In any case, it doesn't allow a lot of 'wiggle-room' for the spot, making the ability to spot just as critical as it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Concering the belly bands-

I know they used to have pilot chutes mounted on belly bands (like they had them on leg straps too). However, on the modern rigs belly bands have made a very small come back and really only specifically for the top level canopy pilots. They are not for deployment purposes at all.

The purpose they serve is to allow the swoopers to let out, or remove their chest strap to allow them to lean forward (belly to earth) and not fall out.

Most that I have seen are removable. I'll see if I can find a photo.

http://thealteregoproject.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/IMG_6845-copy2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remster


And another thing....



Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château de Chasselas, eh?
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuteless

What heavy metal.? The quick ejectors were so much better because immediately on landing you could pop your leg straps and your body was free from the lower harness restrictions. How many jumps did you ever make with quick ejectors....I will bet not a single jump. You new skydivers didnt know how good those things were because you never were on the scene when they were being used.




I made several jumps with quick ejectors, and I have 350 on a PC and several hundred more on small round canopies. I like a harness to be light and comfortable, then I don't need to hop out of the legstraps on landing. Pull out pilot chutes are another great change, giving more control over deployment, not to mention making it lots faster. A rig over 16 or 17 lbs seems such a waste of gravity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuteless

What heavy metal.? The quick ejectors were so much better because immediately on landing you could pop your leg straps and your body was free from the lower harness restrictions. How many jumps did you ever make with quick ejectors....I will bet not a single jump. You new skydivers didnt know how good those things were because you never were on the scene when they were being used.



Of course. Taking one's legstraps off immediately upon landing is of great importance. :S

I have jumped rigs with quick ejectors. They were bulking and uncomfortable compared to today's slim hardware but hey, they ejected quickly and what could be better than that?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuteless

Skydivers posted a photo of a new rig apparently with another belly band, and a remark about " those new funny capewells". It appears that every few years, skydiving equipment manufacturers feel the need to come out with some new fangled gadgets, with the expectation that everyone will just have to have the latest piece of junk, and they will make more money. They had good rigs back in the 1960s and 1970s, and some screwball decided it would be best to take the quick ejectors off and they could step through the leg straps. What a stupid idea, and yet almost every rig you see now has this abomination. They go from bad to very bad, and make lots of money. Its time to make some more changes, and lots more money by convincing skydivers they need something new, modernized, advanced, revolutionary, and costly. If I had a rig made for myself in Jan 2014, it would have 1 1/2 shots, 1 belly band , and quick ejectors on both leg straps. The RIPCORD would be where it should be, just below the front of the shoulder, NOT tucked in my ass. I wouldnt throw pilot chute out, I would pull the ripcord and let the pilot chute do its stuff like it did for years. People would have to learn how to spot again. Wouldnt that be great?
All the rig has to do is keep the chute folded sufficiently to get a good opening when I get to altitude, and then as long as my harness stays on, I'll get a satisfactory landing. You sure do have some nice looking rigs now, but beauty doesnt help a bit when you need your reserve. Functionality should be first consideration, not how much the manufacturers can make by selling some new gadget to skydivers who always find the money to get " the latest".



Bet you had to walk a mile uphill in the snow wearing nothing but flip flops and torn tie-dye T-shirt to board the Ford Tri-Motor too.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuteless

But it shouldnt take precedence over a safe rig. Pretty doesnt do anything when you are below 1000 ft.



And that's the point exactly, I have fixed wing and helicopter free fall jumps at 1100 ft and felt comfortable with my light weight fast sure opening three ring equipped rig. These advancements in gear came along with a growing of the sport into what it is today. This comfort with gear and technique is what made BASE not just possible, but feasible.

Skydiving is like many other sports; it was created, grew up and now I guess it's matured. I think I participated during a growth spurt...

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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