Reserve soft handles

[SkydiveMonkey 0]

What exactly makes a 3-ring system incorrectly made? What sort of scope is there for error?
When I grow up, I want to be a post whore

[billbooth 10]

Skydive Monkey;
I have several previous posts here about 3-ring risers. There are also four pictures, with text, of a properly made mini 3-ring riser, as well as a chart comparing tandem, standard, and mini ring risers, at www.relativeworkshop.com...technical...3-ring risers.
As you will see, ring geometry, loop length, housing type and length, and breakaway cable choice all play a part. Risers made to other specifications may work well during "low G" malfunctions, but yield very high cutaway forces during a "high G" spinner. A short loop and soft housings are two of the worst problems. If you jump a highly loaded elliptical, you ought to have short hard housings in your riser channels, so that badly spun up risers won't grab you breakaway cable ends.
Bill

[riggerrob 562]

When I pulled my reserve ripcord - back in 1979 - it was a silver metal handle on the right side of my chest-mounted reserve. The reserve was round, because most people had round reserves in those days.
Since 1985 I have only owned square reserves. and all my rigs have had cutaway pillows on the right side, with silver reserve ripcords on the left side.
I have to agree with Bill Booth that standardization is a good thing. It does not matter how much "better" your new handle is, if you cannot find it NOW! during a malfunction.
As for innovations, my advice is to wait two or three years until someone else works out all the bugs. When I worked at Rigging Innovations, it took us two or three years to eliminate the bugs from any pattern set. For example, the Flexon debuted in 1991. In 1994 we released the '94, which was basically a simplified Flexon with trough style riser covers, because few people could be bothered to learn how to pack Flexon risers. There were a bunch of minor fit issues with the '94 Talon pattern set and I replaced a lot of side flaps for free. Come January 1997, R.I. released the Talon 2 which was a Flexon/'94 Talon with all the bugs worked out. It only took us 6 years to refine the Flexon reserve freebag to the point where it was easy to pack!
If you think that R.I. was slow, just look at how long it took Relative Workshop to de-bug the Vector 3.
The other issue with innovations is that sometimes it is just too much work to teach old dogs new tricks. For example, at Pitt Meadows all the students and most of the fun jumpers use BOC. A couple of older jumpers have their pilotchutes still mounted on their leg straps and the DZO still jumps a pull-out. Older jumpers claim thay don't want to be bothered learning about newer handle locations. And frankly I agree with them. If a system is proven and has worked well for them for many years, why change?

[RichM 0]

"If a system is proven and has worked well for them for many years, why change?"
Because skydiving is changing?
Rich

[Remster 24]

Rich, if you wanna quote, quote the appropriate section of a post:

Quote

Older jumpers claim thay don't want to be bothered learning about newer handle locations. And frankly I agree with them. If a system is proven and has worked well for them for many years, why change?

And as far as your comment of skydiving changing, why do you say that? Head-down has been around for a long time (it may have been called freak flying at one point...)
Remster
Muff 914

[RichM 0]

As you correctly say headdown and headup have been around a long time. I am under the impression that rigs designed have moved to accomodate some of the problems associated with the increased speed and the fact that the rig is now in exposed directly to that wind rather than sitting in the burble.
BOC is the predominate deployment type, and is used almost exclusively for freeflying. Looking at older rigs I find design changes in modern rigs in the way the bridle and risers are packed to minimize the possibility of premature deployment or riser escape. Would you think it's fair to say that non flat flying has been influential in some of these design changes?
Sorry, it turns out I didn't even read riggerrobs post right. Having reread it I agree with it. I lost the context in which it was made. I had a bad night. Sorry.
Rich

[Remster 24]

BOC and good riser covers inluenced from freeflying?
Maybe a little bit, but I dont think I'd agree...
I my opinion, allthough I prefer BOCs, if your main goal is to minimize prematures, I think a pull-out is superior (I cant beleive I put "pull out" and "superior" in the same sentence... )... and I know a couple of freeflyers who swear by their pull outs too (again, i cant beleive i put "I know a few" and "freeflyers" in the same sentence... ).
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but BOCs were developed to address the poptential mals that came from twisted legstraps on ROL mounted PCs, for us folks that dindt want to go the pull-out route, not to address prematures.
As far as good riser covers go, that evolution has been long and is probably still ongoing, and it goes back far before the newer trend in fast falling (Javelins in the early 90's to name just one container type).
As far as the bad night you had, what was her name?
Remster
Muff 914

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Opinions and open discussions on this are hereby solicited"
Guess I should have known better.....
Good discussion guys some very valid points.....
"my rigs have had cutaway pillows on the right side, with silver reserve ripcords on the left side"
Please read the posts before jumping in Rob.....I'm not talking about swapping the locations of handles, or changing their functions. The first reserve I was taught to use was on a belly mounted reserve container, the cloth loop reserve handle was on top of the 'sleeping bag' (which reportedly often required manual assistance to deploy it), and the main rip cord handle was up on my left side chest, we were taught to cutaway via capewells, but only in certain circumstances.......shivver.
"thank God I don't live in England"
Me too, I'm Scottish, you Canadians are all the same , do you know the difference between Scotland, England and the UK?... On British cars (along with Japan, Oz, NZ, and various other empire remnants) , the accelerator is on the same side, its the middle pedal that confuses you people. You see manual transmissions are way more fuel efficient, and we are generally not as lazy in our driving habits as our colonial cousins.
We drive on the other side of the road, as you correctly pointed out,but most of us are familiar with changing sides as we have driven around continental Europe and the US before, it really isn't a big deal, its all about familiarity and awareness.
As for people being unfamiliar with borrowed gear, well how often have we read the statement "The deceased was found to be using unfamiliar equipment", which I agree will be only be exacerbated by 'unusual handle design'. To continue the car analogy, would you jump into a strange car and take off down the freeway without checking where all the controls were? Adjusting the seat etc.. No? I didn't think so. Whenever you borrow kit, the first thing you do is familiarise yourself with the operation of it. Its unlikely that your borrowed kit will have the same harness sizing as your own, therefore, under tension during a mal, its unlikely that your handles will be where you expect them to be.
If people borrow my kit, which is rare as the harness is built for me and I'm an unusual shape (only Aggiedave fits it so far), I make sure they are aware of this.
I do believe that change is good, just 'cos things have been static for a while, doesn't mean that they are necessarily the best way to go. There is always room for improvement, and development (I'm personally looking forward to the invention of self packing parachutes). Particularly as equipment design has changed since the original concept was tested and proven, eg we are seeing faster, more violent high speed mals, and the prolific use of articulated harnesses. I just think that having a looped cutaway handle is more likely (during a violent mal) to result in;-
A) successfully locating the handle.
B) making the cutaway easier..(I am surprised by your early testing results that proved otherwise Bill, but point taken).
I suppose we could liken this discussion to the differences between puds, monkey fists, hackeys, and pipe handles. All of which I have used on BOC throwouts, I guess its down to personal preferences.
Thanks again for the discussion,
Cya
D

[Hooknswoop 19]

"And frankly I agree with them. If a system is proven and has worked well for them for many years, why change?"
Round reserves are proven and worked well for many years. Square reserves, which you changed to, are better.
I think your policy of watching a new idea for several years is very wise, but I disagree on stopping the improvement of equipment. Until what we are jumping is perfect, there will always be room for improvement. Change is difficult and takes extra effort. I am willing to put forth the extra effort in the search for better training methods, equipment, and skydiving techniques to make the sport better. The bar is always rising, if you aren't improving, them you are being left behind.
I have seen older instructors using out-dated methods to teach their students. They simply can't be bothered to change the way they teach. I stopped teaching at that DZ because I wasn't willing to go "retro". I compare it to using rounds as mains and chest mount reserves to teach students. The sport has progressed, but these instructors haven't. Who suffers? The students.
The only constant is change.
Hook