mattaman 0 #26 October 12, 2006 Why does it not work out to be that easy in the field, why does it not work out to be that easy when sport jumpers have problems with spinning mals, some of which cannot even cut them away? What your saying is that what has been experienced in the field is not real, and that line of thought will kill people, you cannot provide a fantasy solution for a real problem, especially when it involves jumping out of an airplane, wake upThose stuck in maya, seek to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattaman 0 #27 October 12, 2006 How do you know the skyhook will make a difference when you've never been in that situation. Denial is a skydivers worst enemy. Don't wait to find this out when you tumbling across the sky, like others have.Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #28 October 12, 2006 QuoteI agree, the problem is people don't pick gear for the worst case, they pick the gear to look cool or have fun. I don't normally care when it is an experienced jumper, but with a TANDEM?!?!?!!? Safety first always. What makes you think the purpose is to look cool or have fun? I like my tandems to be fun, no doubt about it, but that fun comes from the student, not the canopy. I've loaded up a main a little over 1.5, and will do so again given the right conditions. But my reason isn't looking cool or having fun, it's low toggle pressure, a very responsive flare, and at least a little familiarity (compared to what I jump on other skydives). The advances we've made in canopy design for sport jumpers shouldn't be denied to tandem students just because someone *thinks* they're dangerous. Let's look at some data before jumping to conclusions. Are there instances of unreasonably difficult chops due to canopy design/loading? Are there increased landing injuries on modern, more heavily loaded canopies? I don't know the answers to these questions, I'm just asking. My anecdotal experience leads me to believe I can land my students more safely on an Icarus 330 or 365 than I can on an old 425 or 500. Have others who've jumped these canopies reached similar conclusions? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #29 October 12, 2006 I know I can positively land students better under my Firebolt 350, A Sigma 370, and the smaller of the two Icarus/Precision mains than I could under any of the older Vector Hi-Lifter and 421's/500's. If I ever wear out my personal 350 main, I will replace it with nothing larger than a 330 HOP. I simply don't need anything larger over my head as a 160 pound TM. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #30 October 12, 2006 3-ring releases, correctly made, are more than adequate for loads up to about 550 lbs., even with a spinning main to breakaway from. We do make a 4-ring for military tandem bundle systems which can handle loads up to 1,000 lbs. If you have a hard pull on a tandem breakaway, your 3-rings were, most likely, manufactured incorrectly, or not lubricated. The French tandem 4-ring is not a 4 ring at all. It is "reverse" risers system that lacks the 2-1 pulley effect of the white closing loop of a correctly manufactured 3-ring, and therefore needs the extra tab, with a grommet in it, to bring it up to the mechanical advantage of a normal 3-ring. The "problem" with Strong's tandem 3-ring is that their riser rings are too "fat". This was done in an effort to make them stronger, but it backfired by severely lowering the mechanical advantage of the system. Because the resultant force on the yellow cutaway cable was so high, they had to switch to a much stiffer, non-coated stainless steel cable, so that it wouldn't suck through on opening. But the rough surface of the non-coated cable increases friction even more. The end result is a 3-ring that is closer to a 2-ring. I'm sorry, but I have to say it again. Every effort I have seen to "improve" the 3-ring has simply not worked out. One of the simplest things you can do to increase your own personal safety, is to make sure you 3-rings are correctly made, and maintained. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #31 October 12, 2006 QuoteWhat makes you think the purpose is to look cool or have fun? Skydivers make a lot of decisions about gear based on looks or fun. Thats fine for personal gear, but not students. Quote like my tandems to be fun, no doubt about it, but that fun comes from the student, not the canopy. Then you may not be one of the people I am talking about. I can remember a TI talking about taking a student and swooping a pond. The student didn't care about swooping, only the TI."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattaman 0 #32 October 12, 2006 Thank you for that informative post, I hope we can get more from you, your knowledge is to valuable to be wasted in silence, matt Any thoughts on smaller tandem main spinning mal stuff? Keep your packer happy perhaps?Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #33 October 12, 2006 QuoteAny thoughts on smaller tandem main spinning mal stuff? Keep your packer happy perhaps? Load your risers evenly all the way through the opening meanwhile preventing your passenger from swinging you both into a few twists? QuoteBill Booth: 3-ring releases, correctly made, are more than adequate for loads up to about 550 lbs., even with a spinning main to breakaway from. We do make a 4-ring for military tandem bundle systems which can handle loads up to 1,000 lbs. My guess is that the mentioned 4-ring for the military tandem is also correctly made, most of the time. In the other thread Jerome Bunker reports having measured a significant reduction in pull force when going from 3 to 4 rings. (i.e. not only can you put more load on them but when the load remains roughly the same , anyone that can halfway flare a tandem should be able to cut-away with one hand - which comes in handy with a passenger in front of you...) Now I know about the principle of permutations and the logic that says "if you can mis-rig a 3 ring in 6 different ways, you can mis-rig a 4 ring in 24 different ways" but other than that I prefer to go into battle with superior fire power... Once it is correctly connected under your own supervision, your "high-school-kid-packer" could be trained not to touch it. (i.e. diconnecting and re-connecting); inspecting the set up should not make a difference (?) "Why cant I have 4 ring risers on my tandem even if all it does is give ME a warm and fuzzy feeling???"... (Yeah - I know, ask Ted Strong...) Let's not forget that - once open - the smaller tandem canopies are easier to handle, penetrate better into wind, are better "presurized against turbulence" and allow for softer landings even when there's a buffalo in front of you. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattaman 0 #34 October 12, 2006 What this means for all out there is the hard cutaway question will be answered after a couple of fatalities, not now. As far as passenger position, this is only valid if the mal is cause by passenger position, bit clearly there are two distinct way people want to look at this, I know what mine is, hard cutaways exist, can exist, and with smaller tandem mains will be a problem at some point, good luckThose stuck in maya, seek to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laszloimage 0 #35 October 12, 2006 Well the Sky Hook won't make the cutaway easier for sure. But the reserve deployment will be fast and clear sice the malfunctioned main becomes the reserve pilot chute as soos as you realese it. I never had a TM mal but I'v seen a lot of them (avg. 1-2 every week this summer due to the crappy pack jobs) and the rigs equipped with RW's Sky Hook worked very well. Yes I agree fast spinnig malfunctions with a siple RSL can be a problem, I heard stories from colleagues seeing the free-bag when they chopped from a bad spin on the TM. The problem isn't the high performance TM canopy. The problem is coming from the attitude towards to it. A person with both lot of tandem and HP canopy expirince (not only expirince but also very good at it) probably won't have any trouble with the high performance TM canopy. Also it requiers up to date TM rigs with additional safety features (like Sky Hook). And very important, understanding the princicipals when the TM rig is packed. The lack of any of these above can end up bad even with a more conservative parachute. Higher performance TM equipment requires higher performance TM instructor and more "precision" and it's possible safely. -Laszlo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jheadley 0 #36 October 12, 2006 QuoteWhy does it not work out to be that easy in the field, why does it not work out to be that easy when sport jumpers have problems with spinning mals, some of which cannot even cut them away? What your saying is that what has been experienced in the field is not real, and that line of thought will kill people, you cannot provide a fantasy solution for a real problem, especially when it involves jumping out of an airplane, wake up *sigh* This is why I don't post more often. What a constructive reply. I'm not trying to provide a fantasy solution to a real problem, I'm trying to find the reason for the problem.I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen, I know friends under both sport and tandem canopies that have had trouble cutting away. I'm just saying that it seems there is something else going on. Like Bill Booth said, if there is a hard cutaway, then something else is going on besides just the increased G force increasing the cable pull force. Incorrectly made 3 rings, stiff risers, pinched cutaway cables, dirty or non lubricated cutaway cables... A spinning mal would just amplify all of these (completely preventable) problems. Some TIs just plain forget to peel the handle off the velcro! If you've got a dropzone with 10 tandem rigs, think, how often do you clean the cables and flex the riser webbing? Most people don't do it enough, or at all. Instead of immediately blaming hard cutaways on fast spinning canopies, we should try to figure out why the hard cutaways actually happening. The mechanical advantage of a (properly made) 3 ring release seems to be more than adequate. For a hard cutaway on a strong tandem, you just found part of your answer on why they have hard cutaways in Mr. Booth's reply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #37 October 12, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ted strong does not use the 3 ring as invented by bill booth -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is it different? check the middle ring! and the cutaway cable. the reason for the metal cable is the extra force on the 3 ring due to the different dimentions of the middle ring. why?? edit: oops didn't read bills reply before posting!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattaman 0 #38 October 12, 2006 Lots of things in this sport, just like in this world don't have perfect answers, they create more questions. Manufacturers always have answers, but sometimes its just doesn't brake down that way in the field, then, after lots of experience, and seeing things go wrong, people ask questions. I find two types in this thread, those willing to say this is a frightening topic, the rsl tumbling cutaway, the loading/ hard cutaways, and down sizing tandem mains to possibly create higher forces on spinning mals. There are not perfect solutions, but some people seem to have all the answers, not cause they do, but cause they don't want to question, it scares them too much to say, yes, we may have something that needs to be looked at here, and may not be perfect, and may hurt or kill people. And thats part of the sport. I get angry when I hear people not willing to question, I don't get snappy at people who do, especially when there is field evidence that suggests all of these things need to be looked at, How many tandems mals have you had in which you experienced this stuff? Cause my fear comes for a dedication to the sport and to my students lives, and having these experiences and heard others having them. This is why I throw this stuff out there. Denial is that these things exist is not our friend, its our worst enemy.Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattaman 0 #39 October 12, 2006 You are so right, I wonder if we create higher performance on tandems equipment if we need to have the eexaminers start to introduce that stuff into tandem instr. training. I've often thought the tandem rating was way to easy to get, especially after doing so many, they really are just as dangerous when things go wrong as Aff, this would be a controversial thread, for sureThose stuck in maya, seek to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #40 October 12, 2006 You're right. If you drastically upgrade the performance of one part of your parachute system, i.e. going to a sub-300 tandem main, then you had better be sure that the rest of the system is up to the increased demands your tiny new main will put on it. Your release system must be able to handle higher "G" malfunctions, and your reserve deployment system really ought to have a Skyhook system installed. You also have to train yourself to be a lot more stable and vigilant at opening time to stop line twists before they happen. My opinion is that if you can go too small with tandem mains, safety will be compromised...But then, I'm an old fart who jumps a 190 when solo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base_rigger 0 #41 October 12, 2006 If they will ever make a x-braced 280 Tandem main I'd buy it in a heart beat. Now I'd buy a firebolt 298 or a HOP 330.You know you have a problem when maggot is the voice of reason at the exit points Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattaman 0 #42 October 12, 2006 Your not an old fart, your a wise great old fart, I'm getting their too, matt can't you tell by my old fart attitudeThose stuck in maya, seek to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laszloimage 0 #43 October 13, 2006 Yes, I agree. But there would be another problem. I know Tandem Examiners who are pretty good at what they doing, but they don't have expirenxe on high performance canopies. Also I met a guy who had ONLY 100 (yes one hundred) TM jumps and he was TM I/E on the Strong system becouse (I guess) they needed someone in that country where he was from to train TM I's. Very heads up guy, but that 100 TM he made just not enough expirience to teach others (I videoed him). Anyway... I try to be short. Nothing is impossible including the use of heavily loaded cross-braced TM canopies. But things like that deffinetly would require new standards, rules, manuals, and ect... -Laszlo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattaman 0 #44 October 13, 2006 Wonder how many total jumps he had, it better have been in the thousands, and I hope he was thoroughly trained.Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #45 October 13, 2006 Quotehard cutaways exist, can exist, and with smaller tandem mains will be a problem at some point, good luck Though there's always an element of chance, for myself I try to keep 'luck' out of the equasion as much as possible. Meanwhile, a little bird told me that the French (you know: those funny speaking people from the country where the first ever parachute jump was made in 1797) did ground-tests comparing cut-away forces on 3 ring and 4 ring systems. On a load of 540kg the 3 ring system in their test set up needed 12 kg to cut away, while the 4 ring system needed 4 kg on that same load of 540kg. Since these results were consistent (less pull force on the 4 rings) it seems clear to me that the solution is already there. Just a matter of convincing Bill and Ted that it is 'a minor modification not voiding the TSO' and they should start offering 4 ring risers for those of us who want them... (I'm game! "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #46 October 13, 2006 Bill & Ted 3 ring "Excellent" hard cutaway, "Bogus" "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattaman 0 #47 October 13, 2006 the voice of conscience has shined through, great contribution, good to know, we all benifited from your sharing,Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #48 October 13, 2006 Maybe the answer is introducing more stringent weight, wind and experience standards for smaller tandem canopies. There is a vast different between the Pacific Island resort professional who does a dozen tandems a day - five days a week, ten months out of the year - and a good old boy who is lucky to do a dozen tandems a year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattaman 0 #49 October 13, 2006 You got that right, they type rate pilotsThose stuck in maya, seek to be seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #50 October 13, 2006 QuoteThe French tandem 4-ring is not a 4 ring at all. It is "reverse" risers system that lacks the 2-1 pulley effect of the white closing loop of a correctly manufactured 3-ring, and therefore needs the extra tab, with a grommet in it, to bring it up to the mechanical advantage of a normal 3-ring. Can I say "respectfully disagreeing"? OK - respectfully disagreeing it is then... The Atom reversed mini-riser The Advance tandem riser Both pics are from the manuals - don't know if they are up to date... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
