billbooth

Following a real-life cutaway, your main is traveling away from you at hundreds of inches a second. So, the Collins' Lanyard will release the left riser (if you haven't done it already) within 1/100th of a second after your right riser leaves. So really precise timing with the Collins' Lanyard isn't necessary. However, precise timing between the reserve pin pull, and the skyhook engaging is critical in a partial malfunction situation. The reserve pilot chute must jump just enough to get out of the way of the Skyhook deployed bag, but not so far that it will release the bridle from the Skyhook Lanyard, like it would in a total malfunction situation. A deviation of just a few inches in either the bridle length, or Skyhook placement on the bridle, can throw things off. The ratio between the reserve pin lanyard and the Skyhook lanyard is even more critical. This is why my direct-pull RSL system must be used with the Skyhook. Cable-through-ring RSL systems are just not accurate enough, because their timing depends on how much "slack" there is in the reserve ripcord cable.

The reserve pins we currently supply pass or exceed the "Capewell test" for bending. They are also far less "brittle" than conventional ripcord pins, because the are not beaten into shape by repeated hammer strokes.

The RWS static line pin has been one-piece stainless steel for many years now. It is made the same way, by the same company, as main hand deploy pilot chute curved pins.

Did they train you to pull the reserve THEN release the main? Cutting away a bag lock should stop you from "towing my trash". That is how you wrote in, and being a rigger you should know how how an RSL works. That being said, I think RSL's are a good thing for the majority of jumpers. Most RSL configurations have the reserve static line attached at the main riser at one end and the guide ring around the reserve ripcord cable at the other. When one jettisons the main parachute and the risers release the only attachment point left is the RSL riser/ cable link, if there is insuffecient drag to withdraw the ripcord pin/ cable assy then the resut would be a tow. the only way to clear this would be to pull the ripcord thereby releasing the RSL/ main canopy. A baglock may well qualify this situation. So yes he did as trained, well done. Mick. If you are towing your malfunction because of a poorly designed RSL, then you are probably going to have a really hard time pulling your reserve handle. In other words, the towed malfunction will quite possibly "lock up" your reserve ripcord cable because of the kink it is putting in it. This is why I designed an RSL that is directly connected to the reserve ripcord pin 25 years ago. I did not patent it, so it is "free" for everyone to use. I simply cannot understand why the "cable through ring" RSL system, which also damages your ripcord cable every time as well, is still in use today.

I used to get "knocked out" quite often (but never "injured") jumping early ram airs without sliders. But they had NYLON lines which are very stretchy. I think the difference is the "speed of onset" of the opening force on the jumpers body. Think of falling on a bare wood gym floor. Then take the same fall with a 2" mat on the floor. The same force is applied, but the compression of the mat spreads it out a little, so the fall on the mat is less likely to injure you. Nylon, and to a lesser extent, Dacron lines work the same way to spread out the force a little. Because the force builds up more gradually, your body has more time to "get ready" for the peak, which is never as high anyway.

I jumped a "Barish Beta" (I think that is what he called it) in the 70's. It was a mostly closed leading edge 5 cell, made of zero P. It had no reefing system, and only one steering line per side. It had "zero" toggle pressure, but also "zero" flare. It also seemed to go "up" when you cranked a "hard" turn. Barish was way ahead of his time. Good to hear he is still around.

Bill was Mr. USPA. His contributions to this sport cannot be overstated. We were on the same relative work team at the '72 nationals, and I thought of him as "ancient" even then. We have been good friends ever since. I will miss him.

Guys; I know you're not going to believe this, but there's a few old pilots on the DeLand airport who just don't like jumpers. Over the past 15 years, they have tried everything they could to make life difficult for Skydive DeLand. When this accident happened, they jumped (pardon the pun) all over it. Rumor has it that they talked a local detective into filing charges on Bill...just out of spite. Last month, a reported called me and asked me about the police report that said that Bill (in his airplane) and Gus (under his canopy) often played "chicken" while "racing" each other to the ground. I told him this was preposterous, and gave him all the reasons why. He told me he agreed...and then printed the story anyway. I hope he now realizes what a fool he was, and how much damage he did by printing something he knew was untrue...just because it made a good headline. Don't you just love the press.

Never open and re-close a container with the hand deployed pilot chute still in the pouch. This is the most common way to pack a pilot chute in tow. Always trace your bridle from the main closing pin to the pilot chute pouch with a finger to make sure it passed under nothing on the way to the pouch, before you put on your gear. Certainly your life is worth this 5 second check.

I can still remember, in 1974, rummaging through a bin of discarded plastic pieces at Miami Plastics looking for something I could use as a temporary handle for my new hand deploy pilot chute. I found a couple of one foot long orange plastic wands used to direct airplanes to the gates at Miami International Airport, and thought; "If I cut these into one inch pieces, it'll probably do for a while, until I can think of something better. I think it's great that 30 years later, someone is still arguing if anything is better.

The lower you pull, the longer your parachute will take to open...or the greater your chance of malfunction. In other words, when things go wrong, is is usually at the worst possible time.

Something to the effect of: The altitude which your parachute takes to open is inversely proportional to the altitude at which deployment is initiated Or The lower you dump, the longer your canopy will snivel. My second law may also be helpful in this discussion: "As gear gets safer, jumpers automatically take more risks, so as to keep the fatality rate level."

No, ask Ted Strong.

No, ask Ted Strong.

We all went to split saddles because solid saddles were uncomfortable, and very hard to fit correctly without an adjustable main lift web. Besides, I don't think a solid saddle offers any more protection from falling out of a mis-adjusted harness anyway. The strap between the legs straps of a split saddle harness, yielding a split-solid saddle, was also terribly uncomfortable, if it was not exactly the right length. This required an adjuster that you sat on...also not very popular. Harnesses evolved in response to what skydivers wanted and needed to do relative work and now freestyle. The grass may seem greener on the other side, but I still remember how uncomfortable those solid saddle rigs were, and am not anxious to return to those days. Falling out of a harness is of course a terrible tragedy, but it is also very, very rare. Although no firm numbers are available, it seems to be a one in 20,000,000 or even greater event, or far rarer than even your chance of being struck by lightning. In comparison, the risk of a skydiver dying on a given jump is about one in 86,000. Also remember that falling out of a harness is not a random event. There is almost always a logical cause.

The malfunction rates on all of our tandem canopies are MUCH lower if they are flat packed. We've been telling people this fact for years, so I'm quite frankly amazed that anyone still pro-packs large canopies.

These tests are almost always done static line from (obviously) a horizontally moving aircraft. This means that initially, the load has lots of airspeed, but very little rate of descent. If the load were freefalling at terminal velocity, and the pack opened at 300 feet, very few, if any reserves would pass. But the more important point here is, that when you make the decision to pull, and when you actually do it, is often separated by several seconds...which at terminal can mean 500 feet or more. Of course, then there are pilot chute hesitations. Because everyone now hand deploys their main parachutes, very few people seem to remember what a problem they were...and fewer still no how to avoid them at pull time. These can easily eat up up another few hundred feet. The point here is that if you are at terminal, the time from the decision to pull, to a fully open and functioning reserve, can be a lot closer to 1,000 feet than 300 feet.

They were called "anti-windBLAST" Handles. I loved them. They were very secure (nearly snag proof), but if you installed them incorrectly, as Roger said, the were a little too secure. They were the inspiration for my Sigma Tandem main "golf ball" handles...with no center post, of course.

You're right...that's actually my favorite example, because the proven benefits were so astounding, and still nobody wanted it...just because it packed up bigger.

People don't want "safer" harnesses. Harnesses with belly bands are safer...but people won't buy them. Harnesses without lower harness rings are safer, (because the rings allow the leg straps to rotate forward with almost no resistance, increasing the "hole" size in the back) but "everyone" wants "articulated" harnesses. Larger canopies are safer, but people keep getting smaller and smaller ones. Dacron line is safer because of lower opening shocks (at least 4 jumpers have died because of hard openings in just the last two years on no-stretch lined canopies), but "everyone" still wants microline or Vectran so that their canopy will pack smaller. Large 3-rings are safer, but almost no one wants them because mini rings look "cooler". Non-collapsible pilot chutes and sliders are safer because you can't forget to cock them, but "everyone" has to have a collapsible, to make their tiny canopy with microline go faster, so that they can hit the ground even faster when they "miss" that swoop. In short, I've never seen people choose "safer" gear (with the possible exception of AAD's and RSL's), and I don't think I ever will. As I've said many times before,"Fashion wins out over safety every time".

The "universal riser" system complicates the canopy release system, thereby introducing new chances to mis-rig it. This reduces its reliability. When we went from one drogue release handle to two, on early Vector tandem systems, we utilized the same double ended loop method the universal riser system uses. Guess what...we also went from almost no failure-to-release-drogue malfunctions to constant failure-to- release-drogue malfunctions. Packers would put both cables through both loops. Loops would get replaced with incorrectly made loops that were too stiff because of the stitching used. The point is I've been through this already, and it's a proven bad idea. Why would anyone in their right mind want to lower the reliability of STUDENT canopy release systems?

Would you go against the manufacturers recomendations and change the risers on your rig. PDF rigs all come with integrity risers, I have contacted them in the past about changing the risers and they don't recommend it, they don't even manufacture a standard riser. So if PDF owners were to change they would have to use a riser from another manufacturer. Mismatching gear is recipe for more trouble. If you were told that Aerodyne's miniforce system was the best would you rush out and change your risers even though the particular manufacturer of your rig told you not to. REPLY The 3-ring release is a system of carefully matched components. I did everything I could to "standardize" that system, but a lot of people refused to listen. The result was mini-rings of differing dimensions, soft housings, and reversed risers, to name just a few. Each of these changes lowered the integrity of the original design, and therefore lowered reliability. This also happened with my hand deployed pilot chute, with people changing dimensions and construction methods to the point where a lot of people are having problems with what ought to be the most "dirt-simple" and reliable part of their gear. This is the main reason I have not released the Skyhook yet. I'm scared what people will do to it. So, do I recommend haphazardly replacing reversed risers with standard ones? NO, unless you really know what you are doing. The diameter of the new riser rings may be different, and the housing lengths might be wrong.

There is one less PULLEY in the system. The rings are levers...the white loop is a pulley. The point here is, again, that reversed risers offer no real advantages, and several real disadvantages. The are just like soft housings. They work MOST of the time. However, when my life is at stake, I prefer ALL of the time. How about you?

To be reasonably "stable", drogues need some sort of venting around their "equator". I tried a no-mesh drogue years ago (similar to a Vector reserve pilot chute). It orbited above me in wildly osccillating eight foot circles. It was quite a ride. The other reason all holes in our drogue are covered with mesh, is that TM's often have to dump their reserve pilot chutes past a drogue in tow, and I don't want any snag points to catch that reserve pilot chute. It is a lot of extra work to "mesh in" all drogue openings, so we only do it because we have to. We use the toughest mesh we can find, and quite often it outlasts other parts of the drogue.

I've done it both ways. Since the purpose is to simulate a breakaway, we usually hook the normal breakaway handle to the first main. We then use two short pieces of yellow cable, attached to two separate loops, which are velcroed up onto their own risers.