billbooth

A mini ring riser on a large harness ring has a little less mechanical advantage than on a small harness ring because the lever arm is less due to the thickness of the large ring. It will work though. Two type 17 (1") mini ring risers in one large harness ring, is an easy way to attach an extra canopy for a breakaway rig. We've done it lots of times with no problem.

Every "broken-from-hard-opening" mini riser I have ever seen, broke where it goes around the harness ring, not at the grommet. So, removing the grommet doesn't necessarily make the riser stronger.

The minimum 50% increase in pull force for reversed risers doesn't matter, and probably can't be noticed by the jumper if the pull force is low: ie. 4 lbs. vs 6 lbs. Your reversed risers might be "good" ones. But how can you tell, with so many different versions out there, with no published specs? A high "G" breakaway with a really bad pair can be very difficult.

My tests show roughly the same thing...the best reserve risers I have tested have 50% more pull force than mini rings with an RW-8. The worst had more than double the pull force. Again, since there are no published standards for reverse risers (that I am aware of), you can't tell how bad yours are just by looking. Reverse risers are in the same category with soft housings. They work sometimes, but not "when the chips are down).

OK...I've heard about enough of this...No rig is "made" for reversed risers, because their problems are independent of the rig they're on. I know some people state that on PDF rigs, the main 3-ring is mounted higher on the main lift web, but this really doesn't make any difference. 1. Reversed risers have a lower mechanical advantage than correctly made risers. (Some designs I have tested are better than others, but because there are no published standards, it is impossible, without individual pull testing, to tell how bad your reversed risers are.) 2. If you have a bag lock that doesn't open your riser covers, or two canopies out with your risers are drawn back across your shoulders, you can't breakaway. Since there are no advantages to reversed risers (they are not "stronger", and even if they were, what do you want to break on a super hard opening...your risers...or your harness...or your neck?), why should we use them?

Not true.

I have discussed the problems with reversed risers several times before. Do a search...then get rid of them...please.

The original Vector (1979) was designed as a hand deployed reserve rig. I figured, you practice hand deploying your main pilot chute on every jump...why not use the same skills to deploy your reserve. However, I only made a few prototypes, then dropped the idea for the sake of keeping one standard for all reserve deployments...even though it was different from the standard main deployment. I'm now glad I made that decision. As I mentioned above, it is awful hard to put an AAD on a hand deployed reserve...and now everyone uses AAD's. This was not true in the '70's. Back then, almost no experienced jumper would jump with an AAD.

Look at your reserve container. On most modern rigs, starting with the Vector I, it is designed to "hold" the bag in place until the pilot chute pulls it out. The degree of "hold" is determined by whether the main container is open or closed. If it is closed, you are most likely at terminal, where pilot chute hesitations are very common. So, I designed the riser covers and main side flaps to wrap around and "grab" the edges of the reserve bag, holding it in place with a force of at least 15 lbs., even when the reserve container is "open". This is OK, because at terminal, your reserve pilot chute pulls over 100 lbs. However, this degree of hold would not be OK after a slow speed breakaway, where you pilot chute barely pulls 15 lbs. So, when the main container and risers covers are open (which will always be the case if you are about to breakaway) I designed the reserve container to grip with a force of under 10 lbs. Pilot chute hesitations usually don't happen at low speed, so I could afford to loosen up the reserve container grip a bit. I still had to build in some grip for situations where you breakaway, and then wait until terminal to deploy your reserve. It is precisely because this scenario is so common following a breakaway from a high performance spinner, that I am "pushing" the Skyhook for experienced jumpers. I have personally seen two fatalities from out of sequence reserve deployments, where the reserve bag got out of the container during a pilot chute hesitation, and entangled with the pilot chute and bridle. So, my reserve container is a compromise, designed to prevent out-of-sequence deployments at terminal, while still allowing quick reserve deployments at low speed. It has been successful enough so that almost every rig made today uses it. But, it is really hard to design the same features into a main container, which is why I prefer the in-sequence hand deploy method. Besides, nowadays, reserves require AAD's, and AAD's and hand deploy pilot chutes are incompatable. Otherwise, I would probably offer an in-sequence hand deploy reserve system.

When I proudly showed my teenage daughters a recent piece I did for the History Channel, the eldest remarked, "What are you so proud of dad?...it means "you're history".

A Jesus cord was a short piece of line that went from the reserve ripcord handle to the reserve top flap. It purpose was to pull open the reserve flap in case it didn't open after the ripcord extracted the pin, thus preventing a total. It was the early days of piggybacks, and some people didn't like having the reserve container on their back where they couldn't get their hands on it. In some cases this was almost a good idea as some early piggybacks needed all the help they could get. However, it was another snag point, and prevented you from being able to get rid of your reserve ripcord.

Hey...I was half-right...which is pretty good for a 30 year old memory. I knew there were snaps in there somewhere.

You're right, I think it was elastic. I've still got my old Crossbow somewhere. I'll go look. What did the pioneer piggyback use? I could swear someone use snaps.

I led six North Pole Skydiving Expeditions from 1991 to 1999. The largest group was about 180 skydivers, in 1994-5. It's a blast, and I highly recommend it. Being the first, I got away with charging less than $5,000 per jumper. Now that the Russians understand how "rich" Westerners are, they charge a lot more.

Spectra (Microline) is also very shiny (when new) and very slippery.

The "Steven's Lanyard" was an early RSL for FRONT mounted reserves developed by Perry Stevens in the late '60's. It was a long piece of tubular nylon that connected the right main riser directly to the reserve ripcord handle. It worked great, but quite a few people got hit in the face by that departing ripcord handle. This was especially bad if you had a Sentinel Pin-Puller handle that weighed about a pound. The first piggyback RSL I know of, also from the "60's, was designed by Dan Abbot for the original Security piggyback. It was a short piece of tubular connected to the reserve ripcord housing. The housing was connected to the rig with snaps at both ends, and left with the departing main after a breakaway, pulling the reserve pin, but usually leaving the handle in place.

Guys: I haven't designed a perfect device, for all skydivers, in all situations yet...and I doubt the Skyhook is the first.

Lexan was the first sew-able stiffiner I used 30 years ago. It is tough, but in thin sheets it cracks if you flex it a lot.

Why do I jump a Vigil? To be totally honest, I get a better deal on Vigils because I am involved in Vigil USA, which markets them. That said, I think the Vigil is a "next generation", better designed, better built unit. So, even if they were both the same price to me, I would still choose Vigil. That said, I jumped a Cypres for 12 years, would have no hesitation jumping one today, and have nothing but admiration for Helmut Cloth, the designer of the Cypress. However, I believe that Joe Smolders, who designed the Vigil, has made significant improvements to the electronic AAD. That's why I chose to get involved with Vigil.

I guess I might have misinterpreted this then: -Bill Booth ...Particularily part 2... with the skyhook the reserve is coming as soon as the main risers leave. That is -as per the advertisement- immediately after the cutaway is pulled. You seem to have clearly indicated that between cutaway and reserve deployment, you have time to get stable. You do not wish to be holding or even looking at the reserve handle as you want to make sure you are stable enough to deploy you reserve. The quote reads, at least to me, as though you have the time to determine "which way is up" between cutaway and reserve deployment whereas the advert for the skyhook would indicate otherwise. My Bad I understand your confusion. I was speaking about what my emergency procedures would be, IF I did not have a Skyhook. Sorry my post was not more clear.

Bill Booth DOES jump a Skyhook. I also use a hand deploy pilot chute, a 3-ring release, and a Vigil AAD. I need all the help I can get!

Horse shoe malfunctions were a very important consideration in designing the Skyhook. If the Skyhook lanyard "locked" onto the reserve bridle as soon as it was loaded, it couldn't handle a horse shoe. That's why it has an automatic quick release feature if the reserve pilot chute ever starts traveling away from the jumper faster than the broken away malfunction. Of course, I don't really know if a Skyhook will help, hurt, or do nothing to improve your odds of deploying your reserve past a still half-attached horse shoe malfunction...there are simply too many variables, and the test jumps would simply be too dangerous. And some, or even most horseshoes, won't even open the riser covers. However, if you watch the baglock portion of the Skyhook video, the very low drag bag lock not only helps the pilot chute out of the burble, it actually throws it to the side before releasing it to finish the deployment. The risers leaving in an attempted breakaway from a horse shoe might do the same...that is "throw" the pilot chute slightly to the side around the horseshoe, thus actually improving your odds. No guarantees though.

I like it...especially the "something like that" part. How much are you going to charge me for your copy writing services?

A skyhook gets your reserve to line stretch (you feel your reserve deploying) in 1/2 a second, or before you breakaway cables completely clear their housings. It takes longer than that for you to make sure both risers have released correctly, and I would never suggest pulling your reserve until you know you have a clean breakaway. By the way, the Skyhook's Collins' Lanyard takes care of that little bit of housekeeping for you automatically in about 1/10 of a second.

Actually, I have been trying to come up with a "disclaimer" for the Skyhook cartoon ad, but everything I write sounds stupid (No, you can't quote me on that.). Any ideas? Just to stir up the pot a little...Why does everyone call RSL's back-up devices? On a rig with an RSL (Skyhook or not, but especially on RWS rigs, where the reserve ripcord pin is permanently attached to the RSL lanyard, NOT to the ripcord cable) the RSL is the PRIMARY system, which pulls the pin after a breakaway from a partial malfunction. It is the reserve ripcord that is the back-up device, because you don't have to pull it unless the RSL fails. If you believe that back-up systems can't be trusted, then you can't trust your reserve ripcord. If you can't trust your reserve ripcord, then you shouldn't be jumping. PS: Seriously, when you think of, or practice, breakaway procedures on an RSL equipped rig, you should always include a reserve ripcord pull, even though in the vast majority of cases, you won't get the chance. Of course, in a total malfunction, the reserve ripcord is primary, because the RSL does nothing...unless you pull on it yourself, in which case the RSL COULD be considered a back-up device for the reserve ripcord. (Wait a minute, now even I'm confused.)