Morbid Curiosity. Re: SkyHook

[billvon 3,111]

>The other (probably more important) thing the Skyhook does is put your
> reserve right where your main just was, or exactly in line the with the
> vertical axis of your body. This yields beautifully straight and even line
> groups at line stretch.

Is this always a good thing? This is pretty much what a direct bag SL system does - put your main right where your body was an instant ago, instead of opposite the relative wind. It's led to some of the ugliest openings I've seen as a JM, since the main has to rotate about 120 degrees to align itself with the relative wind once it's out. PC assist openings and IAD openings look a lot better.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Unless you jump a Racer, where only 64ft is required from breakaway to fully open reserve .

Quote

I'd have to see the video before I'd believe that....

Watch the commercials on "Breakaway" tape then. It's there.

My 64 ft comment was a tounge-in-cheek one. Check the link in my post (two posts above) for the full story on this controversial JumpShack commercial.

I've seen the breakaway dvd... didn't notice that claim...reading the thread now.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skydiverek 63]

Quote

I've seen the breakaway dvd... didn't notice that claim...reading the thread now.

Well, the claim was not on the "Breakaway", but about 15 years ago Jumpshack run the ads in Skydiving magazine, claiming 64-foot reserve deployment, based on a very similar footage. More in the thread I mentioned.

[billbooth 10]

From what I have seen, it is always a good thing to "put the reserve where the main just was". I have watched literally hundreds of videos of reserve deployments, and I have never seen "cleaner" deployments than the Skyhook produces. A direct bag static line is a totally different animal. It pulls the top of the main into the relative wind. That is way too far "out of alignment". I agree that it produces horrible ram-air deployments. We had to develop a special dual-bag system so that the military could get successful static line ram-air deployments out of C-130's.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Well, the claim was not on the "Breakaway", but about 15 years ago Jumpshack run the ads in Skydiving magazine, claiming 64-foot reserve deployment, based on a very similar footage. More in the thread I mentioned.

I heard 3 commercials on the radio this morning that claimed taking their magic pills would make my penis bigger.

[skydiverek 63]

Quote

I heard 3 commercials on the radio this morning that claimed taking their magic pills would make my penis bigger.

If your penis doesn't get bigger, it's not dangerous or life threatening. If your reserve doesn't open in 64 feet, and you cutaway at that altitude, it IS dangerous and life threatening. Different products and different scale of negative consequences if the claim is not met...

(I cannot believe I just wrote that
False claims are common in advertising industry, but I think companies need to be more responsible with the products with huge "negative consequences" (death). Newbees don't know any better, like Bill Booth said.

[BIGUN 1,483]

Quote

I like to know the limits and tolerances of all my gear and dont feel that inquiring about them deserves flippant answers like 1001' or Dont be a dumb ass

And herein lies the problem.....

Quote

Knowing that it could still save your ass as low as 100' gives me more confidence in my equipment

"Flippant" or a focal instrument about fundamentals.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

What's not to like?

How about doing a better RSL shackle. They have a tendency to come apart when they shouldn't, as if the mechanism might have issues with high accelerations during actual deployments, or maybe just not reliable if not firmly/completely closed.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billbooth 10]

The weak point of the Skyhook system is the "snap shackle" which attaches the RSL to the riser. I am working with one manufacturer to improve the current design, and am open to any ideas about a replacement that is more secure, but can still be released with one hand, relatively quickly. Any ideas?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The weak point of the Skyhook system is the "snap shackle" which attaches the RSL to the riser. I am working with one manufacturer to improve the current design, and am open to any ideas about a replacement that is more secure, but can still be released with one hand, relatively quickly. Any ideas?

Bill, what about a panic snap or trigger snap? I don't know how much shock load they would have to withstand, but they're both easily releasable...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[alan 1]

Quote

Without the Skyhook, you must "get stable" and align your body into the relative wind before it is safe to deploy your reserve, because if you deploy with the relative wind at an angle to your body, you risk entanglement with the deploying reserve, and you will have "unequal" reserve line lengths at line stretch, risking a spinning reserve opening with line twists.

"get stable" before reserve deployment after a cutaway? If anyone else had come on here and posted a comment like this they would be all over it like stink on shit! Do a little search. Basics from student days. Read the SIM. Arch then pull. Nothing about getting stable first. Quite the opposite actually, don't waste the time and altitude getting stable, it is more important to get the reserve over your head. You may spend the rest of your life "getting stable". Most of the riggers posting here have for years been saying that the reserve system is designed to be deployed while unstable and that it results in quicker deployment, ie the reserve pc is not in the burble and launches quicker.

Your comment might be restated from: "Without the Skyhook, you must "get stable" and align your body into the relative wind ......." to something like this.
With the Skyhook you have no need to worry about getting stable before deploying the reserve and risking entanglement......

There is a big difference. People rightfully look up to you here. Be careful of what you say and how you say, your word is accepted as gospel here.

Bill, I have packed your Skyhook sytem. I have seen it in action. The last time I recommended it to a new jumper asking for rig advice was just this past Sunday.

alan

[billbooth 10]

I absolutely understand that the most important thing you must do immediately after a breakaway is pull your reserve - stable or not - if you are low, or do not know your altitude. My comment about getting stable before you pull was not meant as an absolute instruction to novice jumpers. It was meant to convey my belief that, if you have the time, you should be stable when you pull your reserve. It is your last parachute, and an unstable deployment is not a risk worth taking, IF it can be avoided. My "instruction" to anyone who is reading this, is to pull high in the first place, so that you never get into the situation where you have to deploy your reserve while unstable. We shouldn't need AAD's and Skyhooks...but, unfortunately, we do.

[larsrulz 0]

Quote

Remember what your AFF JM's told you.. Don't cutaway below 1000'. Just fire the reserve. Go back to basics man, they will save your ass one day. Besides, other than a canopy colision why should you be cutting away that low?

This sort of response is most interesting in my opinion. Not a month ago there was a huge debate on here concerning gear, as related to someone not understanding how to use their cypres. I believe that everyone who owns a skyhook should know how it works and the benefits that it may have. There was never a mention of cutting away at minimum altitude for the fun of it. But if my canopy gets hit by a passing airplane wing at 400', then I'm already dead. If knowing that my skyhook can save my ass better than just pulling my reserve, then by god I want to know that. (Not that I have a skyhook or that it is the better response, but everyone should know their equipment and never be discouraged from learning about it)

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[tdog 0]

Bill,

I am proud to jump the skyhook... When my rig arrived I made the rigger assemble in front of me so I could see it...

I have read the owners manual - but every time I hear you talk about it, I learn more.

I was wondering if you have put together a "white paper" on the skyhook, covering design, operation, tidbits to know, testing metrics, case studies from actual use, failure possibilities, etc. I would much rather sit and discuss it over a cup of coffee some day, but I don't know when I will be in your neck of the woods, so this might be the next best thing.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Oh good! How could I survive 5 year not to have and not to see any canopy collision or mid-air canopy damage?

IMHO cutting away low is making bad to worst.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Are you seriously suggesting that such events don't occur or are not to be of concern to people?

My very first post on this forum relates to an incident 2 years ago involving friends and a low canopy collision. One person’s dead and the other's never going to walk properly again. Canopy collisions are not something we should ignore, even if they ought to be preventable in an ideal world.

Maybe the industry can provide safety equipment that will help mitigate the danger of such events. Maybe the skyhook is one such item. Maybe we should consider if the use of such an item might save lives under such circumstances instead of simply burying our heads in the sand saying – well I’ve not seen it in 5 years therefore it’s not going to kill me.

All anyone can do is play the odds game once their canopy is wrecked at less than 1000ft. The question here is how do those odds lie – do you have a better chance of survival if you just dump out your reserve into the spinning mess at 500ft or do you have a better chance of survival if you cut away with a sky hook? How is simply examining those odds a bad thing?

[skydiverek 63]

Quote

Oh good! How could I survive 5 year not to have and not to see any canopy collision or mid-air canopy damage?

Watch Tom Sanders' "Quincy 99" video - collision at 800 feet, entanglement, torn canopy and a cutaway initiated below 800 feet.

How about "Mike McGowan's Greatest Hits" almost fatal low cutaway. Read about it here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=329086#329086 - SkyHook would have left this guy uninjured.

Same here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1471005#1471005

[phoenixlpr 0]

You might face that there is no solution for every problem. People use to die in this sport. Accident or bad judgement ... does it matter? I`d rather follow best practices. I wont cut-away under hard deck. I reserve needs 100m or 3 second to open and remember your altimeter is not a really accurate instrument.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I certainly wouldn't disagree with you there.

It's just the question posed in this thread is essentially; "does the skyhook have the potential to change 'best practice' for some circumstances?"

[phoenixlpr 0]

Does any cool gadget changing best practices?

One of my friend went low with an AFF jump, because he was relying his audible that he managed to leave on ground...

[Freeflysmiley 2]

Quote

Quote

Remember what your AFF JM's told you.. Don't cutaway below 1000'. Just fire the reserve. Go back to basics man, they will save your ass one day. Besides, other than a canopy colision why should you be cutting away that low?

This sort of response is most interesting in my opinion. Not a month ago there was a huge debate on here concerning gear, as related to someone not understanding how to use their cypres. I believe that everyone who owns a skyhook should know how it works and the benefits that it may have. There was never a mention of cutting away at minimum altitude for the fun of it. But if my canopy gets hit by a passing airplane wing at 400', then I'm already dead. If knowing that my skyhook can save my ass better than just pulling my reserve, then by god I want to know that. (Not that I have a skyhook or that it is the better response, but everyone should know their equipment and never be discouraged from learning about it)

Very interesting point you make. At 400ft on a normal reserve fire with a damaged main ( so probaly slow speed deployment), you will most likely be on the ground before your reserve deploys on its own, if indeed it manages to come out of it s bag.

If you cut WITH a skyhook your odds actually improve over just deploying the reserve.

Any thoughts......

--------------------------------------------------
Practise the 6 P's!
--------------------------------------------------

[mr2mk1g 10]

Best practice is what's best for the situation given the limitations of the gear you're using.

Best practice used to be pull on the Jesus cord if nothing was happening. Best practice used to be hand deploy your reserve in the opposite direction to the spin, without cutting away.

Gear changes.

I honestly don't know what "best practice" is when you have a trashed main canopy at 500ft and a skyhook. On my non skyhook rig it’s dump my reserve into the mess and hope it works. What if the less dangerous choice on a skyhook equipped rig is to cutaway? Surely if it was that would change "best practice".

In fact - does the community actually know yet? Has the skyhook even been around long enough for us to come up with a "best practice" for rigs equipped with it?

Following "best practice" for a rig without a skyhook when you do actually have one could be just as lethal as deciding to following best practice for gear with a belly wart and shot and a halfs. Either way you're failing to take into account the gear on your back when you decide what "best practice" is applicable.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Oh good! How could I survive 5 year not to have and not to see any canopy collision or mid-air canopy damage?

I've been lucky enough to survive over 6 years without seeing a low turn injury. Guess those must not happen either, huh?

And of course best practices change as technology changes. If you learned your cutaway procedures in 1965 and didn't revise them as technology changed, you'd have a really hard time cutting away on modern gear.

Give me one good reason to fire my reserve into my malfunctioning main IF cutting away will get my reserve open more quickly and more cleanly, and it does so reliably. There are two reasons I can think of... 1.) I'm wrong that the skyhook will open my reserve faster than just pulling the reserve handle, or 2.) the possibility the skyhook will fail and I'll fall to my death with no possibility of pulling my reserve in time.

If option 1 is true and I'm just wrong, fine. But if the only worry is option 2, I'd like to have some idea of how likely it is vs how likely a fatal main/reserve entanglement is. Don't think anybody could have that answer.

So Bill Booth... Someone flies through your main at 500 feet, splitting it nearly in half. What would you do?

Dave

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Remember what your AFF JM's told you.. Don't cutaway below 1000'. Just fire the reserve. Go back to basics man, they will save your ass one day. Besides, other than a canopy collision why should you be cutting away that low?

This sort of response is most interesting in my opinion. Not a month ago there was a huge debate on here concerning gear, as related to someone not understanding how to use their cypres. I believe that everyone who owns a skyhook should know how it works and the benefits that it may have. There was never a mention of cutting away at minimum altitude for the fun of it. But if my canopy gets hit by a passing airplane wing at 400', then I'm already dead. If knowing that my skyhook can save my ass better than just pulling my reserve, then by god I want to know that. (Not that I have a skyhook or that it is the better response, but everyone should know their equipment and never be discouraged from learning about it)

Very interesting point you make. At 400ft on a normal reserve fire with a damaged main ( so probably slow speed deployment), you will most likely be on the ground before your reserve deploys on its own, if indeed it manages to come out of it s bag.

If you cut WITH a skyhook your odds actually improve over just deploying the reserve.

Any thoughts......

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

According to TSO test standards, if you pull a reserve ripcord at 300 feet, you should have a fully-inflated reserve before impact.

[Spizzzarko 0]

"One of my friend went low with an AFF jump, because he was relying his audible that he managed to leave on ground"



This is what I'm pointing out. This sport is taking a dangerous turn for the worse on gear reliance. Who the fuck teaches AFF students to rely on a stupid audible? That's just assignine. If you go around telling people that they can cut away at 400' and get away with it, then they are going to do it, eventually they are going to push it lower and lower untill we have people out there chopping in the dirt.

Yes gear manufactures have come a long way in the 6 years I have been in the sport, but the premise is still the same. The ground is out there, and if you fuck up then you are going to DIE! I appreciate what Mr. Booth is doing, and what he has designed. If I had a Vector, I would probably jump a skyhook, even though now I choose to not jump and RSL. But I still would not rely on it as the only way to save my life.

Yes, shit happens out there, but don't do stupid things to put yourself in a bad situation. Most accidents are not caused by one thing alone. It's usually a series of small things adding up, and any dissruption of the small things would have prevented the larger disaster.