likestojump 3 #26 February 19, 2009 Quote Quote Oce more time - It's a great concept, but does not seem to work well in skydiving environment. Sure! If you tune a working release system into a non-function than you call it a great idea... Dude. this time you are not making sense. Or perhaps I cannot read. But instead of nitpicking what I said - why not add something constructive to the conversation ? You are not even disagreeing with what had been said - you are just arguing about the wording. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 9 #27 February 19, 2009 Quote Quote There's nothing inherently wrong with reverse risers. Can you come up with on thing that is "inherently" right with them? Their design goes against a basic principle of rigging and gear design. If it will not improve function or safety it is a bad idea. Sparky Well, Sparky, one could argue that Integrity risers were an attempt to make an improvement to safety by trying to solve the porblem of early un-reinforced Type 17 risers tending to break when overloaded. Now whether or not that's a good arguement, that's a different story. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likestojump 3 #28 February 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe APF Service Bulletin regarding Reverse Risers. Mandatory in Australia. See attachment. While I agree with the intent of the bulletin, the example listed as argument for compliance is flawed. "BACKGROUND: A recent fatality has highlighted the fact that some jumpers are using reverse risers on equipment that was not designed to use them. When improperly mated to these rigs the risers will not release in a pilot chute in tow / face to earth attitude resulting in an extremely hazardous reserve deployment situation and likely entanglement." Can any of you guess as to why this is "flawed"? The statement says that the hazardous reserve deployment situation was caused by improperly mated reverse risers. That implies that reverse risers can be mated properly (i.e. can be used with the rig) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gearless_chris 1 #29 February 19, 2009 Well, Sparky, one could argue that Integrity risers were an attempt to make an improvement to safety by trying to solve the porblem of early un-reinforced Type 17 risers tending to break when overloaded. Now whether or not that's a good arguement, that's a different story. I like Bill's statement that he would rather see the riser break than the harness."If it wasn't easy stupid people couldn't do it", Duane. My momma said I could be anything I wanted when I grew up, so I became an a$$hole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #30 February 19, 2009 Quote Will I advocate them or put them on peoples skydiving rigs without their knowledge ? Hell no. Good, I am glad you agree with me. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
