KellyF

Which test bent the pins?

Interesting. We had a jumper break his Stiletto 170 (four cells shredded, with a big 2x4 FOOT piece missing), and they wanted to charge over $800 to fix it. He has the largest Xaos ever made now.

I've said it before, but I think that if the Skyhook has a positive influence on reducing fatalities, it is simply going to be because there are more people jumping with an RSL than before. Think about this: how many fatalities are you aware of where the jumper had an RSL, connected, and just cutaway too low? If you have a Cypres, and cutaway above ~800 feet, it would probably deploy your reserve if you dont' have an RSL and don't pull for yourself. The advantage of the Skyhook is that there have been more documented test jumps with spinning canopies than with standard RSL's, and it has been accepted by the skydiving public that it is now safe to have an RSL, as long as it is a Skyhook. Whereas in the past, it was simply accepted that having a RSL deploy your reserve from a spinning main would result in line twists on the reserve, or worse yet, a malfunction. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a test "program" to test this theory. Personally, I would take line twists on a reserve any day over trying to regain stability for the rest of my life.

One of our riggers had a conversation about that with Bill Booth at PIA. He said he had been working on it, trying to get it where he was really happy with it for the past 15 years...Not that it makes any difference here, but I found that interesting.

Yes, they did all of that and more over a period of 30 YEARS, Velocity Sports has been in business for 5. I'm not sure exactly which 3 ring study you speak of, but the construction manual that I have from RWS cost me $10 (not much, but not FREE as implied). Skyhook- it's funny how a certain manufacturer can come out with a product that does pretty much the same thing as another that was patented 10 years ago and all of a sudden it is the latest and greatest. There are so many ways to deploy a reserve direcly from a main, that it is almost pointless to patent a particular method. I was going to introduce a system like this with the Infinity, but the way the skydiving public (and industry) work, it would have just been another "whacky idea from the left coast" without a ton of money to promote it. I think if the Skyhook has a positive impact on reducing fatalities, it is going to be simply because more people will be jumping with an RSL (a feature that is standard on every Infinity), as opposed to saving someone that cutaway below 200 feet. Name one from Infinity. And did it change the face of the sport? Lets put it this way, do you think that ANYONE would go into business for themselves if they didn't think they had something to bring to the public? PM me if you want some details.

Cliff, as Rigging 65 stated, get your's tested with one of the methods outlined in the Service Bulletin CW03-01.

I just got word back from Capewell, and they say the AS8015 test is NOT adequate. It would be safe to assume that any rig built after Nov. 2001 would be affected, along with any older rig that has had a ripcord replaced after Nov. 2001. The test only takes about 5 minutes including paperwork.

Something to keep in mind here is the testing methods are DIFFERENT. The test method in AS 8015 rev.B specifies to support the pin in a 1/2" block (approx. .75" from the shoulder), and put an 8 pound load perpendicular to the axis of the pin at the end opposite the block for 3 seconds. Capewell's Test 2 specifies supporting the pin .188" from the shoulder and loading the exposed end with 11 pounds. The moment arm of the two tests are completely different. If you do the 8015 test with 11 pounds, there is a good chance you will bend the pin. Capewell is trying to test the specific area of the pins that have been known to fail. I am waiting to get an answer from Capewell regarding whether the 8015 test is sufficent (if done in four directions per Test 2). To add to the confusion, there have been problems with pins from two different manufacturers (Capewell and Parachute Labs). It seems as though in an attempt to avoid some of the problems with pins from Capewell, P.L. contracted to have some pins made from another vendor. Some of these pins have cracked at the body (where the cable is swaged). From what I understand, very few of these pins made it to rig customers.

Found it. The manufacturer has sinced changed how they install the inserts to prevent them from sliding out of the channel. If the inserts had been capped, they would have never slid down through the locking loops. Hook A capped insert can still slide down through the locking loops if they are not secured properly. Think short cutaway cables

Which would normally be the left side riser since most jumpers will look to their right when they deploy. If the RSL is on the right riser, and the left one breaks, you are still going to be under a spinning mal supported by one highly loaded riser. But if the right riser breaks (with an RSL connected) you deploy a reserve in to the spinning main. So, one would think that if a riser was designed to break, it would be designed to break at a certain point on the riser. The best point for that to be would be above the RSL connection, and since left and right risers are built the same, it would only stand to reason that there would be no need for a Collins Lanyard since you wouldn't be deploying a reserve at all if you had a broken riser.

In what way, Bill? I have a Parafun Advance (a very nice rig, btw), and they mention they have something which has the same functionality as the skyhook in the manual I have never seen this system installed on a rig, but have seen a sample of it 8 or 9 years ago, so it may not be exactly the same. The Parafun system had a long pin installed on the bridle and further down (closer to the bag) there was a stiffened section with two loops on it. The RSL had a section with two grommets in it that the loops passed through, and then the pin was inserted through the loops to lock the RSL to the bridle. In a cutaway, the RSL would pull the bag out of the container and deploy the reserve, and in a total the reserve pilot chute would launch, tension the bridle (thereby removing the pin and disconnecting the RSL), and then extract the reserve from the container. My details may be a bit off, but that's the basic idea. In basic function, both systems work the same, they just go about it in different ways. The skyhook does add the Collins lanyard to the system for a bit of an advantage if the RSL riser breaks.

I guessing that it's because both aren't going to break at the same time. If the opening's bad enough to break the riser, you risk a stunned TM still attached by one riser to the main. If the cypress fired into that... What's to stop that from happening on the non-RSL riser? Both sides are built the same. VSE on Facebook

Cliff, every Infinity made has been built Cypres ready, so the cutter location has been taken care of at the factory. On older style rigs (serial numbers below 6000), the cutter is located on the (jumper's) right reserve side flap, and on later models (6000 and above) it is located on the kicker flap. Both locations were tested and approved by Airtec to work properly with the container and pilot chute design in use at the time of testing.

JumpCrazy, give us a call at Velocity Sports Equipment- 360-893-6111. We can probably take care of that for you. There are some geometry issues that can't completely be fixed (without costing an arm and a leg), but we can make them work better.

Ray, did you miss the blurb in Skydiving about Eric Fradet's system that he patented in '93 and has been an option on the (I think) Advance rig for quite some time? As for deployment times and distances, they're all going to be within one or two tenths of a second, but I would like to see the difference between a stow pocket Racer freebag and one of their new bags with rubber bands. VSE on Facebook

How's that quote go again? "Everything old is new again", or something like that?

With the little bit that I have played with this stuff, I'm not sold on it because: 1) If you don't peel it apart, it is VERY hard to disengage. 2) Some people already have a problem with peeling their handles before they pull them. 3) The sample that I played with was very stiff, flexability is generally a good thing. I have seen some more "traditional" hook velcro on mountain climbing harnesses that won't snag microline and softer fabrics, but has a pretty standard grip on the loop side of velcro. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a vendor that sells it. And really, how much velcro is there on a modern rig anyway? VSE on Facebook

How much so you think Dilithium Crystals cost, anyway?

Still trying to figgure that out, but I think you are right. Here is my thinking.... CYPRES 1 Retail Price (aprox)$1195 + 5sets of Batts at $95ea + 4&8year service at $180 = $2030USD CYPRES 2 Retail price (at 111%of CYPRES 1)=$1326.45 + 4&8year service (if it stays the same) at $180 = $1686.45 It depend on the cost of the 4 & 8 year service checks. Don't forget the replacement of the power supply at the 4 & 8 year checks

Thanks Joel! Glad you're happy with your new toy!

Rob, I believe Para-Flite actually preceded RI with this bag design with either the Eos H/C or as the "standard" bag that came with the Super Evolution. But I could be wrong

Kolla is always great to work with, but she jumps the wrong kind of rig!

Hi Vlad, I actually lost a sale because I was straight up honest with a person that was looking at buying an Infinity. When he asked about bridle protection, I told him that, depending on the size, there might be 1/2" of bridle exposed. He said "well I do a lot of free flying, so if there is any exposed bridle, maybe this isn't the rig for me". Not a big deal, he probably feels like he has the best rig for him at this point, but 1/2" of exposed bridle won't get blown into a horseshoe just from wind, and the handle on the PC presents a bigger snag hazard. I think my biggest weakness is marketing, because I don't feel like telling people the same things they've heard before, but then found out to not necessarily be true, even if it is with our rig. I think I should just hire Billy Mays "This is Billy Mays here for the Infinity Harness Container system!" Man, I would never see the light of day!

The problem with this is that if we admit to not liking something about our product, we will be asked "are you going to change it?". If we say no, it will be frowned upon, and if we say yes, potential customers will hold thier orders until the changes are released We are always looking to make improvements, but it is best to "zip it" until a release date is near

Some rigs (or sizes) simply aren't designed to have the bag placed into the container with the lines toward the backpad.