KellyF

Hi Shlomo, I saw in another post where you said the Collin's Lanyard was the best part of the Skyhook system, and then this quote above. I'm curious as to why it is a "must" when there are literally tens of thousands of rigs (tandem, student, sport, military) in the field with standard RSL's and no Collin's Lanyard and there doesn't seem to be a rash of broken RSL riser accidents. Maybe I haven't been keeping as close of an eye on incidents as others have, but I don't see it as being a "must have"- more of a "nice to have" with current riser specs. The LOR-2 system was around for years before the Collin's Lanyard to prevent deploying the reserve into 1/2 a main, but it never seemed to catch on with most manufacturers. Was that because it was deemed "not necessary", or maybe the marketing push wasn't quite there? BTW, the question isn't directed solely at Shlomo, if anyone else wants to put in their $.02, feel free

Have you looked around on here: http://www.velocityrigs.com/dealers.php?link=locate?

Like this? (with the exception of the riser going under the riser cover) But really, how many CRW jumpers do you know of that jump with RSL's? As a general rule, if you can't see someone's 3 rings from the front, it's worth questioning them I think

Bill, I don't think you meant to offend anyone, but I think you choose your words wisely to serve you best. Everyone knows that you can have the greatest invention the world has ever seen, but if you can't sell it, it's "no good"

Bill, I have to say that the way you word some of your comments gets under my skin. In this case, using the word "type" is a subtle attack (IMO) on any competing system that isn't exactly (licensed) like yours. To say that it's unsatisfactory for THE Skyhook system would be more honest and accurate. I understand that this is how you choose to sell rigs, and I guess that's your prerogative. It's just like saying "tuck tab riser covers are suspected of causing hard openings" without acknowledging that there are subtle and substantial differences in design between various brands. When I asked you at PIA what kind of rigs the couple of unexplained hard openings were on, you claimed you didn't know. Don't you think that would be an important piece to solving the "problem"? As far as riser flip throughs being something to be concerned about, I don't think that applies to sport rigs NEARLY as much as it applies to tandem rigs, due to the fact that tandem base rings are essentially rigidly mounted, and on sport rigs they rotate freely nearly 90 degrees. Many tandem landings are slid in, and the canopy dives into the ground in front of the tandem pair, often pulling the risers into a flip through. Sport rigs with hard housings will have a very large, prominent loop of riser between the base ring and the riser cover, and I find it hard to believe that anyone would pick their rig up, put it on, then board and exit an airplane with NOBODY pointing that out.

Depends on the style of harness and the jumper's body. We had a customer that was 6' 8" with a really tall pelvis. By the measurements, he would have worn a 16.5-17" harness, but we put him in something closer to a 20" IIRC. VSE on Facebook

The serial number for the rig is 7134. Hopefully it finds it's way home!

Nothing more than brainstorming at this point. We are quite busy dealing with our orders and repairs right now. I haven't signed the Skyhook license agreement since that would prevent us from exploring other options that may be more reliable and economical. Rob, I've sent Eric an email asking him to edit that section of his book, and would appreciate it if you could give us a call if you want to know any juicy gossip related to VSE VSE on Facebook

I'll look into it. Initially, I wasn't real happy with elastic for various reasons, but it doesn't hurt to revisit things once in a while

Some manufacturers will say that risers need to be replaced every 200 jumps (or some other fixed number). IMO, they are just being overly conservative and looking to make a little more money on riser sales Typically, you want to keep an eye on the lower end of the risers- the loop, the folded sections of tape/webbing that hold the rings in place, and the area around the grommet. The webing tends to get pulled out from under the grommet as the riser get loaded repeatedly and stretches, the other areas tend to see wear from packing (the rig getting drug while the risers are against the ground). VSE on Facebook

Rob, where do you get your information from? It's certainly not from anyone here. VSE on Facebook

Hey Mark, do you guys have to dial a "9" or something to call outside of the building?

Like previously mentioned, it sounds like the pin is getting "levered" in, probably from actually setting the brakes (top of the toggle) first, then attempting ot set the pin second. Try setting the pin first, then the top of the toggle. Or you could buy a set of our risers (shameless plug).

Wyat, you were the BEST! Glad we had the relationship we did and could make you so many rigs, even if they were littered with embroidery

I would lean towards the OP143. I think the OP126 would be "too" soft, but I've never packed a Wings & don't know exactly how tight your current 126 is

This is somewhat odd. Typically, I've felt that Micro Ravens and Tempo 120's packed a little smaller than PD113R's, so we sized our I-1-SN reserve container around the 113, knowing that the 120's woudl fit nicely. I packed an Optimum 143 into one last week and it fit nicely, although just a touch larger than a standard 113 (maybe 3%?). Unfortunately, I don't have my rig handy to do a side by side comparison. I don't kow if I would say that the OP143 packs smaller than the Tempo/Micro Raven 120's though. But we all know that not all parachutes of the same make/model pack exactly the same anyway, so....

I've seen video of a tandem canopy that was packed with broken locking stows that were "half-hitched" (basically tied around the lines) to allow them to be used. On deployment, they ALL came undone, and the canopy came out of the bag maybe 3 feet out of the container. All of the rest of the lines remained stowed on the bag and came unstowed in the normal manner. The opening was perfectly fine! I think the canopy was an Icarus 360, but I'm not 100% certain on that. Standard "line dump" typically won't cause a catastrophically hard opening. It may cause a bit higher snatch force, but for things to get really nasty, the canopy has to get out of the bag, and for this to happen, the locking stows will generally need to break. During the initial moment of the pilot chute lifting the bag out of the container (like the pic posted earlier), the canopy is trying to fall out of the bag. This puts more pressure on the locking stows and holds the line bites tighter. If the locking rubber bands remain intact, the only way those line stows are going to com undone is by getting pulled out by the remaining lines between them and the risers. The only way thats going to happen is for that amount on line to get pulled taught. You may hear some people say something along the lines of "the weight of the dumped lines will pull the locking stows out", well, that can only hold water if those lines are straight, meaning the bag is at the end of the lines Look at it this way: you have a pile of rope or better yet, chain, on the floor with a scale attached to one end. When the scale is close to the floor, it barely registers any weight, right? But as you lift the scale higher, it registers more weight because it's suspending more of the rope/chain. What the scale is seeing is exactly what the last locking stow (the one before the standard line stows) is seeing in a case of line dump (not bag strip). Wow, I hope that helps some people- I need to go build rigs VSE on Facebook

It certainly doesn't sound like anything we use in the construction of the rig.

In the first pic, the worst I can see happening is the possibility of the snap shackle finding it's way under the riser while it's packed, thereby making it harder to release prior to the main being deployed. In the second pic, there is no issue that I can see. In the event that the riser leaves (either by cutaway or breakage), it will function normally. In fact, I prefer to stow RSL's this way due to a little added security provided by the cutaway housing. If something were to snag the RSL and start pulling it toward the reserve container, the cutaway housing will provide some resistance, as opposed to having very little resistance and a big loop of RSL lanyard hanging out in the breeze

You have GOT to be kidding me Rob, you've been around long enough to have seen and packed Racer Elites, and probably some of the mid '80's Mirages that had similar riser covers. I haven't read through the whole thread, but it only takes about 1lb. of force to pull a riser clear of our secondary riser covers- not enough to cause any opening problems. Also, since the front risers are packed against the secondary covers, and the toggles packed farthest away, they are not likely to cause a toggle to come unstowed prematurely. I've never seen any evidence to show otherwise.

Faster how? Not altitude loss. Think about this: you have a low speed cutaway with a skyhook from a fully inflated main (lets say it's just not controllable), the skyhook does it's job and your reserve opens in 150-200'. Now, on your next jump, you have a bag lock, you cutaway, and the skyhook does it's job. Do you think your reserve is going to be open in the same 150-200' that it was in the low speed situation? I hope not! The same concept applies to any scenario where the rate of decent may be accelerated. Yes, there may be other variables such as getting deployed to the side from a spin, but which way is the reserve going to be facing when it pushes the slider down? Is it going to be facing the sky, so that it will level off quickly, or will it be facing the ground, in which case it will dive (and loose more altitude)?

Not according to Bill Booth: It was my understanding, having worked for Mark and Marta in the early '90's, that Mark had developed the Sorcerer system before they moved to DeLand and worked at RWS. I believe the first test jump of the Sorcerer system was done at Z-Hills. This doesn't mean that one is an "outgrowth" of the other, since often many people can conceptualize something around the same time, independent of each other. VSE on Facebook

Hey now, Shlomo was providing accurate information, and he often brings up great points for discussion that lots of people (including myself) often overlook. Let's not discourage his input on something like this

Hi Mike, you are correct with your closing loop length. When closed properly, the grommets for the bottom flap, center flap, and right side flapshould all be stacked on top of each other, with the edge of the left side flap just meeting up the edge of the right side flap. The Infinity is designed this way to allow the pin cover flap to lay a little bit flatter over the pin and to allow a little more freedom when downsizing canopies

You know what they say Jeff........ If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is VSE on Facebook