billbooth

Yes, only the first part of the video is required. A lot of DZ's add their own video after that. The combination of the video and assumption of risk agreement has always stopped tandem lawsuits...and I'm sure that quite a few lawsuits never even happened because of the signed agreement. I personally don't want to find out what happens when someone goes in without one.

We just went through this in the military test program to "certify" the Skyhook. At first they insisted on a "cable-through-ring" type RSL, instead of our direct-connect type. I couldn't talk them out of it, because that is what they have been using on other rigs for years. So I said, "OK, let's test it." On two out of the three bag lock tests, they towed the bag lock, once for over 1,000 feet. Single sided, cable-through-ring RSL's are simply no longer acceptable, because a safer alternative exists. The funny thing is, I designed my "direct-connect" RSL over 25 years ago, and never patented it...yet very few other companies use it...even though the design is free, and has been "tested" on literally 1,000's of actual cutaways.

Our Skyhook RSL tests show that a bag lock, with an inflated 27" pilot chute, will not only open the reserve container, it will (via the Skyhook) pull the reserve to line stretch in about 1/2 a second. However, you should always plan to pull the reserve ripcord yourself on any breakaway. We do use a "direct pull" RSL (pin connected directly to one end of the RSL) rather than the more traditional ripcord-cable-through-ring RSL, which has been known to tow bag locks, as well as damage or break pins and cables.

Relative Workshop's position has been the same from the start...No Waiver...No Waiver Video...NO JUMP. While we may no longer be able to pull your rating (if it's a USPA rating), we can, and will, enforce the user agreement all purchasers of our tandem rigs must sign, and confiscate the tandem equipment. Anyone who says "Blow off waivers" has never been sued.

Twenty-some-odd years ago, when I applied for the first TSO on tandem gear, I did run into a major "Catch-22". One part of the FAA said that I couldn't get a TSO on equipment that wasn't legal to use...and another part of the FAA said that they wouldn't issue a waiver making tandem "legal" until I had a TSO. They even tried to fine me $1,000 for each of the 100 tandem jumps I had made trying to prove that tandem jumping was feasible, and to determine what standards were necessary for tandem equipment in the first place. When I got through laughing, I started to cry. A big part of the problem was getting them to issue a tandem equipment TSO, when there were no existing tests for tandem equipment. Obviously, (after a lot of legal fees) they did issue the TSO, but it was years before an offical standard for tandem equipment was actually written. I agreed to the "Tandem Waiver Program" for a period of ONE year. Nearly TWENTY years (and three FAA administrators) later, the waiver was lifted, and Tandem became fully "legal". You gotta' love the bureaucrats.

Back then it probably was very porous fabric. ZP fabric would obviously pull more.

While we're at it, let's get rid of the FDA, and all federal drug testing, and the EPA, and all those stupid pollution rules.

Over 95% of all the rigs we make are throw-out, so the market has pretty much made up its mind. It seems that, overall, pull-outs have a much higher total malfunction rate than throw-outs. I prefer throw-outs, but both systems work OK.

There are two parts to the TSO. One is the specific tests that a piece of equipment must pass. That's the easy part. (Besides, we do many more tests than are required in the TSO before we let a new product out the door anyway.) The second part is the manufacturing system checks you must set up to make sure each part you make is the same as the one which passed the tests. That's the hard part..or at least I used to think it was until we got into being ISO certified. The ISO system makes the TSO system seem like child's play. However, we had to do it, because it's the wave of the future, and more and more government agencies, especially outside the US, are requiring it.

I actually did the "pick-up truck" test about 30 years ago. The results are kinda' fuzzy, but did work out to about one pound, per mile per hour, on a 36" pilot chute. The drag on smaller sizes with be in proportion to the relative area of the pilot chute. For instance a 36" pilot chute has an area of 1017.36 square inches. A 27" pilot has an area of 572.265 square inches, or just more than half the area (56.25%) of a 36" chute. (Of course, these are "flat" areas, not inflated areas, but will do for the purpose of example.) Anyway, half the area equals half the drag. So if a 36"er pulls 120 lbs at 120 mph, the a 27"er should pull 67.5 lbs. at 120 mph.

Sorry, we already make so many different kinds of risers, and big rings on type 17 risers is such a rare request, that sometimes we just have to say no...even though there is nothing wrong with such an design. Try this...Call up PD, and ask for a 183 1/2 square foot Vengeance, with the "A" lines blue... "B" lines pink..."C" lines green...and "D" lines purple...and while they're at it, would they please throw in a two-tone slider sewn in orange thread, and see what they say. Hey wait a minute...that sounds like fun...Excuse me , I've got to make a phone call.

Reinforced type-17 webbing risers rarely break. They have a new breaking strength of around 3,500 lbs. This is not that much less than type-8 risers breaking strength of 4,000 lbs. The real difference is whether you have mini rings or large rings...and the difference here is in cutaway forces, not breaking strength. While properly designed mini-ring risers can easily release even a 250 lb. jumper in a 3 or 4 "G" spin, the problem is that it is harder to manufacture mini-ring risers correctly. What causes any riser to break is usually a combination of a heavy jumper, a hard opening canopy, and no stretch (Spectra, Vectran, or HTML) line. Broken risers on Dacron lined canopies are very rare indeed.

I love the Sigma 370. However, I still ask PD for smaller tandem canopies quite often. It's up to them.

That Relative Workshop statement was written way before the Skyhook. I still agree with a lot of what it says, but the advantages the Skyhook brings, when compared to the one-sided RSL the statement was speaking of, completely changes the dynamic of the situation. I didn't like AADs for experienced jumpers very much either, until someone finally came out with a decent one, the Cypres. Now we all jump AADs. It is quite possible that the Skyhook will do for the RSL, what the Cypres did for the AAD. Jumpers with Skyhooks, who have cutaway for real from rapidly spinning, high performance canopies, have all reported remarkably quick and stable reserve deployments, with no line twists. It can be argued, that jumpers with high performance canopies need the Skyhook even more than jumpers of large canopies, because the are often lower, descending faster, and terribly disoriented because of high spin rates at breakaway. They also tend to have smaller reserves, that are harder to land in the tight areas off the DZ, that jumpers under low opened reserves often find themselves force to land in. I actually designed the Skyhook for Tandem and student rigs only. At the time, I thought most experience jumpers wouldn't want RSLs. It was the Relative Workshop test jumpers that first demanded Skyhooks for their personal rigs. It turns out that it is very hard to test jump a Skyhook without wanting one on your own rig.

In case anybody is curious, our tests show that if you throw your drogue at tandem terminal, it takes a full 8 seconds to slow back down. I personally have about 200 tandem terminal openings before I started using a drogue. We now go to terminal only when we need to test new stuff. It does wear out everything, including the jumpers, a whole lot faster. As a matter of fact, I used to be quite good looking before all those tandem terminals.

Here's a simple test I've used from day one (25 years ago) designing pilot chute pouches. Pack your BOC in the pouch with the main container closed. Now, pull the pilot chute out of the pouch by the BRIDLE (not the handle). If it comes out relatively easily, your packing method is OK, and you will not have a horseshoe because of a premature main container opening. With a Spandex pouch, it's very hard to flunk this test. That's why you rarely see a horseshoe resulting from a pilot chute stuck in a pouch.

At Relative Workshop, we first insert the yellow cutaway cables in their housings, Velcro the handle to the rig, and then cut both cables at 6 1/2" past the housing endings. If there is an RSL on the rig, we cut at 5 1/2" on the non-RSL side, and 7 1/2" on the RSL side, just to make sure the non-RSL side goes first. In truth, the 2" differential really doesn't matter. If we assume you are pulling your cutaway handle at just 5 feet (60 inches) per second (most people pull a lot faster), then the 2" differential represents only 1/30 th of a second between riser releases. The only real mistakes you can make with cutaway cables, is to use the wrong type of cable, cut them too short, or fail to finish the ends correctly. Hint: Look at the channels on the back of your main risers, and cut your cables to almost "fill" those channels.

The Skyhook has been in use for just about two years now, so it's not exactly "new" anymore. I imagine that if anything bad had happened with a Skyhook, I'd have heard about it. So far, so good. Nothing but positive reports...most of them extremely positive. However, as I've said many times before...I've never designed anything that someone hasn't found a way to screw up sooner or later. Hopefully, as has been the case with the hand deployed pilot chute, the 3-ring release, the Sigma Tandem System, and the Collins Lanyard, the benefits of the Skyhook far outweigh any risks.

The Sigma Rig involved in the Guam fatality did NOT have a Skyhook installed. The cause of the fatality is still under investigation.

"Blue Skies, Black Death" was a take off on the movie about great white sharks that preceded "Jaws", called "Blue Water, White Death". All the live shark cage scenes in "Jaws" were lifted from that movie. Also, I do remember the world meet in Z-hills being called Blue Sky, Black Feet". It was true. It took me about a week to get my feet and ankles truly clean after that meet.

US Warbirds (B-17, 24, and 25's), antique aircraft (Ford and Junker's Tri-motors), and Russian Jumbo Jets and helicopters are my most memorable aircraft.

Some DZ's go 1,000's of tandem jumps without any malfunctions...other DZ's have malfunctons every few hundred jumps..on identical equipment. Everybody has the same body position at drogue release, so the only possible variable is packing. Hint: DZ's who flat pack have the lowest malfunction rates by far.

The pieces-parts ( risers, toggles, pilot chutes, etc.) take longer to make than the rig itself. I used to be able to make a Vector I (no pieces) in about 8 hours by myself. However, Vector III's take considerably longer. And please remember the time it takes to take the order, phone people to correct errors, write a correct production order, set up the embroidery, inspect, and ship. All of this adds up to well over 40 hours. And don't tell me rigs are too expensive. My bill for employee health insurance and Workman's comp combined is over $330,000, and then come the lawyers and accountants. You have to make a lot of rigs to make up for these, and many other expences, that have nothing to do with actually making the rig itself. How I long for the old days.

I have been jumping, and test jumping, for over 35 years now...starting with flat circular canopies, Para Commanders, Delta wings, Volplanes, Para Planes, Para Sleds, and nearly every other type of ram air since, with no doctor treatable injuries, at least not yet. The old ram airs, before the slider, used to knock me out with opening shock quite often, but I was young and tough, and usually regained consciousness before landing. Seriously, I don't know if I've been careful or just lucky...probably a little of both... Or maybe it was simply the realization that if I hurt myself, I couldn't jump any more. Anyway, if I have one wish for this sport, it is that people would stop killing themselves swooping tiny canopies. What a useless waste of life.

Plans? Yes. Results? No. It's the length of the toggles that's the problem. Nothing yet works as well as Velcro in this application. You just have to take care to stow your toggles right after landing, so that the Velcro doesn't chew everything up.