billbooth

(quote)I'd like to see photos of a reserve deployment without a cutaway. Do you have any for the website? (reply)There is nothing to see. In a total malfunction, the Skyhook releases instantly and therefore has no effect on the reserve deployment.

You got it. The Skyhook lanyard branches off from the RSL just before it enters the container.

The system works just as well if you are back to earth at breakaway, but I don't have any good pictures yet. They are real hard to set up when the test jumper can't see where he is going. It makes the photographer very nervious too. The pin puller and opposite riser breakaway device are the same as on any Sigma tandem rig. Quote

The freebag stays attached more often than I would like. I make quite a good living replacing lost free bags, and I'm scared the skyhook is going to cost me more than it makes. Quote

For a close up look, go to www.relativeworkshop.com, and click "News".

As soon as I can get the video compressed enough, I will put it up on the website.

hookit; I first started working on the Skyhook system over 15 years ago. Mark and Marta (who make the Sorcerer) were working for me during my early tests of "Skyhook-like" systems. The Sorcerer system system is really an outgrowth of those early Relative Workshop tests. I didn't put it on the market earlier, because I couldn't yet solve the automatic release problem, which must be solved before you can use such a system on the internal, spring-loaded pilot chute reserve system we all use. (The Sorcerer use an external, hand deploy pilot chute on the reserve.) We will post the video on the Skyhook as soon as we can get it compressed enough to download.

Pictures of the new Skyhook RSL in action are up at http://www.relativeworkshop.com. Click on news

More pictures will be up by later today. Bill Booth

There will be pictures of the Skyhook system in action at www.relativeworkshop.com by Wednesday evening.

In answer to: 1. IS THE SKYHOOK BASED ON THE SORCERER? Actually, it's the other way around. I did my first of many series of tests on what would become the "Skyhook" in the mid 80's. During one of thoses test series, Mark and Marta Hewitt (who developed the Sorcerer) were working here at the Relative Workshop. The system that ended up on their Sorcerer seems to be an adaptation of one of my early designs. It however, will not work on an internal, spring loaded pilot chute rig...only on a rig like the Sorcerer, which has an external, hand deployed RESERVE pilot chute. It requires you to pull the reserve's hand deployed pilot chute out of the pouch to release the connection between the reserve pilot chute bridle and the main riser. If the reserve container comes open prematurely, you have a horse shoe malfunction of the reserve. You can see that this would not be a good system to have on a normal skydiving rig where the reserve container can also be opened by a Cypres, broken loop, or pushed out pin. I could not use such a system until I solved that nasty little problem. I needed a system that automatically released the connection, no matter how the reserve container was opened. 2. IS THE SKYHOOK LIKE ERIC FRADET'S SYSTEM? As far as I know, Eric's system (while designed many years after my early attempts) was developed independently, (Eric is a very smart guy, who I admire tremendously) It was not put on the general market however, because it failed to address several key problems, which needed to be solved before the system would truly be ready for the mass market. (For instance, if the RSL riser released prematurely, it pulled the reserve bag right into the still attached side of the main canopy...not a good thing, generally. With the Skyhook, I have solved this, and other problems (such as reliability and rigger friendliness) I felt must be solved before I could market such a device. The Skyhook is now tested and ready for market. It will show up first on our Sigma Tandem and Vector Student rigs, and shortly thereafter on all Vectors and Microns. It is retrofittable to all previous Vector models, but retrofit kits are last on the agenda. I will put the videos up at www.relativeworkshop.com as soon as I can. We will also make video CD's available in a few weeks. I hope this answers your questions.

Marc, The Skyhook is not a pilot chute, it is a connection between the malfunctioned main and the reserve bridle, via the RSL. In other words, it allows you to use your malfunction as a pilot chute. And why not? A Partial malfunction is the best pilot chute possible, because it is already deployed and ready to work for you. It will never pull too hard, because all malfunctions pull with the same force. A bag lock or streamer has very little surface area, but a lot of velocity. A line over has a lot of surface area, but very little velocity. So the resultant force is always the same. Therefore, the Skyhook DOES NOT make the reserve open harder, only faster. It also WILL NOT get in the way of a normal reserve deployment following a total malfunction. When the Skyhook is used, all partial malfunctions, no matter what type, get the reserve canopy out of its deployment bag in just under one half of one second. The best I have ever seen from a pilot chute alone, when using an RSL, is 1 1/2 to 2 seconds. It is absolutely impossible for a rig without the Skyhook to deploy a reserve anywhere near as fast as a rig with one. You simply have to see the videos to believe how fast this system can get a reserve over your head. It depends on what size and type of reserve is used of course, but Skyhook deployments with most sport reserves take only 75 to 80 feet. Several years ago, one manufacturer actually used a "base" pack job in order to be able to claim his container was better than the rest. The video clearly shows that, after a mediocre line stretch time of just over 1 1/2 seconds, the reserve canopy explodes open in under 1/2 second. A pack job like that would literally kill you if deployed at terminal. Don't believe claims like that. All conventional reserve container systems take about 1 1/2 seconds to get your reserve to line stretch when deployed right after a low speed breakaway. It doesn't matter whether the pilot chute is internal or external.

The "Skyhook" RSL gets your reserve canopy out of bag in about one half of a second after breakaway. That is up to 4 times faster that any other system. This results in a fully open reserve in about 75 feet, depending upon canopy type..

Skycat; In 1991 we did issue a service bulletin about our older Vector I pilot chutes, which used the spring similar to the even older MA-1 pilotchute. These springs were rated at only about 25 pounds, and tended to lose strength after 5 or 6 years, but were nevertheless the industry standard. The service bulletin told jumpers that if their pilot chute spring had degraded below 20 pounds, it should be replaced. But even then, we did not have any reports of total malfunctions, only pilot chute hesitations. We responded to this problem by developing the Vector II pilot chute spring, which was rated at 45 pounds, but more importantly, didn't degrade very much with time. We still use this design, and have made nearly 40,000 of them. If any Vector I pilot chutes are still in service, they are over 12 years old, and their springs probably well below 20 pounds...These should no longer be jumped. Vector I pilot chutes can be identified by a small, 3 inch crown, and mesh lower portion. Vector II pilot chutes have no mesh and a 6 inch crown.

Rob; I can't disagree with you. I don't get much data about malfunction rates on Strong canopies. However, I can state for a fact, as I did above, that pro packing any of my 6 different tandem canopies does vastly increase malfunction rates. This data comes from reports of hundreds of users, making hundreds of thousands of jumps, over a period of 15 years. Some people can get decent malfunction rates pro packing, but apparently, most can't.

Brian; I honestly have never heard of such a incident. We are just about to make our 40,000 th Vector, so if there were such a problem, I'm sure it would have surfaced by now. If you have any information to the contrary, please call me at the Relative Workshop, and we'll track it down together. (386) 736-7589. Bill Booth

Kieth; I'm sorry, but I've never had it happen to me, nor has anyone ever complained to me about it. I'll do some asking around today, and see if I can shed some light on the subject. Did it happen to you on my rig or Strong's? On Vectors, the drogue is collapsed on bag lift off, and on Strong's, it does not collapse until after the canopy is out of the bag. This means the bag (and risers) leave the container more slowly on a Vector, and this could explain why I haven't had the problem.

Chuck is right. If you side pack your tandems, you will probably NEVER have a line over malfunction. Line overs were unheard of before the advent of pro packing. I've got data from literally hundreds of thousands of tandem jumps that shows that DZ's who pro pack have a much higher malfunction rate than those who side pack. It's hard to find a DZ that pro packs with a rate better than 1 in 500. Side pack DZ's are all over 1 in a 1,000. One went 7,500 jumps between malfunctions. While pro packing may be allright for small canopies, it is just not a good idea for tandem canopies because of the great difference between the "A" and "D" line lengths, especially on our older tandem canopies where this difference is more pronounced.

Velcroed toggles are old technology, and as such, had all the bugs worked out long ago. Quite frankly, they work better than most current "velcroless" designs. This is always true when technology changes. Every change you make in a parachute system results in unforseen problems. And very often these new problems are worse than the old problem you were trying to fix in the first place. (I know, I've done it before myself.) That is why you went 1,000 jumps with velcro toggles without a problem, and then had nothing but problems with your "new and improved" velcroless toggles. As you have seen this is an especially bad problem when you are dealing with something like a toggle or riser cover, for which no performance standards or TSO tests exist. Since a loose toggle can kill you, wouldn't you think it logical to write at least a minimal performance standard before trying to design a new toggle system? I hate to be blunt, but quite frankly I'm getting very frustrated watching jumpers use unsafe toggle systems. With all the problems people are having, it must be obvious by now, that some of the designers of these new velcroless toggle systems have skipped that most elemental first step of a basic performance standard. That is why I didn't come out with velcroless toggles until I had first written such a standard, worked out at least every easily forseeable problem, and let local teams test the new design for more than a year. Premature toggle release is a serious problem. If it is happening to you, please get it fixed before you jump again.

Please note that Relative Workshop gear is certified under TSO C-23b, and therefore does not show up on the list of manufacturers operating under TSO C-23d. I'm on the committee now working on a new TSO document to fix the "problems" with "d", which was written to fix the "problems" with "c". When a new TSO is issued, we make sure everything we make will pass every new requirement that really matters, but we don't go to the expense of an offical "re-TSO" everytime the document changes.

Andy; If you want to get mad at someone, why not direct your anger where it will do some good...at the legislators who pass personal injury laws, and at the lawyers who get rich from them. The civil law system in the US is quite simply broken, and it's hurting everyone of us, every day. (For instance)... If we all don't get together and fix it soon, "half" the doctors in this country will be out of business. I do have a simple solution to the problem though. If all the doctors, and especially dentists, got together and refused to treat legislators and lawyers, the problem would soon go away. All the lawyers would be in too much pain to sue anybody anymore, and we'd all be better off. At that point, I wouldn't have any objection to kids jumping. Trouble is, doctors, unlike personal injury lawyers, have ehtics.

While you might not think taking a 6 year old on a tandem jump is unsafe, please look at the bigger picture. In order for my company, or any other company, to continue to improve the safety of our sport, we must be allowed to exist. Waivers signed by parents for their children are worthless...and one lawsuit that wipes out Relative Workshop, PD, and USPA will do a lot to decrease safety. Think of what will happen if you allow the legal system to put all of our sports innovators out of business. No more technical support or spare parts for thousands of rigs and canopies... and no more R&D to bring you safer products in the future...and less competition will mean higher prices for you and everyone else. And don't forget...no more USPA means little or no representation in Washington. And without that representation, what do you think the new "wartime" TSA is going to do to your "right" to jump? So while it may not be physically dangerous to take up kids, the rewards simply don't justify the risks. The only reason the above companies are still in business, is that in every tandem incident to date, a LEGAL WAIVER was signed. That said, I am a practical person. I know that people who make their living in this sport are going to take up their kids on jumps. That's why there is a waiver provision regarding the age limit. What I worry about is large scale, public for profit tandem operations, where lawsuit are much more likely to happen.

You can bet I've read all those old patents now. I've also tried to talk to as many "oldtimers" as I can find. I remember talking to Tiny Broadwick just before she died. She of course made the first freefall jump back in the "teens", and made over a thousand more through the 1920's. She weighed just over 90 lbs., and jumped a 32 foot silk round. She had her parachute in a backpack, held shut by break cord. Attached to the apex was a short piece of static line with a knot in one end, which ran over her shoulder and was held in place with a rubber band. At pull time she would grab the knot, extend it to arms length, opening the container and pulling the apex into the slip stream, and wait for the freepacked canopy to blow out of the container, releasing the "static line" at just the right moment. When I asked her how many malfunctions she had using this rather unique deployment method, she quietly answered "27". When I then asked her what she used for a reserve, and she questioned, "What's a reserve?" I almost s**t. Then I realized that her malfunctions were most likely "Mae West" partial inversions, and that her large canopy combined with her light weight allowed her to walk away from all of them. A real pioneer like that really puts all us hot shots to shame, doesn't she?

I had been jumping a Delta II Parawing from Paraflite, so I had had a lot of contact with Steve Snyder. On one phone call, complaining about this or that, he told me he had hot new design that I just had to jump. I bit...and a few weeks later Steve showed up a my drop zone in Homestead, Florida. He had flown down from New Jersey to personally deliver his new Paraplane to me. At this point, I had never even seen a ram air canopy, so Steve told me what he knew, modified my container with a locking strap to stow the 35 foot pilot chute controlled reefing lines, packed it up, took my $550, and promptly left... promising to send me a packing manual when they got around to writing one. That day was rained out, so bright and early the next morning I hopped out of our Cessna on a 3 second delay. BAM! There it was, the first ram air I had ever seen, right there over my head. What a strange looking beast. It had 30 foot suspension lines, so it looked more like a postage stamp than a parachute. Then I made my second mistake. I released the the brakes. The sudden accelleration and the wind noise scared the hell out of me, and I almost cut away. It had always been serenely quiet under canopy, but this beast was making more noise than a malfunctioned PC. The lines were so long, that if you tried to turn too quickly, the canopy would be already turned 180 degrees before your body started turning. The long lines also made it hard to stand up landing in light winds, because in a hard flair, you were thrown so far out in front of the canopy, that you ended up falling over backwards most of the time. After 4 or 5 of us spent hours trying to figure out how to repack the contraption (the rings and rope reefing system, although it didn't work nearly as well as a slider, was 10 times more complicated), I decided that one jump was more than enough for that day. Nonetheless, I was hooked, and my log book shows over 300 three second delays in a row before we figured out how to take it to terminal. I can't believe that I didn't have the idea of the slider beaten into me during those early jumps. By the time of the first relataive work Nationals in 1972, I was regulary taking my ParaPlane to terminal. The openings were brutal, but I was young and foolish. Besides, the canopy always looked so beautiful with all the brightly colored stars floating around it. When I got to Tallaqua, I was told I wouldn't be allowed to jump my Paraplane in competition because ram airs took up so much space on opening, that doing relative work with them was unsafe. After a lot of arguing, a comprimse was reached. I would be allowed to jump, but only if I promised to open lower than anyone else on my team...and with a team full of low pullers, this scared the hell out of me. On the last jump of the meet, I tracked off, went into my normal tight tuck (if you stayed spread eagle through a terminal opening on a Paraplane, you hands were thrown down so violently that they got all torn up on the leg hardware), pulled the ripcord, and woke up in an ambulance. The beast had finally knocked me clean out. (I have to laugh when someone tells me they had a hard opening nowadays.) Luckily, soon thereafter, the StratoStar came out with a decent reefing system...and then the slider was rediscovered. I turned out the slider had been invented, and patented, in the 30's for round canopies, and then promptly forgotten. I have often thought that all the abuse I went through on early ram airs could have been avoided if only I had read through all those forgotten patents in the 20's and 30's.

Turn back the clock to 1970. We all jumped Para Commanders. To keep the heavy spring loaded pilot chutes and sleeves out of the "turn windows" on top of the PC, we used 30 foot long bridle lines. This kept the "glob" of sleeve and pilot chute trailing way behind the canopy. It was a normal rainy day in South Florida, and I remember thinking how hard it was to pack because everything was damp. Anyway, however it happened, two guys made a close pass to each other under canopy, and as they turned off, the ends of their bridles got tangled. There they were, at about 1500 feet, 50 feet apart, slowly rotating around each other. The wind was light, so from the ground we heard one of them yell, "Fred, we're tangled. You'd better cutaway," Much to everyones delight, Fred hollered back, "F*** You John, You cutaway!" This dialogue continued as we watched this "dynamic duo", totally oblivious to where they were going, rotate right over the 128,000 volt, high tension lines that went down the road adjoining the DZ. As luck would have it, one went on the near side of the power lines, and the other on the far side... And when we all got there, were suspended about 5 feet off the ground by their entangled bridles...believe it or not, beating on each other, and yelling,"You should have cut away...NO, YOU should have cutaway!" There was nothing we could do, because if anyone touched them, we would complete the circuit to the ground. "Guys", I yelled from a safe distance, "Cut it out, and take a look at where you are." They both looked down, and then up at their smoking canopies, in the buzzing wires. They immediately shut up, and gave each other great big bear hugs, holding on for dear life. It was obvious that both of them needed to cutaway simultaneously, and soon...or they were fried. (I think "crispy critters" is the term the power company guy who showed up later to retrieve the melted canopies used.) If one of them was ahead of the other, by even one second, they were both dead. Now remember, there were no 3-rings yet, and Capewells took 4 separate motions to release both risers. We all knew that getting two risers to go simultaneously was hard...so four risers releasing at once was, shall we say...highly unlikely. But with no other choice, they very carefully opened the safety covers, and put both thumbs in the cable rings...For the moment, the best of buddies, for their lives truly depended on each other. I said, "Alright, I'll count to three. "One...Two..."Wait a minute", John screamed, Do we go on three or GO?" As soon as we quit laughing, I said, "On GO". Fortunately, they both cut away perfectly, hitting the ground with a single resounding thud, as their recoiling canopies crossed the wires and exploded in a very expensive fireball, knocking out the power to half the town. It had to be the most interesting canopy relative work I've ever seen.