billbooth

I know you asked for the benefits of Static Line, but there is one great big disadvantage that ought to be discussed, and that is safety. SL is many times more dangerous than a tandem/AFF progression. For instance, in the past four years there has been only been one tandem fatality , while there have been many static line fatalities...and many more people make tandem first jumps than static line first jumps. AFF's safety record is also excellent. Doing a static line is like going solo in an aircraft (or car) before you receive any dual instruction. There is simply no need to do it anymore. I was an active static line instructor for over 10 years, and although I never lost a student, they kept trying to kill themselves all the time. That's why I developed tandem. My heart just couldn't take kicking 'em out the door, and hoping for the best anymore.

Because of the complexity of the gear required, intentional cutaways are dangerous. As others have told you, they are also expensive. I have done dozens of intentional cutaways testing new gear, and I can tell you that they, because they are planned, DO NOT simulate an actual emergency. Therefore, I believe they have little or no value for most jumpers. I DO believe that suspended harness training (because you can do it over and over again cheaply and safely) is a good idea, and will give you the muscle memory necessary to preform very well in an actual emergency.

Just to show you how much jumping has grown... For well over 10 years, from the early 60's till ram airs took over, everyone, and I mean everyone, jumped only one canopy... the Paracommander. I once asked Jacques Istel, who sold them all, exactly how many PC's were ever made, and he told me just over 10,000...that's it (and I owned 3 of them myself). Compare that to the nearly 100,000 ram airs PD alone has made, and you can see how many more of us there are nowadays.

Although I made my first jump in 1969 on a 28' round, with a front mount reserve, with no pilot chute in it, no automatic opener, no RSL, and only about two hours training, I wasn't scared a bit. (Probably because I was 18 years old, and invincible.) What did scare the hell out of me though, was when I found out some 30 years later, that my instructor only had 6 jumps when he trained me. I hit the ground so hard, it knocked me clean out...and when I woke up, I was greeted with the unbelieable sight of my jumpmaster trying to get my canopy back from a cow, which was in the process of EATING it. We got it back, patched up the new holes with more duct tape, and packed it up for my next jump. Students nowadays have it far too easy, if you ask me.

Line Stretch Time: With a properly sized hand deploy pilot chute, the time from release (at arms length) to line stretch should be 0.6 to 0.9 seconds...every time. In other words, you should not be able to complete the phrase "one thousand one" between pilot chute release and line stretch. Any more (or any less) time increases the chance of a malfunction.

The dual cutaway system has two basic problems. First, it is more complex, and therefore more subject to rigging errors. For instance, it utilizes double ended locking loops on the three ring risers, just like some tandem drogue releases. When the Relative Workshop went from single to double ended closing loops on tandem Vectors, our drogue release failures went up by a factor of ten. So basically, the system lowers the reliability of the three ring system. Secondly, because the reserve handle is now also attached to 2 three ring release cables (as well as the normal ripcord cable), the reserve ripcord pull force is increased, especially if the three ring cables are not well lubricated. This leads to the most important drawback, which should be obvious: If your three ring cables jam for any reason, you can't pull your reserve at all. It's a question of risk vs. gain. Kinda like RSL'S. However, I have always been against protecting the idiots, at the expense of the people who are properly trained, and do everything right.

If you have reinforced, 1", type 17 risers you have little to worry about. I have only heard of one breaking, ever...in millions and millions of jumps. As was said above, reinforced risers can be identified by color coded 1', type 3 tape, sandwiched into the lower section of the riser.

As I said above, by their very design (leaving out the 180 degree change in direction of the white closing loop) reversed risers require TWICE the pull force to release. This is very bad if you have a high "G" spinning malfunction.

The best stuff I've found for cleaning and lubricating 3 ring cables is Silicone Spray Lubricant. We use Ace Hardware Store brand. Just spray onto a clean rag or paper towel, and wipe down the cable a few times. Only a thin invisible film should remain. A light mineral oil, such as 3-in-1 is also fine. Do this every month, or more often if you jump at a very dusty dropzone.

Reversed risers are 3 ring risers where the riser rings face the jumpers body, instead of facing away as they do on normal risers. In a misguided attempt to make type 17 (mini) 3 ring risers stronger, the French eliminated the grommet that passes through the riser, thinking this was a weak point. They then put the "0" grommet for the closing loop to go through on a floppy 1" tab. Then, so that the 3-ring housings wouldn't have to come around to the front, flipped the riser over so that the riser rings faced the jumper's shoulders There are three problems with this approach. 1. Risers don't break at the grommet. They break where they go around the harness ring. 2. The closing loop on reversed risers does not make the 180 degree direction change it does on properly built risers, so the release force is doubled, and the "suck through" or "jamming" force is cut in half. 3. For a 3 rings to release, they must flip through each other. Since a bag lock might not stand you up enough to pull the risers away from your body, reversed risers might not release in that situation, because your body blocks the flip through motion.

If you pass the webbing back through the hardware, and then snag the dead end, you will totally release that side, and fall out of your harness. Don't do it.

Unfortunately, there is no widely accepted standard for "allowable slippage". At the Relative Workshop, we have adopted a "no slippage below 600 lbs." policy for incoming hardware, in the pull test machine, with a slowly applied load. But we don't test every friction adapter with every possible color and finish of webbing. And remember, some hardware also slips when you're moving around in the airplane, and when you're in freefall. This we can't test on the ground, although I'm sure it must be related. Two tight keepers are the best protection I know of against this kind of slippage. And remember, It's not just the hardware. Old or dirty (especially sandy) webbing can be a problem.

First you have to determine what your problem is. 1. Is the harness the wrong size? or 2. Is your leg hardware slipping? SIZE...Height alone does not determine harness size. Torso length, not leg length is what counts. So two people who are the same height, and weight, might need different main lift web lengths, because one had long legs and a short torso, while the other had short legs and a long torso. Any master rigger can resize your harness. At Relative Workshop we charge $100 for the service, unless of course you bought the harness from us...then it's free. Hanging in a suspended harness will make it obvious if your harness is properly sized. SLIPPING HARDWARE...Slipping leg hardware could cause your problem even if the harness was the right size for your particular body. A master rigger can also fix this problem. It will cost a little more than $100 because new hardware must be installed. As webbing gets old and dirty, it tends to slip more than when new. Again, if Relative Workshop sells a rig with "slippery" hardware, we replace it for free. If your hardware is indeed slipping, the person who sold it to you should have known about the problem, and should help you get it fixed. To determine if your hardware is slipping, mark the webbing just below each piece of leg hardware with taylors chalk or a grease pen just before you jump, and see where the marks are right after opening. Webbing can slip while you are moving around in the airplane, while in freefall, or during opeing shock. It doesn't matter where it slips, and a live test covers all three phases of the jump. You can often get some TEMPORARY relief from slipping hardware by using two, tight , widely spaced keepers on you leg straps.

Although there is no official standard for hardware slippage, we have always tested to a 600 lbs. standard. (Opening shocks rarely put more force than that on a single leg friction adapter, and then only for a tenth of a second). All first attempts at stainless by the hardware manufacturers failed to meet this goal. We sent back lots of hardware before they finally got it right. On the "standard" type adapters we had them polish less and increase the size of the knurling (bumps) on their slide bar. (They went from 15 an inch to 10 an inch). On the two piece "French" adapter, they angled the lower edge of the "bump" to give more webbing contact. These improvements solved the slippage problem for the most part. However, there are always some adapters that slip more than others, both Cadmium plated and Stainless. Stainless, because of their slick surface just seem to have more problems. (There is always a price to pay for beauty.) If hardware on a Relative Workshop rig slips, we simply replace it free of charge.

A small amount of slippage is not a real cause for concern unless it is slowly increasing. Two tight keepers can often solve the "problem". The only long term solution is to replace the hardware. Quote

Quote The first stainless steel hardware, that was designed a few years ago, was basically a copy of the existing cadmium plated, carbon steel hardware. Because a polished stainless steel surface is a lot slipperier than cadmium plate, early stainless friction adapters slipped more than their cadmium plated counterparts. Early versions of the MS22040 AND the French, two piece adapter were both effected. Newer versions of both design have solved the problem. I will give a talk at the 2003 PIA Symposium about how to identify the slippery stuff. As soon as I get the talk together, I'll post a draft here. Without pictures it's hard to explain the difference. However, I will give you two cautions about the French adapter. 1. The early versions would slip if the webbing got dirty, especially with sand. 2. Both versions of the French adapter will slip badly if a keeper or edge of a legpad gets between the two pieces and prevents them from touching. Bill

Do what ChromeBoy says. The older one's talking Harvard. Bill Booth

As stupid as this may sound, if you are an American citizen, jumping in the US, and you jump gear that is not TSO'ed AND in date, the jump pilot could lose his license if you are injured or killed, and an investigation ensues. They might even "get" the poor pilot if you go through a cloud. Please think of your jump pilot before you do anything even slightly "illegal".

Thank you George (and everyone else who wished me a Happy Birthday). Bill Booth

There is always a delicate balance between making a handle possible to pull when you need it, and making it "impossible" to be pulled accidentally. The sloped shouldered, 3-ring soft handle, held by Velcro comes close. However, it was a lot closer at first. My original design, (still used on my tandem rigs) "sandwiched" the handle between the two pieces of the webbing which make up the main lift webb, with Velcro on BOTH sides of the handle. It was absolutely "bulletproof". Trouble was, you really had to peel the handle upward to release the Velcro, before you could pull it down to activate the release, and some jumpers, who didn't bother to learn how to use the handle, reported hard pulls. So I back off on security, and moved the handle to the rear of the main lift web, and used just one piece of Velcro. Easier to pull, but less secure. It was probably a good trade off, considering how many people still choose to be gear ignorant. Still, it's always a shame to "dumb down" any design. Just so you guys know to look for it, there is a little known design flaw which was introduced into the 3-ring release system with the advent of upper harness rings on some rigs. I'm sure it resulted in quite a few accidental releases. It has since been corrected, but I have not heard of a recall for the affected rigs. The problem is this: the 3-ring and ripcord housings were left free and exposed for several inches, from where they left the shoulder pad, right past the harness ring to the handle. If this exposed (and unprotected) housing were snagged or grabbed, the 3-ring or reserve would be accidentally activated. The main purpose of a housing is to protect the ripcord, from handle to pin, from acccidental snagging. To do this, it must be secured at both ends. It's hard to believe that this very basic rule would be ignored, but it was for several years. You need a handle of a certain size to pull, but this design effectively doubled the length of the snaggable area, with no appreciable benefit. Perhaps some of the stories of accidental 3-ring releases were due to this design flaw.

Dyslexics of the world, "UNTIE"!

The hardest part about designing the 3-ring release system was coming up with a suitable handle. All previous releases had a safety of some sort to prevent accidental release. But I wanted a device that could release both risers with one easy motion. So I needed a handle that could be pulled only by the human hand, and never be snagged by anything else. Remember, the most important function of any release system is NOT to release. It has to hold firm 1,000 times between each cutaway. If I hadn't designed the soft handle, the 3 ring probably would have been a failed design. Remember, when a reserve ripcord handle is knocked out of the pocket, pressure from the reserve pilot chute spring on the loop and pin usually prevents an accidental opening. But a 3-ring cable has no such pressure on it until after opening, so a 3-ring handle knocked out during exit, would probably go completely bye-bye in freefall, resulting in a real surprise at pull time. The soft 3-ring handle has been pretty successful for over 20 years now. As a matter of fact, while I have heard of people accidently pulling it, I have yet to hear of it being knocked out of its pocket, or being accidentally snagged, on exit or during relative work.

If it is TSOed, it must be so marked. No marking, no TSO.

Larry; Her pilot chute is about right, if it's made correctly. As I wrote in "Is you hand deploy pilot chute correctly made?", a pilot chute is doing its job correctly if the time from pilot chute release to line stretch, at terminal, is between 0.45 and 0.75 seconds. She could count "one thousand one" as she releases the pilot chute, and should be at line stretch just before she says the second "one". If you want to know for sure, just have someone video one of her deployments, and count frames at 30 per second. 14 to 23 frames is OK. Also check construction as in the above mentioned article. Poorly constructed pilot chutes may work for a while, and then "peter out". ZP's will last longer than F-111's.

Christopherm; Chet Poland, an old jumper from the 1920's, did over 100 tandems during his 80's. and...I know this doesn't count, but in order to be the first person to reach 500 tandems, I did 50, in one day with the same passenger. (No drogue, 3,500 feet) Bill Booth