billbooth

Favaks; What is your container extraction force? (Is your bag tight or loose in your container, and does your container have pocketed corners?) What is your line unstow force? (Do you double or single stow Spectra, or Vectran, or Dacron lines, with tube stows or rubber bands?) Do you ever do hop and pops? Do you often open above 120 mph? Is your pilot chute F-111 or ZP, and is it made correctly? I ask all these questions to point out that there are a lot of variables other than just canopy size. For instance, what is the difference between a 5 lb. canopy with 15 lb. line stows, and a 15 lb. canopy with 5 lb. line stows? If I assume you are about "average" in all the above parameters, I would recommend a 27" to 28" ZP, correctly made pilot chute. Bill

Kallend; You know, if I had told that guy directly that his pilot chute was improperly made, he probably would have thought I was just trying to sell him something, and ignored me. I've been "blown off" so many times, that when I see bad gear nowadays, I usually don't even bother to point it out. Am I getting cynical in my old age? Thanks for your good deed. You just might have saved that guy's life, because his pilot chute was just going to get worse and worse until on one jump, it wouldn't have worked at all. Bill

Skydivemonkey; Your 28" "F-111" PC is probably just fine for a 170 sq. ft. canopy. I only say probable because there are many fabrics labled F-111 these days, and some keep their "porosity" much longer than others. If your pilot chute deploys your canopy, from container opening to line stretch, in about a half, to three quarters of a second, then it is doing its job correctly. Bill

base283; Some pilot chute designs orbit more than others. Like you, I imagine an orbiting PC could cause off heading openings and line twists. The more carefully and symmetrically made a pilot chute is, the less it will spin or orbit. We make our pilot chutes to very tight tolerances to try to avoid this problem. I understand a lot of base pilot chutes are "homemade", so that could be a problem. I have made only one base jump (El Cap) so I am no expert on very low speed pilot chute design. However, I imagine body position, and container and bag design, are far more important for a clean deployment than pilot chute design. In most videos of line twists I've seen, the bag left the container spinning. It did not start to spin after it left the container. Bill

Greig; I recommend a 28" - 30" ZP pilot chute for canopies from 100 to 220 sq.ft., and a 24" ZP for canopies below 100 sq. ft. We also make a 34" F-111 pilot chute for canopies 200 sq. ft. and larger. We don't make a separate size pilot chute for each canopy size, because there is a pretty large acceptable range for separation velocity (see above posts). Obviously, if you only do base jumps or hop-n-pops, you might choose a larger pilot chute. If you do a lot of head down, and often open above 120 mph, then maybe a smaller pilot chute would be a better choice.

Skydive Monkey; I have several previous posts here about 3-ring risers. There are also four pictures, with text, of a properly made mini 3-ring riser, as well as a chart comparing tandem, standard, and mini ring risers, at www.relativeworkshop.com...technical...3-ring risers. As you will see, ring geometry, loop length, housing type and length, and breakaway cable choice all play a part. Risers made to other specifications may work well during "low G" malfunctions, but yield very high cutaway forces during a "high G" spinner. A short loop and soft housings are two of the worst problems. If you jump a highly loaded elliptical, you ought to have short hard housings in your riser channels, so that badly spun up risers won't grab you breakaway cable ends. Bill

The force required to cutaway a 6 "G" spinning malfunction on correctly made mini 3-rings, with a 200 lb. man (total load on 3-rings =1800 lbs.), is less than 22 lbs. OK then, what about a jumper with poorly made 3-rings? Couldn't he pull harder if he had a metal (or loop) handle? Believe it or not, the answer (barring an injured hand) is NO. Years ago, before deciding to selling my first "soft" reserve handle, I did some tests to see if "average" jumpers could "pull harder" with a "silver handle" than with a standard cutaway-type pillow. I measured both one and two handed pulls. I thought the metal handle would win by a lot, but I was wrong. There was ALMOST NO DIFFERENCE. Using one hand, all skydivers, male or female, could pull well over 25 lbs., using EITHER type of handle. Using both hands, all the female skydivers could pull over 50 lbs., and all males over 75 lbs. (One girl actually outpulled all the guys with a pull of well over 100 lbs. on a soft handle!) These facts, taken together, lead me to believe that if people are having hard cutaway pulls, it's because their 3 rings are made incorrectly. It also means that changing handle design will yield LITTLE OR NO BENEFIT on hard cutaways. However, it WILL confuse the hell out of anyone who borrows a rig with reversed handle designs. Remember Rule #1 in parachute design...There must be a very definite benefit to be derived from ANY change, or you don't do it. The learning curve on the new configuration could be fatal, or at the very least, embarrassing.

I knew someone would say that. Yes, my gas guzzling, defiler of the earth's environment, SUV is an automatic. But the accelerator pedal, and the steering wheel (thank God I don't live in England) are on the same side as they were on my MG, 280Z, or MR-2.

"nacmacfeegle" asked - "Why is my rig set up like this? I believe we should be rethinking the design of our cutaway systems. A loop on the cutaway makes sense to me, as I wanna be sure that sucker is gone BEFORE I fire my last chance into the spinning mess above my back. People are worried about not being able to grasp a soft reserve handle, should we be applying the same logic to the cutaway system?" To which Bill answered: And while you're at it, why don't you try moving the reserve handle over to the right side, and the cutaway handle over to the left side...There MIGHT be some advantage to that set-up...No, wait...Let's put both handles on one side leaving the other side free for safer grips... Or maybe we should move both handles down to the hips, leaving the entire upper main lift webb free for grips. Wait a minute, the main deployment handle is on the lower right corner of the main container, why don't we put the reserve handle on the other corner? That makes sense doesn't it? and yada, yada, yada..... OK, I know I may be a strange person to say this, but there are some advantages to "standardization" that must at least be considered. That's why, no matter what car you buy, the brake pedal is on the left, and the accelerator pedal on the right. There is no "absolute" reason why this set-up is the best. But someone had to make the decision for everyone's good. Can you imagine how many accidents there would be if Hertz started renting cars with reversed pedals? Times change, and skydiving gear will change as each new discipline is developed. I watched it happen in the 70's (and even got to help a little). The change from rounds to squares, from front mounted reserves to piggy backs, from main ripcords to hand deploy, and from Capewell canopy releases to 3-rings, from always jumping by yourself, to belly flying relative work, to always jumping by yourself on your butt or head, and back to relative work, this time in every body position imaginable. While I think all this discussion about activation handles is healthy, please think long and hard, and have very good reasons, before you fundamentally change the "standard" system. If there's one thing I've learned in 30 years of designing parachute systems is that EVERY change, no matter how seemingly minor, creates unforseen problems. With the standard system, at least you know what the problems are. I've experimented so much that some people have actually accused me of inventing more malfunctions (like pilot chutes in tow) than any other living person...and they're right. If the truth be known, more than 90% of everything I've played with didn't work out. Luckily, I got to "bury" most of my mistakes before they buried me. Because I don't do freefly relative work (except accidentally), I'm not going to preach to you which handle is best for what you do. So go ahead and invent. (I'm watching carefully, and plan to steal anything good you come up with.) Just be careful out there.

I'm one of the world's leading drogue dealers. Bill Booth

"Again, if pillows are so bad, why are they used as cutaway handles on 99% of the rigs out there?" Although I designed the "soft pillow" handle for the 3-ring release in the first place, I won't get into the discussion (too much) about whether it makes a good reserve handle for freeflyers. Most decisions in skydiving are tradeoffs, and this is certainly one of them. However, I do think a pillow makes a better cutaway handle than a reserve handle, simply because, where the pillow is in a cutaway situation, is much different from where it is in a reserve pull situation. Think about it. In almost all situations where a cutaway is needed, you're hanging from your main risers, and your main lift web, where your cutaway pillow sits, is pulled up and away from your body, so your cutaway pillow is literally right in front of your nose. Now think of where your reserve handle is in a total malfunction. It's down below your armpit, tucked tightly against your body, maybe even UNDER the webbing, and more than a little bit hard to see, especially if you're wearing a full face helmet. Now think how much a reserve pillow handle feels like your harness, or a fold in your jumpsuit, especially if you're wearing gloves. Now picture yourself low, out of time, and in desperate need of a reserve handle that you can't see or feel. Aren't you glad you bought that Cypres?

"Again, if pillows are so bad, why are they used as cutaway handles on 99% of the rigs out there?" Although I designed the "soft pillow" handle for the 3-ring release in the first place, I won't get into the discussion (too much) about whether it makes a good reserve handle for freeflyers. Most decisions in skydiving are tradeoffs, and this is certainly one of them. However, I do think a pillow makes a better cutaway handle than a reserve handle, simply because, where the pillow is in a cutaway situation, is much different from where it is in a reserve pull situation. Think about it. In almost all situations where a cutaway is needed, you're hanging from your main risers, and your main lift web, where your cutaway pillow sits, is pulled up and away from your body, so your cutaway pillow is literally right in front of your nose. Now think of where your reserve handle is in a total malfunction. It's down below your armpit, tucked tightly against your body, maybe even UNDER the webbing, and more than a little bit hard to see, especially if you're wearing a full face helmet. Now think how much a reserve pillow handle feels like your harness, or a fold in your jumpsuit, especially if you're wearing gloves. Now picture yourself low, out of time, and in desperate need of a reserve handle that you can't see or feel. Aren't you glad you bought that Cypres?

Engovatov asked; "climbing harnesses see shock loads and wear and tear that is likely higher then for the parachute ones. Why not to use such configuration on a parachute harness?" Unlike rock climbers, jumpers have parachute containers that must be held firmly in place on their backs. They also need to be supported from TWO points, just in front of each shoulder, so that the jumper is always facing the same way the parachute is going, and will be easily able to land standing up, or even running... Not to mention, take 200 knot opening loads from ANY direction. This is why parachute harnesses have always been designed with vertical main lift webbs, (up the front) ), diagonal back straps (over the shoulders, crossing inside your backpad), and a horizontal back strap (across the bottom of your container). Climbing harnesses are comfortable, but I'd rather have shoulder straps during a head down opening. How 'bout you. Take a look through the harness section of Pointer's Parachute Manual. There are some slight differences in harnesses over time, but this is one piece of parachute gear they got pretty much right back in the 1920's. The one thing that is missing on "modern" parachute harnesses is the "Belly Band". It had been on early piggybacks, but disappeared in the late seventies with the appearance of Vectors and Racers. And it's a shame. Although it doesn't increase safety a whole lot (unless you forget to hook up your chest strap), it does improve comfort. Think about it...you want the bottom of your container held firmly against the small of your back, and a belly band does that very well, without loading up your main lift webbs and leg straps. That's why your main lift webb has to be so damned tight over your shoulders. A belly band would allow your main lift webbs to come straight down the front of your body (placing your handles more in front where you can more easily see and protect them), instead of having to curve radically backward below the chest strap to try and do the extra job of holding the bottom of your rig snuggly to your back. And just like in any quality backpack, the belly band also takes the weight of your parachutes off your shoulders, and places it on your hips, where you hardly notice it. Deanna Kent, the original "Skydancer" knew that, and asked me to make her rig with a bellyband. Hardly any one else has recently, probably because as rigs get lighter and narrower, the comfort differences become less apparent.

I thought I'd seen a lot of weird things, but... It sort of looks like an awkward way to jump a reserve with no bridle attachment point, without losing the bag. But since that doesn't make much sense if you own a canopy company, it beats me.

If it weren't for the last minute, nothing would ever get done.

Randal; I'm glad to hear that you and Dana enjoyed your tandems. I know of no reason why you couldn't skydive solo. Although I can't think of a skydiver with a missing arm, I know of several people who jump with missing legs. I don't know the exact degree of your loss, but apparently you didn't fall out of the tandem harness, so I imagine a solo harness, maybe with a little customizing, would work for you. All activation handles on a normal solo skydiving rig can be activated with the right hand. Landing a stable canopy, with light toggle pressure, with one arm certainly can be done. Find an experienced parachute dealer or rigger in your area, and let him help you figure out exactly how it can be done.

Becky; Don't worry too much about trying to prove that skydiving (or any other sport) is safe. Divorce judges hear these kind of arguments from waring ex-spouses all day long, and they're sick of it. But here are some statistics for you anyway. According to the National Safety Council (www.nsc.org), one in 6,212 Americans die in auto accidents, and one in 2,762 die from all accidental causes combined, every year. And these numbers don't count murder or suicide which become much more likely in divorce situations, if you're not careful. The fatality rate for skydiving seems to hover around one every 65,000 jumps, and depending on how you count participants, seems to be about the same, per participant, as the overall accident rate excluding skydiving. So on average, you're just as likely to die of something else as you are skydiving. I hope this cheers you up. LOL I feel for you. I've been there. Bill Booth

Andyman: My lawyer told me long ago that I simply couldn't afford to act as the 3-ring, or hand deploy police. If I got into the business of trying to certify every other manufacturers gear, then I would be legally responsible for every screw up they made, and besides I'm already busy enough trying to keep Relative Workshop screw-ups to a minimum. 15 years ago I actually got sued because someone burned in on a COPY of a Vector. I got sued 10 years ago because someone who burned in on a STRONG tandem rig also had a Vector rating. And then there's the problem of sheer logistics. It is impossible for Relative Workshop to personally inspect every rig made in the world. I have always published step by step instructions on how to make the 3-ring system, and given them free to anyone who bought the license. Several manufacturers simply chose to ignore them. No, the only way to do it is to educate the consumers, and that is what I am making a feeble attempt at right now.

Andy asked: "What do you mean by 'Flying the canopy through the opening' exactly?" It means keep your canopy symmetrically loaded all the way through the opening sequence. It means getting right back to perfectly stable as soon as you throw your pilot chute. It means don't look over your shoulder and watch your canopy open. Looking not only won't help, it will put one shoulder lower than the other, which will load one side of your canopy more than the other, and cause, at the very least, line twists, which if your canopy is highly loaded, will probably result in a cutaway. Asymmetrical openings can load your risers and harness up to 80% on one side, and 20% on the other, which can break stuff, including body parts. Simple enough?

Lisa and Steve; You both raise good points. Personally, I would like a lot less FAA regulation of skydiving, not a lot more. It's a sport for God's sake. I've been on TSO committees, on and off, for over 20 years now, and each successive document seems to get thicker and thicker. But it isn't the FAA demanding more tests, and therefore more rules, it is we, ourselves, who are making the document thicker. I think a much better course would be to keep the FAA approved document (the TSO) a MINIMUM performance standard, and keep quality up through a series Parachute Industry Association (PIA) Performance Standards. These PIA standards would not be law, but any manufacturer who ignored them would be SOL in court if anything bad happened because of their failure to follow them. I am not alone in this thinking, so I hope that's the way things go, and we won't have to open the Pandora's Box of TSOing main parachute components. Plus, PIA Performance Standards would be far easier to change if necessary. Overly restrictive rules can stifle innovation.

jdhill said: "Just a procedural question... how would one be able to tell a main that was hooked up by a rigger vs. one that the owner hooked up? Would you put a seal on it? I don't think I would like a little piece of string and lead tangled up in my release system." I'm, in shock! I have sat on a committee for two years, supposedly made of of the best minds in the industry, and NO ONE ever asked that question. Want a job, Josh? Bill

jdhill said: "I think the industry is competitive enough that if a manufacturer were producing unsafe risers or release systems someone (either jumpers, riggers, or another manufacturer) would catch it and make it known (we all know how skydivers love manufacturer scandals). This would obviously have an effect of sales." I wish this were true. There is however, no central database of equipment malfunctions that a new jumper can access to find out about gear problems. And in this case, what you don't know can hurt you. Take for example soft cutaway housings (instead of metal housings) on 3-ring release systems. They were terrible, yet several major manufacturers made them for over 7 years, (despite my pleas) until apparently enough people were hurt or killed for word to get around. What really hurts is that there was never a recall. Manufacturers simply stopped making them a few years ago, without a word. This means that even today, new jumpers, who don't know any better, are probably still jumping them on gear they bought used. There are many other examples, but that is about the worst I've seen. The good thing about sites like Dropzone.com, where people of all experience levels get together, is that something like that will probably never happen again. At least we can hope.

Jeff and Kelly; It's good to hear from both of you. If there is anyone in this industry who knows what they are talking about it's you two. About the 3-ring jig. As both of you know, it's nearly impossible to make consistent mini risers without one. Any manufacturer who hasn't figured that out yet, probably shouldn't be making risers. I find it amazing that anyone makes bad risers in this country, because nearly all of the manufacturers used to work at the Relative Workshop. Talon and Voodoo, Javelin, Mirage, and Infinity are all made by former Relative Workshop employees.

Bill; Thanks for doing the survey. I look at people's pilot chutes (when they're not looking) all the time, and I also find about 15% incorrectly made in the US. At some dropzones in Europe, I have found as many as half bad. As I said above, it's a combination of pilot chute size, vs weight of canopy, vs how much the apex is pulled, vs how much stretch a particular mesh has on the bias, vs deployment speed, vs how tightly the lines are stowed, that determines how well any particular pilot chute will work. Then there's any particular jumper's definition of "works" to be considered. Pilot chutes don't have to be perfect to "work", but separation velocities ouside the desirable range yield partial malfunctions that very few people ever blame on the pilot chute. But again, as I've said above, everytime someone brought my attention to a pilot chute that was hesitating, two factors were ALWAYS there. The mesh was sewn on the bias, and the apex was pulled all the way down to the skirt. And as people go to smaller and smaller pilot chutes, the tolerence for poor construction gets less and less.

While my committee can write the rules for a new TSO, we have absolutely no power to determine how the FAA integrates those rules into the FAR's as regards who can do what to whom. Our biggest problem is, while the FAA has many fine people who know aircraft, inside and out, almost no one in a position of authority knows anything about parachutes. So it is very hard to predict just what they will do with any new regulation. For instance, it took me 17 YEARS to get them to "legalize" tandem, and we went on "forever" to finally get a somewhat good working definition of "under supervision of a rigger". If we start including portions of the main parachute in the TSO tests, who knows where it will lead, how FUBAR the regs will become, or how long it will take to finally straighten everything out.