hard housings or not.

[hemphog 0]

At the price of the hard housings to have added, and the potential benefit, is there any reason not to convert your rig to ensure an easier cutaway?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya we'll rape the local objects, and maybe do some jumps too!"

[grue 1]

My last load yesterday, I realised that I was the only person on the plane with hard housings, I was kinda surprised by that. My JM was wearing a Vector 3, but I don't know what kind of rigs everyone else was jumping, but I was fairly surprised to see that.

cavete terrae.

[mattjw916 2]

If they were wearing their rigs, how on earth could you see under their risers and know if they had hard housings or not?

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[grue 1]

Ok, maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole deal, but isn't a hard housing the steel tube that the cables are running through? That's visible on most rigs as far as I can tell.

cavete terrae.

[mattjw916 2]

Generally, when people are talking about "hard housings" they are referring to the channel that the excess cutaway cable is stowed in on the back side of the rear risers after the yellow cable is passed through the white fabric loop. The advantage of this is that in the event of severe line twists a "hard housing" made of metal or other suitable material will protect the excess cutaway cable from being trapped when the risers are severely twisted and prevent/reduce the possibility of a hard/impossible cutaway.

Please seek a qualified rigger for a better explanation.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Generally, when people are talking about "hard housings" they are referring to the channel that the excess cutaway cable is stowed in on the back side of the rear risers after the yellow cable is passed through the white fabric loop.

That's not what this thread is about. It was trendy a few years ago to have soft (cloth) housings for routing of the cutaway cable instead of the typical metal tubing. That is what this thread is about. I'm sure talking to your rigger will help with the explaination.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mattjw916 2]

actually both were discussed...

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[Jeffrey 1]

This thread has drifted in and out of a few different technical rig related topics (soft release/cutaway housings vs hard release/cutaway housings, riser construction, and hard housing riser inserts.)

Being as specific as possible is important in any technical discussion, especially when it come to something as complicated as a rig. Unfortunately too many single things have multiple meanings.

Staying with the original topic also helps.

Jeff

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

My last load yesterday, I realised that I was the only person on the plane with hard housings,

You sure? I've never even seen a rig with soft housings that I can remember. They are not common anymore. Vector 3s most definitely have hard housings.

Dave

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Soft housings were only offered on (1-pin) Teardrops (Thomas Sports Equipment), Javeonins (Sun Path), Flexons (Rigging Innovations) and '94 Talons (R.I.). By the time my Talon 2 was built in 1997, R.I. had switched to semi-hard housings and by the end of the year had gone to full hard housings.
There were two problems with soft housings. First, many of them were in-correctly routed. I blame the routing problem squarely on Sun Path and R.I. who took several years to publish decent drawings on how to install them correctly.
During a series of suspended harness tests with a Javelin, I found that pull force varied from 5 to 25 pounds, depending upon the routing.
TSE, SP and RI eventually returned to full hard housings because the average skydiver is not bright enough to install cutaway cables correctly in soft housings.
While managing the loft for R.I., I retrofitted hard housings to dozens of Flexons and '94 Talons. Since leaving R.I. I have also retrofitted hard housings to dozens of Javelins.
The second problem blaimed on soft housings is now attributed to massive line twists that squeeze the ends of cables when risers wrap up tightly. The second problem was solved by installing hard housings in risers.

Thread resurrection...

I was very surprised when I recently saw a Javelin with soft cutaway housings. Sun Path doesn't have any service bulletins regarding them, only a "recommendation" to have them changed that isn't available on their website.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Sun Path doesn't have any service bulletins regarding them, only a "recommendation" to have them changed that isn't available on their website.

Taken in context I would place a lot of weight on “recommendation”.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Sun Path doesn't have any service bulletins regarding them, only a "recommendation" to have them changed that isn't available on their website.

Taken in context I would place a lot of weight on “recommendation”.

Sparky

When the recommendation is not even shown anywhere on their website, it is pretty weak. When I heard of the recommendation from them on the phone, it was pretty weak.

I was so surprised to see the soft housing on an in-service rig because I thought that conversion to hard housings was mandatory. It is not even close.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[riggerrob 643]

That "recommendation" is "best business practice" and should be complied with. If you don't update that Javelin to hard-housings, you risk looking like a idiot in court.

Sun Path is reluctant to issue a Service Bulletin because that might (be distorted by a lawyer) interpreted as a failing on their part.
The American legal system forces manufacturers to do some sneaky stuff to avoid law suits.

Kind of like, Relative Workshop never admitted that Vector 1 reserve, pilot-chute springs were wimpy, but I installed dozens of Vector 2 pilot-chutes in Vector 1s and it has been a decade since I have seen a Vector 1 pilot-chute.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

That "recommendation" is "best business practice" and should be complied with. If you don't update that Javelin to hard-housings, you risk looking like a idiot in court.

Sun Path is reluctant to issue a Service Bulletin because that might (be distorted by a lawyer) interpreted as a failing on their part.
The American legal system forces manufacturers to do some sneaky stuff to avoid law suits.

I can understand a recommendation vs service bulletin. However, I can't even find an official recommendation on their website (perhaps someone else can point us to it). I couldn't find it in their manual, it is not in their "support" part of the website under rigging or product improvement or service bulletins.

Perhaps a long time ago they widely communicated the recommendation, it doesn't seem so clear now.

I guess any written admission would be opening too much of a legal risk. Pretty lame, I think.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[riggerrob 643]

I don't remember if I have ever seen an electronic version of the (hard housing retrofit) "recommendation."
Somewhere I have a paper version of it.
The problem surfaced (circa 1994) and most rigs (Javelins, Flexons, '94 Talons and some Teardrops) were updated long before electronic Service Bulletins became fashionable.
Any old Javelins - with soft housings - have probably been sitting in closets for the last 15 years. "Closet queens" can be real "headaches" for young riggers!

[thutch 0]

9 years later...

 

I have a Quasar II (DOM 98) with partial soft cutaway housings (hard through the yoke for the long side, soft elsewhere).

I don't see a SB of recommendation from Strong. Anybody experience any issues with cutting away on Quasar II's ever?

[fcajump 164]

On 10/4/2020 at 1:30 PM, thutch said:

9 years later...

 

I have a Quasar II (DOM 98) with partial soft cutaway housings (hard through the yoke for the long side, soft elsewhere).

I don't see a SB of recommendation from Strong. Anybody experience any issues with cutting away on Quasar II's ever?

Call SE. (407-859-9317)

Generally speaking, the problem can be a problem regardless of brand.

 

JW