Disconnected Skyhook

[VideoFly 0]

I recently deployed my main on a camera jump only to have my head pinned to my chest because my risers were twisted behind and around my top mount video camera. Fortunately, I wear a wrist mount altimeter and a chest mount, which was directly in front of my eyes. Unable to see the direction of the twists, I grabbed the risers behind my helmet and felt my way to kicking out of the twists and pulling my risers from around my camera. I bruised my fingers in the process as my left hand was trapped between my helmet and risers. Once out of the line twist, I looked for other canopies to my right and left and saw that my cutaway cable was about one-quarter inch from pulling through the retaining loop of my three-ring assembly on the left riser. I carefully pulled the cable back up through the loop and continued my decent uneventfully. While grabbing and untwisting my risers, I must have gotten a finger caught between the cutaway cable and loop and pulled the cable out. A little more pulling and I could have cut one side of my main only with the risers still caught on my camera. I would be concerned if I had an RSL or Skyhook attached if that had happened. In the event of a partial cutaway, I could have released my helmet and main and then deployed my reserve into clear air. Reserve deployment systems are a personal matter and if I weren’t flying with cameras, I would use an RSL or Skyhook.

[tdog 0]

Quote

. In the event of a partial cutaway, I could have released my helmet and main and then deployed my reserve into clear air.

And - with or without a RSL or skyhook, your body weight hanging from your neck, coupled with a few inches of fall after you released one riser, could have snapped your neck...

I am no expert, but this is how they all die on the old westerns on TV, except they use ropes.

I know I heard a prominent container manufacture owner discuss this very "problem" with any camera setup, and thus argues with or without an RSL you HAVE to clear the helmet first, thus the RSL is not a problem after you clear the helmet as it becomes a normal cutaway.

Likewise, someone with an RSL can always disconnect it right before they chop should they determine they don't want the RSL to fire. It takes about a second or less to do, and it has crossed my mind before...

However, the Skyhook does have the advantage of the Collin's lanyard, such that if you did not have a camera entanglement, and the RSL business end riser disconnected from your accidental pulling on the cable under linetwists, the RSL would have pulled the Collin's lanyard and the other riser too, thus prohibiting 1.5 canopies out.

The collin's lanyard + skyhook technology to me = safer than rsl and safer than none. Kind of like airbags in a car, they can kill you, and have killed people in the past... But I don't disconnect the fuse.

Personal preference... Your choice not to jump one is valid.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I'm actually quite surprised at your statement. I had thought consensus had changed considerably in the last few years.

I can't imagine why.

Not having an RSL as a camera flyer gives you options without added tasks. You can breakaway from the main before or after removing your camera helmet, without an extra step.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

And - with or without a RSL or skyhook, your body weight hanging from your neck, coupled with a few inches of fall after you released one riser, could have snapped your neck...

Probably not. If you've watched a cutaway canopy, you'll notice they collapse, and produce far less drag than when inflated.

That's going to be a significantly lower force than your ol' rope over the tree.

Why people seem to think anything has changed is beyond me. People died coming up with the safety guidelines we have today, maybe just not recently enough.....

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[tdog 0]

Quote

Probably not. If you've watched a cutaway canopy, you'll notice they collapse, and produce far less drag than when inflated.

I never said it WOULD all the time. I suggested it COULD.

And, I believe that a canopy WOULD stay inflated long enough to have enough drag to make the impact or pull on one riser enough to hang your entire body weight on it... It takes a second(s) to collapse, milliseconds to fall a few inches.

Proof, today I kited my canopy and the winds were causing the lines to go slack momentarilly... The canopy stayed inflated and in a drag producing state long enough to "snap it back" into flight....

Any way you look at it, IF I knew my helmet was entangled with the lines I would do EVERYTHING possible short of not deploying my reserve in time when "game is over anyway", to get the helmet off before cutting away.

I just don't like hanging from my neck.

I also believe that camera helmets with ring sights and exposed cameras are not a good thing to mix with RSLs. My point was - priority one is to get the helmet off your head, priority two is getting rid of the main.... (Another reason, trying to remove a helmet under load might be harder)

[TheSecret 0]

I'm sure some folks think I'm a moron because I elect to not eat most vegetables, nor do I work out every day.

Now that's just plane CRAZY! Your playing with fire there.

Life is good

[VideoFly 0]

During my entanglement, I knew I had a problem. I had no idea I was just about to clear my cutaway cable from one riser’s three-ring assembly. A sudden disconnection might have broken my neck and/or created more problems. My helmet was pinned down so hard that my helmet’s chin area bruised my chest and my hand was trapped in the mess A helmet cutaway was not an option as the back plate was held closed by tightly twisted risers. I know this was a bad situation and I was lucky. This is one reason that camera flyers get so concerned when inexperienced jumpers throw cameras into their routines without considering or preparing for potential consequences. While being a truly wonderful experience, flying with cameras adds distractions and potential hazards to skydiving. Experienced flyers know that. In the future, in addition to my standard EPs, I will be more conscious of my cutaway cables when clearing twists. I have no argument for others using RSLs or Skyhooks. As I said, without cameras, I would use them. I was hoping to inform others of the possibilities involved when clearing riser twists, with or without cameras involved.

[airtwardo 7]

Probably not. If you've watched a cutaway canopy, you'll notice they collapse, and produce far less drag than when inflated.

That's going to be a significantly lower force than your ol' rope over the tree.

Quote

Not if only one side is cut away.

I broke both risers on the left side a few months ago, the canopy stayed fully inflated because the slider acts as a cross connector...it was spinning up pretty good, but was still fully inflated.

If one side is fouled on gear and the other released freely, I expect the result would be the same.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

So can the RSL part be used without the skyhook hooked up, as well being on the other side to a normal RSL?
(Apologies for my non technical speak I am not a rigger)
I have seen all the discussions on various threads about this, whilst my reserve was being packed I felt the force needed to pull the reserve out with the skyhook connected, in a non terminal pull it may imply that it may take a bit more to get the reserve out. (say a low exit in an aeroplane emergency - although i note the comments indicating that it should do the opposite)

The Skyhook is a type of RSL. If you have a Skyhook, you have an RSL. Make sense? You can't seperate the 2 because they are one thing.

I can't see how a Skyhook (properly installed) would have any impact on force needed to pull your reserve handle one way or the other.

I'm a sport camera jumper with 2 unplanned Skyhook deployed reserve rides and the thing functioned perfectly both times. I'm really comfortable with it.

(Sorry I am a little late with this response. I've been away for a couple of days.)

What I am about to say is not meant to imply that I think anyone should do this, merely that it is possible. There is some current thinking that doing what I am about to mention would be illegal, as it would be an alteration of the approved system that was granted the TSO. Again, I am only trying to clarify the notion that you could still have the RSL without using the Skyhook.

The first quote asks the question if you could hook up the RSL without using the Skyhook. The simple answer is "yes", it is possible to use only the RSL and Collins release without using the Skyhook.

The Skyhook system is a combination of an RSL, Collins release, and a hook. If you did not attach the red loop to the hook on the reserve bridle, then the RSL and the Collins release would still operate while the Skyhook itself would not.

The first quote also questions an increase in force required to deploy a reserve in a reserve-only situation when a Skyhook is present.

The second poster is correct when he says that the force to pull the reserve handle would be no different. But I believe the first question refers to the additional force required to break the red loop free of the skyhook in the case where the main had not been deployed first. (The first quote mentions a low altitude emergency exit. I presume that to mean that there was no main deployment before pulling the reserve handle.) The red loop is secured to the Skyhook with a loop of seal thread. There is a small additional force needed to break that seal thread if you deploy the reserve without first deploying the main. Seal thread has a tensile strength of about 4.5 pounds. While some additional force is needed to break this thread, the amount is so small as to be negligible - the reserve pilot chute is generating many times over the force needed to break this thread. It is also important to realize that this additional force to break the seal thread is *before* the pilot chute is extracting the bag from the container. Breaking the seal thread occurs before you reach full bridle stretch. So the forces are not additive.

I have several customers who have Skyhook-equipped rigs. One has had a reserve ride after a spinning mal. His system worked as intended. He had his reserve open over his head before he had even pulled the silver handle.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi riggerpaul,

Quote

There is some current thinking that doing what I am about to mention would be illegal, as it would be an alteration of the approved system that was granted the TSO.

This reply is NOT to cast any aspersions on you.

Last year, in Reno, Bill Booth stated that he did not submit any documentation regarding the SkyHook to the FAA as a Minor Change.

Also, when I asked Derek Thomas ( also, last year in Reno ) about whether he had submitted the SkyHook as a Minor Change ( I had noticed that they had added an inner top reserve flap to the Javelin where there had not been one prior ) and he said that they added the flap as a Minor Change saying something about it being there to 'control' the reserve bridle.

People seem to continue to think that the SkyHook is part of the TSO'd rig; and I do not believe that it is.

This is just to, hopefully, clarify this. Now, if I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. The above is based upon two face-to-face conversations that I had in Reno.

JerryBaumchen

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Quote

yes well, my rigger doesnt seem to like them at all

Some people don't, and it's good to hear every side of anything. I hope he gave you good, specific reasons why he dislikes the skyhook. You should take those reasons to other local riggers/instructors who have the opposite opinion and see what they say.

THIS rigger (and AFF instructor) is very fond of the skyhook, and I've had my Vector retrofitted with it. In general I recommend them. For the record, I am less fond of the standard RSL, but far from opposed to it... I've done most of my jumps without RSL or skyhook.

Having a skyhook, but jumping with it disconnected makes no sense execpt in specific situations... it's like having airbags but turning them off. Why pay for them in the first place if you're not going to use 'em? The exception to prove the rule would be if you are jumping with a camera or doing CrEW, where the much greater possibility of an entaglment can cause the RSL/skyhook to be a hazard. In that situation you could disconnect it for those jumps and reconnect it for "normal" jumps.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Hi riggerpaul,

Quote

There is some current thinking that doing what I am about to mention would be illegal, as it would be an alteration of the approved system that was granted the TSO.

This reply is NOT to cast any aspersions on you.

Last year, in Reno, Bill Booth stated that he did not submit any documentation regarding the SkyHook to the FAA as a Minor Change.

Also, when I asked Derek Thomas ( also, last year in Reno ) about whether he had submitted the SkyHook as a Minor Change ( I had noticed that they had added an inner top reserve flap to the Javelin where there had not been one prior ) and he said that they added the flap as a Minor Change saying something about it being there to 'control' the reserve bridle.

People seem to continue to think that the SkyHook is part of the TSO'd rig; and I do not believe that it is.

This is just to, hopefully, clarify this. Now, if I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. The above is based upon two face-to-face conversations that I had in Reno.

JerryBaumchen

Saw you mention this before. Interesting to say the least.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Hi riggerpaul,

Quote

There is some current thinking that doing what I am about to mention would be illegal, as it would be an alteration of the approved system that was granted the TSO.

This reply is NOT to cast any aspersions on you.

Last year, in Reno, Bill Booth stated that he did not submit any documentation regarding the SkyHook to the FAA as a Minor Change.

Also, when I asked Derek Thomas ( also, last year in Reno ) about whether he had submitted the SkyHook as a Minor Change ( I had noticed that they had added an inner top reserve flap to the Javelin where there had not been one prior ) and he said that they added the flap as a Minor Change saying something about it being there to 'control' the reserve bridle.

People seem to continue to think that the SkyHook is part of the TSO'd rig; and I do not believe that it is.

This is just to, hopefully, clarify this. Now, if I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. The above is based upon two face-to-face conversations that I had in Reno.

JerryBaumchen

No aspersions cast or caught.
Thanks for the additional information.

But, wow! This is the same Sunpath that has a letter saying we are not allowed to remove and RSL, or even undo the shackle except under special conditions?

These two positions from Sunpath seem to me to be in extreme conflict.

If the Skyhook is a modification to an existing TSO'd assembly, then how can it NOT have paperwork. If a random Master Rigger were to make such an alteration, it would have to have approval from the manufacturer or the FAA, and the change must be logged on the Packing Data Card. Otherwise, the TSO is no longer valid. After all, the Skyhook alteration required an extra flap to be added; how can that NOT be a MAJOR change?

I assure you, I am casting no aspersions either.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi riggerpaul,

First, there is no such thing as a Major Change in this industry. Everything is done as a Minor Change. If not, you have to go through the entire TSO test program again; and to the latest version of the TSO.

Quote

If the Skyhook is a modification to an existing TSO'd assembly,

I 'think' that probably Sunpath had determined that it is not a modification. And I accept that this is theirs to determine, not you or I.

Quote

If a random Master Rigger were to make such an alteration, it would have to have approval from the manufacturer or the FAA, and the change must be logged on the Packing Data Card. Otherwise, the TSO is no longer valid.

To me, this is the real grey area. If two mfrs say that it is not a change and no documentation submitted to the FAA; they why cannot some rigger ( or his wife/gf/etc ) add the SkyHook????

Think this will get some comments?

JerryBaumchen

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

That's a reason to ground the rig. The way the FAR's read, the AAD MUST be functional, and maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions, or it's unairworthy.

That's not quite true:

Quote

(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device."

Maybe my source for the actual FAR text is not good, but I read that to say that it only MUST be functional if the manufacturer says so.

After reading the cypress manual, I was unclear as to whether or not the rig was grounded if it displayed an error code and shut down.

Regardless, I think the following may have been the vital piece of information in the event that occurred in Eloy:

Quote

"If the unit once failed the self-test due to low battery voltage (error code 8999 or 8998), it is absolutely necessary to change the battery. Because of special characteristics of the battery, it is possible, that a second try to switch the unit on will be successful. In this case it is not guaranteed, that the CYPRES will work
correctly."

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[diablopilot 2]

It's not a huge logical leap we're making here.

The FAR's state that the unit must be maintained according to manufacturer's instructions.

Is there a single manufacturer that will consider a defective unit to be "maintained"?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[jdfreefly 1]

All I'm saying is that I don't think it's violation of the FAR to jump a cypress that throws an error code and shuts down. It's up to the manufacturer.

As a matter of fact, cypress's recent service bulletin doesn't state you can't jump it, it says you need to talk to them first.

Given what happened recently, if my cypress threw an error, regardless of what the FARs say, I wouldn't jump it again.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Quote

Given what happened recently, if my cypress threw an error, regardless of what the FARs say, I wouldn't jump it again.

You wouldn't jump it again, ever, or you wouldn't jump it again, until it was fixed?

[jdfreefly 1]

So, I'm definitely a bit of a safety nazi, but not that much.

I wouldn't jump it until I had been convinced the problem had been appropriately dealt with.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[racine 0]

Everybody's got their opinions, and Bill Booth made his clear on episode 16 or 17 of skydive radio. They're two long episodes and I don't have timestamps, but they're interesting and Bill talks a lot about the skyhook. Also, everybody who's planning on talking about the skyhook should read the packing instructions here --> http://www.unitedparachutetechnologies.com/PDF/skyhook/09109PackIns.pdf

I jump with an RSL, but when I practice my EP's and when I make my students practice EP's, the silver handle still gets pulled. It's a race I'm not likely to win, but that won't stop me from competing.

less relevant opinions-->
Personally I don't jump a skyhook because it's not worth refitting my 16 year old vector, and I'm not convinced that V3's and Javelins are worth the $4k or so they ring up to with options that aerodyne includes (other than the skyhook). I'll own one eventually, just probably not soon.

Think, then type.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Hi riggerpaul,

First, there is no such thing as a Major Change in this industry. Everything is done as a Minor Change. If not, you have to go through the entire TSO test program again; and to the latest version of the TSO.

Quote

If the Skyhook is a modification to an existing TSO'd assembly,

I 'think' that probably Sunpath had determined that it is not a modification. And I accept that this is theirs to determine, not you or I.

Quote

If a random Master Rigger were to make such an alteration, it would have to have approval from the manufacturer or the FAA, and the change must be logged on the Packing Data Card. Otherwise, the TSO is no longer valid.

To me, this is the real grey area. If two mfrs say that it is not a change and no documentation submitted to the FAA; they why cannot some rigger ( or his wife/gf/etc ) add the SkyHook????

Think this will get some comments?

JerryBaumchen

Just continuing the discussion a bit.

I can easily see where UPT claims it is a minor change. A Vector already has an inside top flap (#2), so adding an additional inside top flap (2a) doesn't really change things much. The basic operation of the system is not significantly altered.

But the Javelin had no such inside top flap in the first place. IIRC, the new Javelin flap in inside the side flaps, directly atop the freebag. If Sunpath had added the new flap as an additional side flap, that might be different.

I liken this change to changing the internal structure of an aircraft wing. If it is a certified aircraft, such a change would require additional documented testing to ensure that the new structure still meets the requirements of the original approval. How much depends on how significant the change is. Adding a doubler to a rib could be minor, but moving ribs around of adding or removing them would require significantly more work for documentation and approval.

Sunpath claims that removing an RSL lanyard violates the TSO, even if you leave the guide rings etc alone. How can they say that adding a completely new flap inside is not as serious as this?

Maybe we should just chuck the whole TSO thing for parachute equipment.

I don't really expect that any manufacturer would really want to do that, as a TSO approval actually helps shield them from many liability issues, as, of course, it should. It seems to me that failure to complete the existing process exposes Sunpath to a whole new sort of legal liability. I hate to think what might happen if this ever gets tested in the courts.

Thanks for the discussion! I find it most interesting!

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi riggerpaul,

Quote

Maybe we should just chuck the whole TSO thing for parachute equipment.

Please keep this thought foremost from now until infinity. I, personally, do not believe that the FAA regulates parachute equipment. They think they do, they say they do; but, IMO, they do not.

Quote

TSO approval actually helps shield them from many liability issues,

I disagree with this. However, this is merely my personal opinion. I would be very interested in knowing how many lawsuits have been initiated against the sport gear makers in this country in the last 10 years.

Yes, it is very interesting; and, hopefully, somewhat educational.

JerryBaumchen