Skyhook RSL Pictures

[r2hubert 0]

Did a lateral shock can un-hook the system?

--
Renaud SMA #9
"Mind is like parachute. It only functions when it's open."

[KellyF 16]

Quote

First other manufacturers will pooh-pooh it. Then they'll try to get around the patent with their own versions. Only then they will ask to license it. I know. I went through all this years ago with the hand deploy pilot chute and 3-ring release.

Bill, I'm not trying to "pooh-pooh" your system, I think it is a great system- it's simple, and that's the way things should be. I think I have brought up some good points about the history behind these types of systems, and some design objectives but you haven't responded to them yet. This is a good opportunity for you to show how much thought you have put into this system. This is what these forums are designed for- to have educational, informative discussions- not advertising. Let's have a discussion

[billbooth 10]

Kelly;

I thought I had answered all of your questions except, "Why don't I put the skyhook where it can be "pin checked" while the rig is packed?"

Well for one thing, the Skyhook is on the reserve freebag bridle. As you well know, we pack the reserve bridle UNDER the pilot chute, so that the pilot chute leads the bridle during deployment. And the tension of the reserve pilot chute on the Skyhook assembly is what holds the whole contraption together between pack jobs in the first place. There is no more protected (or proper) spot I could think of to put the Skyhook, than under the reserve pilot chute.

Kelly, honestly... I have always put a lot of thought into every innovation I have put on my rigs, and the Skyhook is no exception. However, please keep asking questions. I depend upon designers like you to point out flaws. If there is a better way to do this, I want to find out now...before I have thousands of these things floating around. That's why I waited to introduce the Skyhook, until I had first showed it to all the "great minds" of the parachuting world at the PIA Symposium. If there was anything wrong with it, I'm sure one of my compeditors would have gleefully point it out.

[KellyF 16]

One of my questions is that I thought you had this system pretty much worked out around 1992 (minus the Collins Lanyard). I remember Mark doing test jumps with a red and silver V-II, and later on finding out about a hook (shaped similar to the one you are currently using) that made the system work. I don't know the exact layout of the (older) system, but it seems like pretty much the same concept. So is there a difference other than the Collins Lanyard?

I think (just brainstorming) that you could maybe locate the hook at the base of the inner top flap (underneath it, maybe on top of the side flaps) with just enough of it exposed so that you could see that the hook was going through the lanyard. You could even use a Cypres cutter elastic to hold the hook in place- it may not be the best for a bag first deployment, but it would keep the lanyard from sliding off the hook, and could (depending on how the elastic is attached) be easily ripped off in a nasty bag first deployment.

I've got more, but this is enough for now

[billbooth 10]

Kelly;

I went through several designs back then...some with hooks, some with pins and loops and Velcro. All of the loop and pin designs came up short. They were a rigging nightmare, as well as not being very reliable. Some of the hook designs would lift the bag off, only to release it prematurely. Others would not release the reserve pilot chute, in certain body positions, in a main total situation. None of them worked well enough to market. The Collins' lanyard was only one of the missing ingredients I needed.

The hook system worked out the best, and although it looks very simple now, it must be designed exactly right. It turns out that the relationship between and end of the hook slot, and the bridle attachment hole, has to be "just so"...as does where the hook is placed on the reserve bridle, and how long the reserve bridle is. It took a lot of testing before I found exactly the right combination. I wanted a device that worked every time, not just some of the time.

As I said above, I like where I've placed the Skyhook in the reserve container. I think it is essential to the success of the whole project.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Not being able to check it on a gear check doesn't seem like a big deal. If it isn't hooked up, the system works normally. If it is hooked up, the reserve comes out of the free-bag faster in a partial mal situation. I don't think it is imortant to be able to check it from the outside of the rig for the same reasons we don't need to check if the reserve closing loop runs through the Cypres cutter from the outside.

I am looking foward to putting my hands on one of these, but from everything I've seen and read about it, it looks great.

Hook

[JCoonce 0]

Quote

It took a lot of testing before I found exactly the right combination. I wanted a device that worked every time, not just some of the time.

Bill, this sounds like an amazing invention - just curious, how many times have you tested the final design to determine that it works "every time?"

Also, do you have an approximate price determined yet (say, to add it to a Vector III without a RSL already installed, not including shipping)?

Thanks,

Janet

[billbooth 10]

Quote

Quote

It took a lot of testing before I found exactly the right combination. I wanted a device that worked every time, not just some of the time.

Bill, this sounds like an amazing invention - just curious, how many times have you tested the final design to determine that it works "every time?"

Also, do you have an approximate price determined yet (say, to add it to a Vector III without a RSL already installed, not including shipping)?

Thanks,

Janet

I couldn't get some older designs to work 2 times in a row. The current TSO requires just 4 RSL breakaways to certify a system...obviously not enough. The Skyhook is a brand new type of device, and therefore has no testing regimen yet established. In its current configuration it has dozens of filmed deployments, and it has worked correctly every time, from every kind of malfunction I have thrown at it. The value of filmed deployments (with 3 cameras, 2 video, 1 still) is that you can see not only that something worked, but exactly how well it worked. For example, look at the pictures on my website.

Truthfully, I have no idea how many times you need to test anything new before you are absolutely sure that it is "perfect". (Actually, I've never made anything perfect before, and I don't think for a minute that the Skyhook is an exception. All I can say is that I think it works pretty damn well, with a very small risk of "side effects".) It actually depends a lot what the device is you're testing. A canopy cannot be tested on the ground. It must be jumped. However, a canopy release, or friction adapter can be thoroughly tested on the ground before it is jumped the first time. The Skyhook falls somewhere between a new canopy and a new canopy release. After years of failures, I knew I had what I wanted the first time I tinkered the current Skyhook design together...the same as I did when I put the first 3 ring release or Sigma drogue release together.

As to price...It will soon be included "FREE" in all new Sigma tandem and student sytems. The will be a charge for it on new solo systems, but, since the Skyhook drastically lessens the chance that you will lose your reserve freebag, I'm having trouble figuring out what to charge for it. If I charge $100 for it, but then don't get to sell you a new freebag and pilot chute for $200, I just shot myself in the foot, didn't I? Retrofit kits will be available for Vector III's without an RSL, but quite honestly I won't know what to charge until I've done some retrofits. Because I knew years ago that I would come out with some sort of Skyhook device, someday, all recent Vector III's are set up for RSL's. So, because you had the foresight to purchase a Vector III, you're already half way there. Vector owners always get "dibs" on safety improvements first, don't they? (Cheap Plug)

[KellyF 16]

Quote

Not being able to check it on a gear check doesn't seem like a big deal. If it isn't hooked up, the system works normally. If it is hooked up, the reserve comes out of the free-bag faster in a partial mal situation. I don't think it is imortant to be able to check it from the outside of the rig for the same reasons we don't need to check if the reserve closing loop runs through the Cypres cutter from the outside.

Like I said in an earlier post, if you are designing a system from the start with specific objectives, why not include the ability to check the system? A Cypres cutter is placed inside the reserve container as part of the design objectives to keep it invisible. In order for the cutter to be visable, it would need to be placed directly below the pin which would create flap closure problems with existing rigs, among other things.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Like I said in an earlier post, if you are designing a system from the start with specific objectives, why not include the ability to check the system? A Cypres cutter is placed inside the reserve container as part of the design objectives to keep it invisible. In order for the cutter to be visable, it would need to be placed directly below the pin which would create flap closure problems with existing rigs, among other things.

I guess Bill could reply better than I could, but having it invisible is nice for the same reasons the Cypres cutter is invisible. It may not be feasable, just like the Cypres cutter, to make the Skyhook visable from the outside of the container. You trust the rigger to put it together correctly and don't worry about it. If the rigger doesn't route the closing loop through the cutter, that is a big deal. The Cypres, if needed won't deploy the reserve. If the Rigger doesn't hook up the Skyhook, no big deal, pull your reserve handle like you are supposed to. There isn't a need to include the Skyhook in the gear preflight anymore than to include the Cypres cutter in the pre-flight check.

There are parts of a reserve that cannot be checked before each jump.

The Cypres was designed from the start with specific objectives, but the cutter isn't visable from the outside.

I don't see a down side to the Skyhook.

Hook

[KellyF 16]

Quote

Quote

As I said above, I like where I've placed the Skyhook in the reserve container. I think it is essential to the success of the whole project.

So would the system not work if the hook was moved a little bit towards the top of the container and a bit off center, so a corner could be slightly exposed?
I think one of the things that I don't agree with is the "if it isn't hooked up, the reserve will work normally anyway". The system is designed to extract the reserve bag quickly, so that even in the event the jumper ends up tumbling, the worst that will happen is he will get his feet cought in the lines (still bad), where as with a standard RSL, it is possible for the jumper to wind up in a horseshoe with his reserve, or wrapped up enough that the canopy can't get out of the bag. So if this could possibly be eliminated by making the system checkable, why not do it?

Quote

Retrofit kits will be available for Vector III's without an RSL, but quite honestly I won't know what to charge until I've done some retrofits. Because I knew years ago that I would come out with some sort of Skyhook device, someday, all recent Vector III's are set up for RSL's. So, because you had the foresight to purchase a Vector III, you're already half way there. Vector owners always get "dibs" on safety improvements first, don't they? (Cheap Plug)

So what you're saying here is that every Vector III is equipped to accept a Collins Lanyard? And if so, why don't they come equipped with one when they are sold with an RSL?
I think that the Skyhook would stand a better chance of getting a reserve out cleanly in the event of a riser break/RSL fire (without the Collins Lanyard) than a standard RSL since it would probably get the canopy out of the bag before the cutaway side of the main made a full revolution, thus reducing the chance of the reserve and bag getting wrapped up.

[billbooth 10]

Kelly;

You can "what if" anything to death. I think we should ban Cypres because it can cause a two canopy out situation, if you pull a little too low...ban BOC hand deploy pilot chutes because you might mis-route the bridle, and besides, you can't even see the handle...ban 3-rings because you might put the loop through the wrong ring... ban all canopies under 150 sq. ft. because people might be tempted to swoop them...ban RSL's because people might depend on them...and while we're at it, lets ban skydiving because dozens of people get killed each year doing it.

This is a dangerous sport. I've spent the last 35 years trying to make it a little safer. I believe the Skyhook, just as it is, furthers that goal.

[riggerrob 643]

Kelly has the right idea for the wrong reason.
Positioning the Skyhook under a clear window might make it easier to inspect, but nobody cares about gear checks anymore.
The real reason for installing the Skyhook under a window is so that people can brag about their shiny new stainless steel gadget.
Gloat! Gloat!
After all, skydiving is really about how many shiny gadgets you can wear.
He! He!
Why do you think so many people bought shiny stainless steel chest rings?
He! He!

[murrays 0]

I am planning on jumping a camera this spring. In my research with regards to rigs, canopies, helmets, and safety I learned that jumping camera is perhaps one place where an RSL/Skyhook may not be advisable due to the need to ensure you are clear of any entanglements before deploying your reserve.
Any thoughts on this Bill?

--
Murray

"No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey

[KellyF 16]

Quote

I think one of the things that I don't agree with is the "if it isn't hooked up, the reserve will work normally anyway". The system is designed to extract the reserve bag quickly, so that even in the event the jumper ends up tumbling, the worst that will happen is he will get his feet cought in the lines (still bad), where as with a standard RSL, it is possible for the jumper to wind up in a horseshoe with his reserve, or wrapped up enough that the canopy can't get out of the bag.

What I'm trying to say here is that I don't think it is likely that the Skyhook will become detached, but I think the jumper is safer if it stays attached than if it doesn't, so it is a good idea to be able to ensure that it is slways connected.

Quote

Kelly;

You can "what if" anything to death. I think we should ban Cypres because it can cause a two canopy out situation, if you pull a little too low...ban BOC hand deploy pilot chutes because you might mis-route the bridle, and besides, you can't even see the handle...ban 3-rings because you might put the loop through the wrong ring... ban all canopies under 150 sq. ft. because people might be tempted to swoop them...ban RSL's because people might depend on them...and while we're at it, lets ban skydiving because dozens of people get killed each year doing it.

I never mentioned the word ban, or anything of the sort.

Quote

This is a dangerous sport. I've spent the last 35 years trying to make it a little safer. I believe the Skyhook, just as it is, furthers that goal.

I agree 100%, but I think it could go a touch further. I think that I have asked a question that didn't cross your mind (not likely), or maybe you didn't find a solution that was simple enough for your liking. That's fine, but "I think it is fine where it is" and "if it comes unhooked, the reserve will work normally anyway", aren't really the best answers (not that I have them all either).

What about the Collins Lanyard? Why is it so important for this system to have it, but not for a "standard" RSL? (assuming regular sport gear)

[billbooth 10]

Quote

I am planning on jumping a camera this spring. In my research with regards to rigs, canopies, helmets, and safety I learned that jumping camera is perhaps one place where an RSL/Skyhook may not be advisable due to the need to ensure you are clear of any entanglements before deploying your reserve.

Any thoughts on this Bill?

I am going to have to defer an answer to this to the cameramen out there. I will say however, that the Skyhook will get your reserve pilot chute away from your head (and cameras) faster and cleaner than deploying after a breakaway without it. For instance, if you breakaway without an RSL, fall till you get stable, and then deploy your reserve, you stand a very good chance of a pilot chute hesitation. (After all, stability is the major cause of pilot chute hesitations.) While your pilot chute is "hesitating", it's actually bouncing and spinning, and throwing its bridle all over the place very near your helmet and camera. The Skyhook will totally prevent pilot chute hesitations, and therefore it might possibly become a device that photographers won't jump without.

[diablopilot 2]

I am going to have to defer an answer to this to the cameramen out there. I will say however, that the Skyhook will get your reserve pilot chute away from your head (and cameras) faster and cleaner than deploying after a breakaway without it. For instance, if you breakaway without an RSL, fall till you get stable, and then deploy your reserve, you stand a very good chance of a pilot chute hesitation. (After all, stability is the major cause of pilot chute hesitations.) While your pilot chute is "hesitating", it's actually bouncing and spinning, and throwing its bridle all over the place very near your helmet and camera. The Skyhook will totally prevent pilot chute hesitations, and therefore it might possibly become a device that photographers won't jump without.
***


Bill,
I agree with you about the Skyhook eliminating Reserve P/C hesitation, and as soon as you have it available I'd gladly jump the Skyhook on every tandem jump I do. How ever the bigger concern to me as a camera flyer when it pertains to RSLs is not so much the possibility of a Reserve P/C and/or bridle snag, but a main canopy malfunction involving the camera helmet. It does me no good to chop a mal, and have the reserve deploy with the main trailing from the helmet. This is why I whenever I jump camera my emergency procedure has to be different from a "normal" procedure. It goes something like this:

1:Identify Problem
2:Make Decision to cutaway
3:If helmet is involved, make decision to cutaway helmet
4:Cutaway helmet first
5:Cutaway Main
6:Deploy Reserve when clear.

This is the reason all camera jumps involve a higher break off/deploment for me.

Just my nickel's worth....

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

[ernokaikkonen 0]

I don't jump camera myself, but with the procedures you described, the helmet is gone by the time you cut away your main(or if it's still entangled, it'll be gone with the main). I don't see how the Skyhook would cause you any problems in that situation?

[murrays 0]

Erno,
My thinking on this scenario is that you may not _know_ you have a main/camera entanglement until you cutaway. The scenario that I am thinking of is if you have severe linetwists that come way down your risers and you can't move your head before chopping. You won't know if a riser is snagged until you cutaway. If it is, you would have to jettison your helmet and then deploy your reserve.
I really like the idea of the Skyhook but I think camera jumping requires some additional consideration due to the above scenario.
Jumping a more docile main that is less likely to spin up might be something to do if you wanted to jump camera and have the Skyhook installed on your container.

--
Murray

"No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey

[hookitt 1]

Very good point. When Jumped a top mount hi 8, one super hard opening, line twisted and wrapped the camera in the slider.... that one was obvious.

I've also cut away with my head pinned down as you mentioned, and didn't even give it a thought whether my camera was involved... very interesting to think about.

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[xsynergist 0]

Quote

Bill
can a Vector 2 modified to accept the skyhook?
Bruno Answer - Yes.

Bill,

I have sent three different emails to RWS over the last month requesting information on this. I have received no replys whatsoever to my emails. What gives? Has anyone here had this upgrade done?

------------------------------------------------
Why get married? Just find a woman you hate and buy her a house.

[koz2000 1]

Why don't you call RWS instead of e-mailing them?
Try talking to Egon in sales or Louis Palomares in rigging.

D

______________________________________________
- Does this small canopy make my balls look big? - J. Hayes -

[billbooth 10]

Sorry about not responding to e-mails at bill@relativeworkshop.com. That address is so polluted that it often gets 350 junk e-mails a day. I have installed a spam program. It helps some, but it also dumps good e-mails on occasion. My dropzone.com address is non-polluted (at least for the moment).

In answer to your question. At the present time, we are not converting old Vector II's to Skyhook. The Skyhook has not been drop tested with Vector IIs, and we do not feel that there is a sufficient market in Vector II conversions the justify the cost. Besides, for the first few years of such a radical new system, I wanted to remove all possible variables, and putting the Skyhook on two different kinds of rigs is a hugh variable.

[bsoder 0]

Bill, any idea what the conversion would cost, at least in theory?

[billbooth 10]

If an existing rig has no provision for an RSL in the first place, (riser ring, velcro bridle path) then the answer would be at least $200.

To install a Skyhook from scratch you have to 1. Disassemble, and sew an RSL attachment ring to the right riser. 2. Sew an RSL bridle path over the right shoulder. 3. Shorten the reserve freebag bridle and sew a Skyhook to it. 4. Remove the single long 3-ring housing, and replace it with a split housing for the Collins' Lanyard. 5. Fabricate and install the Skyhook bridle attachment "pockets" and flap to the top reserve pilot chute kicker flap. 6. Fabricate the combination RSL, Collins' Lanyard, and Skyhook Lanyard. And 7. Put the "whole nine yards" together.

Needless to say, this is much easier to do on a new rig while you are making it. As an option on a new Vector III, we charge $175. This is actually quite a deal when you consider that a lost reserve freebag and pilot chute cost $195 to replace, and the Skyhook greatly lowers the chance you will ever lose your freebag.

But as I said above, all this is theoretical, because we have not tested the Skyhook on Vector II's and therefore do not offer a retrofit.