Basejumper.com - archive

A loop release and emergency pack opening system for base rigs?

As seen in many accidents, pilot chutes and bridles do not always function to open the container and pull out the packjob as they should. The reasons vary. The pilot chute can be lost by a poor throw, it can be stuffed inside it's pouch, it can be trapped by ones boots, bodyparts, equipment or it can entangle with itself or with the bridle as seen in some accidents.
Then sometimes they just refuse to inflate properly. In the worst case the PC or the bridle may be left unconnected by poor rigging.

I have been playing with a thought about an loop release system, that would release the pin tension and consequently give the deployment system more chances to open the packjob even with a low PC pull force. The same system would also open the packjob in a "no PC situation".

The system would consist of a soft/hard handle in a main lift web as in a skydiving harness, one/two "yellow" or steel cables leading to the underside of
the loop holding flaps (top, bottom or both) routed inside hard housings and cloth shells and two ended or circular loops for the pack closing pins. That way the closing loops could be released from underside, regardles of the situation with the pins on the bridle in a case of an emergency (PC in tow and so on). When pulled, the pin tension would relieve thus giving the PC more chances to do it's job, and also to open the whole packjob for direct airflow to assist even a partial deployment during a "no PC malfunction".

This system could also incorporated with a compressed spring with a kicker plate inside the backpad that would throw the packjob out to airstream and open the container even more.

Of course this kind of a system adds to the system complexity, but it might also be worth it if engineered properly. I myself do not have skills for that. I may have had too much time or too few jumps during few months to think things like this, but I would still be
pleased to hear any input you may have in mind :)

Vesa

I did send a mail to BR, CR and Vertigo last year about the same issue! I know Tod from BR have worked on the system, and also Marty did look at it to! I have no information how far they have come to develop a system like that. Would like to hear an update how close they are to add it like an option!

I did also ask for a intergreated back protection plate, like you have in a extreme ski/snowboard sack. Anyone else who think this would be an good idea?

I've heard that Marty is working on that kind of system. I'm not sure what stage it's in, though.

i deafently would considder a harness whith Protection plate if such would be availble.. thats for sure

I found this Loop release system interesting for wing suit flyers! Wing suits have increased the possibility for a pilot chute delay, and pilot chute error! And I did really hope there where some more jumpers, who would like to put their thoughts in to this thread!

Flying a wingsuit at 25m vertical speed sec, pull your pilot chute at 150m, after one sec you should know if something is happening on your back, if not you have time to pull the handle, and open the container with your loop release system. The airflow and shaking from side to side will throw your pack job out, and hopefully open before impact. If you just had a pilot chute delay, the movement of going for the handle, would help the pilot chute in to the air, and pull the packjob out. If you have a pilot chute error, it would maybe save your life having a loop release system.

When it comes to a back protection plate for saving your back, it should not be to much work for the designers, to implant one in the back of the rig. The protection plates is already out in the marked, intergreated in the extreme ski/paraglider sacks. Some few thougts about the design, should be long enough to protect the lower part of back, attached to the leg straps, and of course flexibility for full movement! I am going to buy myself a safety jacket, but that is something I do not will bring along for my big wall long hikes.

Would like to hear some thoughts from other jumpers, maybe the manufacturers would listening, put some efforts in to it, and make some new safety options for us.

Any news around the issue? Im tired of none of the producers seems to adress the problems about the wingsuit, and pilot chute being the weekest point!

There is only we as consumers of their products who have to tell them "this is what we want"!

>>Im tired of none of the producers seems to adress the problems about the wingsuit,<<

434,

Easy there big fellow . . .

I'm all for anything that will save a life, but you have to be damn sure a "great idea" is truly a life saver and not a hidden life taker. I've known some "producers" like Todd for 23 years and Marty almost as long and both are at the "Wizard" level when it comes to BASE gear innovation.

And sometimes it's more important what you don't do than the other way around. In working for Todd over the years I've seen a lot of "bright" boys come through the door just busting with a new idea, something they're absolutely convinced will be the next big thing in BASE gear. Todd will always sit and listen quietly and when they are done he'll whip out a yellow pad and pencil and draw out 17-ways why it won't work. And these "geniuses" always go out the door mumbling, "Boy, I never thought of that, or this, or that other thing."

In the 1980s when Todd first started building BASE rigs I could already see the potential in him. He'd by now given us his first prototypes to jump and every time we returned from a successful downtown BASE mission while we were drinking, partying, and whooping it up, Todd was already back in his loft thinking, improving, cutting, and stitching. If you disregard the major transformation of going from Velcro closed to pin closed BASE rigs it's easy to say not say not much has changed in rig design since that time and you'd be dead wrong. There've been hundreds of changes and refinements not readily seen by our layman's eyes. And Todd, and a few others like him, have labored hard to make sure these were true refinements and not just gimmicks that may or may not work out in the long run.

Now let's talk responsibility. If you semi-know what you're doing and sit down to design a new skydiving rig there's a certain comfort level in knowing your clients will have two shots at that mother. And even if there is some hidden design flaw you missed, with two parachutes, there's a good chance one or the other will still work. Sit down to design a new BASE rig, or make even a minor change to an existing one, and you don't have that luxury. And it not only has to work every time, it has to work for the BASE jumper who's on top of his game and pushing things to the limit, and it also has to work for the BASE jumper who's knees are knocking so bad he can't, if asked, even come up with his own name. Designing something to be used by experts through goofballs isn't as easy as it sounds.

These days we throw the phrase "BASE gear manufacturer" around pretty freely. I won't name names (you know who you are) but I see three tiers or levels. There are the ones who started basically from scratch when no one was building BASE gear. There are the ones who learned from the ones who started from scratch before branching out on their own. And there are the ones who just glommed on to the back of a train that was already moving.

I'll never totally discount the possibility the "next big thing" could come from a third tier manufacturer, and I know, if you're a new BASE jumper it's comforting to buy your first BASE rig from your friend Joe down the street just because you know him. But someone who has a loft and builds and sells a couple dozen BASE rigs isn’t really a BASE gear manufacturer in the major sense of the phrase. And I can't help but wonder that just maybe the current issues with wingsuits and pilot chutes might stem from exactly that. Again, it's not enough to figure out how something works, its way more important to figure out how something won't work.

Will we ever lick the wingsuit/PC problem? I'm pretty sure we will eventually. But you also have to steel yourself to the fact that we may have hit the wall of current technology and ultra low wingsuit deployments just aren't practical at the moment. So whose fault is that? The manufacturers or the jumpers? The OP is making it sound like it's the manufactures fault and that's why I wrote all this.

Anyway, since I've moved on from my wingsuit/ripcord/spring-loaded-PC idea here's another. Back in the days when skydiving gear manufactures where trying hard to differentiate themselves from each other Jump Shack was by far one of the biggest innovators. They sometimes missed the mark by producing something definitely different but it could always be argued was it really better. A case in point was the Pop-top reserve deployment system. They didn’t invent that, but they popularized it. So while everybody else was producing the same old "flapped up trap the pilot chute in the container" rig Jump Shack really had an alternative. And the arguments about it continue to this very day. But they also had another thing most either don't know about or have forgotten about.

I ordered a new Jump Shack Racer in about 1983 and when it came I looked at where the pilot chute was stowed and went, "WTF is that?" This was time in skydiving long before BOCs and when we skydivers were still looking for the best place for a PC pouch. The prevailing location was on the front or back of the leg strap. But a few rigs had them in odd places like between the rig and your back pad. But here was a pouch I'd certainly seen before. It was mounted on the diagonal strap between the top of the leg junction and the back pack. And the best way to describe it is to just call it a "Kleenex Tissue Box." Yes, just like the one sitting in your bathroom.

It wasn't that big of course, but it was slightly less than square, maybe 5 inches long and about 2 or 3 inches deep. And it had an elastic band mouth that closed over the PC with just the handle on the outside. It was an improvement over leg mounts as you couldn't twist it, you weren’t sitting on it in the airplane, and the elastic closure kept you from burying the handle. But, although I used it for years, it didn’t catch on because leg mounted pilot chutes were "cool" and this wasn't. Go figure?

But when someone mentioned jumpers today are more used to pulling at a right angle rather than up and away for a leg mount it made me think of these Kleenex Boxes again. I don't know if the location would work with wingsuits, but it is very secure and the pull motion is exactly the same as a BOC.

I don't have any great photos of these boxes, but here are two that will give you an idea. The first just shows the general location on my rig, and the second is my then girlfriend's box. And yes we were using those stupid suspension line bridles which turned out to be death because they tangled so easily. Those lasted about a year . . .

NickD

Maybe a post like this is important so more jumpers can shear they ideas! And maybe some producers will put some more effort in the issue if enough jumpers address the problems, and not just let it be because it is just like that! Most of the technology we use in the baserigs have been known trough the skydiving environment for a decade and so, before it was put together in a base rig! We do not have any new options for a long time! Just material, and designs! Pilot chute is still the weakest link, and from what you are telling me we just have to accept that!?

I know most of the gear producers is working hard on many safety issues, and I also know the pilot chute issue can be solved! Maybe not tomorrow, but soon! What I am a bit concerned about, is when I ordered a new rig back in 2003 with a option I called a loop release, I was delivered one with out! I know he worked with it, and did not solve it at the moment, then got to busy with a big demo which did take all his time! I also contacted two other producers who told me to be patient, and not talk so much about it, since they clearly was close to solve the issue! After soon 5 years and still no solution, I am a bit concerned! So before you call anyone a hotshot who know everything, you should look back and see where we where before, and where we stand today! Still the pilot chute is the weakest point! Except from the pilot himself!

"Still the pilot chute is the weakest point! Except from the pilot himself!"

thats the point....if we do impropper packing like putting the wingsiutsrivel under the flaps of the container and other missrouting the bridle, is it a good idea to build some "emergency system" to override a misstake that never should happend because you use your brain and double check everything....?

looks to me like skydivers that only jump with a cypres because somtimes they forget to pull???

improvement of the gear and seaching for new saftey solutions is never wrong...but in the beginning should stay edjucation and knowledege....

maybe i am wrong, but the most fatalitys with problems with the pilotchute had been prevented if the material or packing would be the right one...

We do have some few incidents the last years with pilotchute knots! I have seen them in skydiving for so many years, and now due to more jumping, we also see them more often in BASE! Some of them have been rescued because they pulled high enough, and some did not make it even they did pull high! High speed flying + burble + bridle slak + pilotchute = trouble!

Unless you never make mistakes, YES it's a good idea to have a backup. We all make mistakes. There are TONS of experienced jumpers out there who have forgotten to remove a packing clamp, failed to remove a rubber band, misrigged their pilot chute, failed to perform basic parachute maintenance, had poor body position on opening, etc.

I skydive with a Cypres because I might be knocked unconscious, have an arm impediment, or lose track of altitude due to malfunctioning altimeters (to name a few).

While we must insure that the introduction of a "backup" doesn't cause more problems, I welcome any new ideas that'll serve as Plan B in the event of a PC malfunction.

to make such back up system takes about 1 hour of work. Question is how much the pandora box will be opened heaving a new handle on the base rig!? One simple sample! Jumper might feel safer or even invincible and therefore start pulling lower... I thought about such system but i am stil against it than for it.

Back protection incorporated on base rig is mission impossible cause the ergonomy and functionality does not give u any room for proper incorporation of protection.

Have you been skiing Robi? It just take a thin elastic plastic plate to protect your back a bit better in the rocks if you should land such a place! Does not take any waight or pack volume! We are not talking about a full armor suit!

I either see a reason to pull just a bit higher when you have the handle, and not lower! Then the function of the handle is useless! I know Lucas would had a better chance if he had a container opener! He pulled high, and worked with it all the way down!

"You know what you ought to do....."

The seven words every business owner LOVES to hear.


You know what YOU ought to do if you don't like what the market is willing to offer?

Start building BASE gear.

Just another thought... I think the day Velcro is completely removed from any BASE gear is long overdue.

Velcro seems to be an easy choice where a relatively small and consistent force is required. It does the job when pulled perpendicularly and from one end. But take two stripes of Velcro and ball them up... you'll be surprised at the force it needs to pull it apart. This is because of the same principle as that of the 3-ring system: some leverage times itself several times gives an enormous increase of force.

If rare earth magnets are used in leg mounted pouch (or BOC) in one of the sides, it can hold PC securely during normal movements yet be ripped apart if larger force is applied in emergency. The excess bridle can be held with smaller magnets as well. Magnets do not have the self-leverage effect that shriveled Velcro does.

Velcro kills either way - by bunching up and making a hard pull or PC in tow (already 3-4 deaths in the past year alone) or by releasing prematurely (a few BASE deaths in the past and the recent skyBASE fatality in Russia where an experienced BASE jumper got killed while jumping a base rig out of an airplane - his Velcro rig opened into a horseshoe, he managed to get the PC out, but it inflated into the slider which went up the lines and completely collapsed the canopy...

Death to Velcro, not the jumpers!

>>his Velcro rig opened into a horseshoe, he managed to get the PC out, but it inflated into the slider which went up the lines and completely collapsed the canopy...<<

Wow, that's a new one, just wow . . . !!!

NickD

I also see that people might opt for pulling a bit higher with emergency handle for two reasons. The first is the knowing that there is a secondary option is something goes wrong with the pc, and one needs to have some time to use it, the second is that people would have to train themselves the procedure to locate and pull the handle after realizing there's something wrong with the deployment system. This adds complexity to the possible post throwing procedures and would maybe put people save some time for it.

In PC knot and hard pull (or no handle) situations there really is not too much advantage if there is just a little more altitude as the situation does not tend to clear itself, but needs a bunch of luck and the ability try untill the end. Wit the emergency system I would hope people to give themselves some more time AND a proper system to deal with the situation (replacing luck).

I would again like someone to explain why it couldn't be constructed, in spite of people just saying "don't do it, it adds complexity". What then does tailgate, multi, wlo, base pouch and so on do?

Vesa

"While we must insure that the introduction of a "backup" doesn't cause more problems, I welcome any new ideas that'll serve as Plan B in the event of a PC malfunction."

i totally agree,...but even AADs,....RSL,...ect killed people in the past,....

i am only concerned about the new posibilitys of failure of a more "complicated" system that shloud make everything safer...

i dont say its useless to invent new stuff that makes everything safer....

take a close look on all the incidents with pilotchutes,...evertime you find mistakes that might be prevented...pullbehavior, size,.packing ect...
nobodys perfekt,..right,....
but in BASE you still die,...even when you are perfekt

i look to the future if some manufactor find a bombproof system,....will be interesting....

let's try to be creative : - )

a) PC is not pulling enough to clear the bridle and open the container (PC in tow, PC or bridle entangled somewhere on container or on WS)

-> the emergency system might work fine with a PC pulling not enough

-> might work with a bridle, shrivel flap, or PC lightly snug somewhere or migh also make a big mess with lines anywhere (still better than nothing over your head, though) ..you need some luck here

-> will probably not help you in case of misrouted bridle (like through a leg strap) ..you need more than luck here


option : [disconnecting bridle + PC from the canopy at the same time then manually throw everything you can all around]


b) human error : jumper use the emergency container opening system without throwing the PC (yeah, i know "why would you do that?")

-> huge risk of horseshoe plus some funky shit over your head ...again, it relies on pure luck

option : [BOC pouch releasing system linked to the emergency handle]


I guess the time it will take to the canopy to extract by itself from the container will not be very predictable. So why not instead of that, make a system with an emergency big PC on the other side of your container which disconnect the harness from the container and extract the canopy while using the container as a big pod, opening it on bridle stretch?


huh...

the sorcerer works fine also. given you are in a situation that allow you to benefit from its advantages

for now and for the jumps i'm used to do, i'll definitely stick to the minimalistic clean and slimple system i have

but i'm sure that improvement are still going to be introduced in base gear. as i'm also sure that any system has and will always have the possibility to be in an improper situation preventing it to work properly or at all



...or maybe anti-gravity shoes?

stay safe, pull high..

did someone say anti-gravity shoeS?

http://gozerog.com/...lbum=122&pos=114

photo by me, orgaznized by me... full zero.
-b

seriously though... i needs a jesus string.

I have to agree, I thought we would have a solution to this problem by now. Or at least the beginning of a solution.

As much as I love wingsuit BASE jumping I stopped doing it several years ago. After 500 wingsuit jumps (50 BASE) and 200 jumps using the BASE pouch I decided that current technology is not safe enough for me. I never felt I had good enough control of the PC at deployment, there was always a feeling of throw-and-hope-for-the-best. One flight ended up with a PC knot, lucky enough it was a skydive.

There will be solutions in the future. Maybe the solution is a cutter to open the container, or a Sourcerer type of rigg, or something else. If the solution means you have to pull a little higher to give you more time to react, then you pull higher. Or not. It's your choice. 15 years ago the Cypres was introduced in skydiving. To jump it "safely" it meant some of us had to pull a little higher. It was a choice. If you thought the idea of having an AAD was more important than doing low pulls, you choose the Cypres and adjusted the pull height.

People have ideas, let's share these ideas. If a rigger can find 17 flaws in an idea, it can still be the beginning of something important. Let's invent something amazing

Micke N
Team Bautasten of Sweden

What about a tandem style deployment, You go hand-held, zero delay on pitching the P/C. It floats behind you in drouge fassion, you get low, you pull the drouge release, out come the pins and your canopy. It would have to be quicker than going from the BOC. I know you wouldn't be able to WS it, but Im sure there are jumps and/or objects where it could be of some sorts usefull.

huh?

And it would totally destroys your tracking, because of the additional drag. Most jumps need a consequent object separation before opening...

Bingo, that's right along the lines of a few concepts I've been thinking of. The idea is to make sure the pouch contains the PC in all normal movements and flight modes, but will always break open after a given amount of pull force is applied.

The only problem I can think of is that stiff, hard magnets (especially in the bridle as you suggested) would be likely to increase the chance of entanglement.

Designed properly, hard pulls could be completely removed from the equation. The pouch could still be mounted on the leg, so you still get the benefit of an easier-to-find handle (over a standard BOC).

 
Magnet-nice in theory -nightmare in reality!!


Hard pull and Weak pull - mostly happens after long flights due the tired arm/hand. Simply there is no strength left for the pull....or when it is performed in panic or when it is performed without practice on the ground before..., Such pull usually ending in bad body position, which than leads in to off heading, line twists, etc...

Instead of seeking for solution in the way to complicate the equipment, better is to pull higher and w feeling...
Practice the pull million times!
People w 1000+ jumps doing this many times before the jump ( right Douggs :o)) )

Before jump, plan everything, including the pull altitude. Simple!!


WS base looks easy, as well as BASE jumping, however certain risk is always there and will be there for ever.
...and yes-keep the horizontal speed while pulling.
It helps, believe me !!!Smile

Bump it up again! Will not let go of this topic yet! There have to be someone out there who is cabable to make any ideas about a emergency pack opener? Wing suits will fly faster the next years, and we might need to use smaller pilotchutes!?

Is different bridle type anything we should think of instead of a pack opener?

 
I've put a lot of jumps on CRW rigs with cord bridals, various types, and I think they tangle more offten then type four tape. Part of that may be that tape is so obveous that it basicly forces you to untwist it every time. I'd tend to stick to tape.
Air speed is lower then terminal it may just be that we need to jump slightly larger PC's to get a positive extraction.

This is also one of the best arguments I've seen for some of the new longer rigs. A rig that is long enough could eliminate the need for specal routeing and pouches. That alone removes several fail points. A long rig built into the suit could also simplify routing of the bridal.
Another thought I've played with is going back to a bottom loaded PC. It's some thing a few CRW guys played with. The handle is simply located on the bottom at the bridal attachment. We were pulling it out and letting it inflate like a pull out trying to get positive extraction on our pins with really short CRW bridals. Even if you just throw it my thought is that if the bridal did intangle with the handle you would still have an open PC.

Lee