Basejumper.com - archive

To attach our canopies to our containers we have the option of three-rings, L-bars and sewing them on.

Why haven't we come up with a system that provides something in between L-bars and three-rings? Something that requires less frequent inspection than three-rings, but would still allow for fairly quick releases.

I'm thinking something climbing-karabiner like, releasable without tools. Somebody else pointed me to the capewell system, but I'm not entirely sure how it works. I'll have to look into that.

Thanks,

Jaap Suter

 

I can think of three.

In a sport as young as base I don't think we can take our past safety record as any sort of garantuee for the future. Especially not considering the rate our sport is growing at and the alleged mentality of the new generation.

Nick once pointed out in a discussion about L-bars that they allow us to stay ahead of death instead of chasing after it.

If we can invent something that reduces the number of things to worry about on a base-jump, that can only be a good thing, right?

There have been numerous occasions in skydiving where three rings have failed. It is a matter of time before base jumping becomes statistically large enough for such an incident to happen as well.

Don't forget that base canopies are packed and used in environments that tend to be harsh on materials. I always dress up my riser-covers before dragging my container towards the canopy to stow the lines. Not everybody does this, and this can easily fray your three-ring loop.

I have two containers with three-rings, and one with permanent risers. I got that last rig without rings because I couldn't think of a really good reason to have them on there, and also because it is simpler. When I went to the bridge in Colorado last year, I chose to use one of my rigs with rings, because the water below was moving fast enough that cutting away seemed a useful option.

So I guess what I'm wondering is this... How often do you need to cut away a canopy for maintenance and such? Part of my decision going with permanent risers is that I do this infrequently.

If you need to cut away, for example landing in fast-moving water, then you need three-rings, or some similar quick-release system. Off-hand, I think Capewells would be more prone to accidental release in the BASE environment, where you might bump against the steel getting to an exit point.

I'm not sure something like a karabiner would be easy enough to operate in a high-stress situation. Also, it would be difficult to remove risers from a karabiner if they were loaded, as I imagine they would be in the fast-moving water scenario. There is quick-eject hardware that might fit the bill, but it's bulky and not as simple as the three-ring system.

Michael

Hey Tom, Do you have any information on the causes of the 3 ? ie. old, worn, ring failure, loop failure or anything i did not mention?

Thanks chris

In one case, it was concluded that a camera mount had snagged the yellow cable and yanked it out of the 3 ring assembly, effectively cutting it away.

In the other two, which happened back to back on the same rig (even though it was inspected on re-assembly by a manufacturer who happened to be on site) no cause was found. That rig was later inspected by just about everybody, including the original manufacturer, without anything really turning up.

I'm guessing that was the last time that rig was jumped? Was the three-ring setup inspected by multiple persons before the second time, reducing the chances of misrigging? Does this person still jump three-rings?

Did any of these three incidents lead to injuries?

seeing as a BASE canopy is not normally cutaway under tension, then why is not a BASE capewell system designed?

Just me being curious............

where these incidents or something that happened on the ground?/

Just currious..

Thanks chris

surely something that happened on the ground is not somthing to worry about???

The original manufacturer removed the 3 ring system and replaced it with a fixed riser setup.

I am uncertain. But I do know that I have 100% confidence in the skills and knowledge of the person who inspected it prior to the second jump.


I don't know. I saw the rig in question up for sale a while back. I've got no idea if that original owner jumps 3 rings, or even jumps at all, anymore.

Neither of the two back to back did. They were here, and resulted in medium speed water landings without injury.

The camera-snag release was at a terminal wall, and resulted in the level of injury you'd expect (fairly serious). That jumper has since returned to jumping (the incident was some time ago).

All three incidents occured during deployment.

I've only ever done an "emergency" cutaway on my BASE rig while it was under tension. Twice in trees (I was hanging from the harness), and once in swift water. Especially in the water situation, I was very pleased to have the ability to cut away quickly and easily. In one of the tree cut-aways I was facing lights and sirens, so I was pretty happy to be able to get out of the tree, but it wasn't life threatening.

Perhaps because they are not as low-profile as three-rings, so in addition to aesthetic issues they would be more prone to getting knocked by steel, rocks, etc. on the way to the exit point. I've never actually used Capewells, but my impression is that if the cover got knocked loose, you would be one step closer to an accidental release.

But also I'm curious about your reasoning... I would have thought that the only time a BASE canopy needs to be cut away is when it is under tension, e.g. pulling the jumper downstream in rapids. Otherwise, for maintenance and such, you could just undo the links. What did you have in mind?

Michael

I heard about one in France resulting in broken leg. Is it this camera one you are talking about?

No. That would be a fourth one. The one I was talking about was in Italy.

Think less. Jump more.

I don't know if this system is the same I've seen and jumped on my first jumps in Italy with a round canopy (military rig - CMP-55 / MT10), but during ground training I saw 2 times a riser release due to a bad closing sequence on a very similar system.
The 2nd plate which cover the 1st closing hook can easily hide a bad lock, giving you a bad day...
I don't like it at all for BASE...
If you are concerned about a riser release, go for integrity risers...

I am somewhat familiar with Capewell connectors due to my job. I have had to release them before, but I've never had to cutaway a 3-ring setup. I think Capewells are probably pretty reliable based on their military record (just don't buy from the lowest bidder! ) but I would rather have a good 3-ring setup anyday.

A couple reasons I like 3-rings
-Familiarity (and lots of data on their use)
-Less painful if you get whipped in the head
-Easier to inspect

Dislike Capewells:
-I don't see how they're any less immune to rigging errors
-Extra bulk, & some pointy components
-Once it is set there are parts you can't examine
-It is possible (though unlikely) to set it wrong without getting an obvious visual clue.

One nice thing about capewells, you can selectively cut away one side or another, which I suppose could be handy under certain circumstances.

Tom wrote:

If one wants to avoid the possibility of yanking out the yellow cable with a camera, your fingers or whatever during deployment, my rigger has come up with a nice and simple solution.
He builds a little system called SuperLock where you simply thread another yellow cable from the other direction through the loop for the three-ring-system and then stow it in the riser where the cut-away-cable comes from. So, in case you yank out the cut-away-cable, there is still the cable from the SuperLock that holds the loop.

Look here: http://www.base-jump.de/47782.html
(Unfortunately only in German, you can see the system in the third picture.)

I do not know whether someone else already came up with this idea before, but it gives me peace of mind against an accidental release. And I thoroughly inspect my three-ring-system each time packing, so for me in sum the advantages of a three-ring-system are bigger than the possible risks. It seems to me extremely reliable when properly maintained. But I do not have any real statistics, so it is too bad that the cause of two failures (which Tom mentioned) is unknown.

Jaap wrote:

This is a very good point, Jaap, and worth a reminder. But in addtion to being nice with your three-ring-system to me it seems this is a very good reason why to have inverted risers where the loop is much better protected from abuse. You have to be more disciplined for checking because it is somewhat harder to look at. But maybe I am overlooking some inherent problem of inverted risers? (The higher cut-away-forces of inverted against conventional risers do not count, imho.)

One more happened just two weeks ago in Switzerland. The jumper luckily survived with quite minor injuries compared to what happened (healing well and walking). The 3-ring loop failed in a hard opening, maybe also combined with other circumstances. So it makes five...

I wonder why the loop is not made from more durable material than the normal loop line. As in base, the main goal is not to detach the canopy in air during a malfunction, but allow release in water or treelanding. So, more compromise towards durability in the expense of flexibility could be better choise.

Vesa

I frequently check the length of my yellow cutaway cable at the risers before exit. Perhaps the cutway cable length should be made longer with a longer pouch on the riser. Further, perhaps the cable housing should be more hidden to reduce the chance of hangups on a helmet cam. Integrity risers are nice too regarding wear, since the white (retaining) loop for the three ring system is not exposed hile "dragging" the risers/container during the line stowing.

That looks like a neat simple system.
The only problem I see is in the case of a water landing where you have to cut-away ASAP before drawing and now you have to yank on three release systems instead of just one.

I think the single most important factor is the cable length. Please make sure you have at least 5" of slack.

I would like to know the actual reasons for the failure of the 3-ring systems. Where (in the system) did it actually happen? What did brake?

In one case where no apparent damage was seen I could speculate that the cause was the length of the cable/s.

Presumably, if you were jumping over water, you could remove thos extra handles/cables before the jump.

Where did the loop fail? A the fold, or at the base where it inserts into the riser?

Michael

I don't think the housing is the problem here. If you pull on the housing, it should not apply an extracting force to the yellow cable. It should just tug on the white loop. The exposed section of yellow cable on the far side of the loop is a problem, though. Perhaps this could be hidden better.

Michael

yes, i see what you are saying. i just personally wish the exposure was a little more limited, but i don't how that could be done yet.

This thread almost makes me want to go put my sliders back on and tie them down instead of taking them off.

A slider is what saved The Pick. He snapped a mini-riser (Type-17) and the broken riser caught in the slider. Instead of going in with nothing he spiraled in and survived.

It's hard to imagine BASE jumpers, even the newest ones, getting to a point where improperly set up three ring systems becomes a major sport-wide problem, but I also never thought our skydiving brothers could get as gear complacent as they've become . . . so there may be something to it.

If your rings are making you paranoid, sure you can foul them so they won't release, but does anyone remember "cross connectors?" These would still allow you to release the canopy in the water, in a tree, or LOL, when a security guard has you by the pilot chute . . .

NickD
BASE 194

What do you guys think about just passing a zip tie through the white loop and wrapping it around the riser?

That should keep the riser from releasing. If you're doing a jump where you want the release feature, then clip the zip tie off before the jump.

In all other jumps, the zip tie should prevent the risers from releasing even if the cutaway is pulled.

When KMonster was thinking about removing her slider completely she was asking about the pros and cons of each method. I jump with my slider on, one big reason is that I like the cross-connector ability. I'd rather spin in and get banged up than just streamer in and have no chance.

She decided to leave the slider on and attach it to the front risers.

Except if the white loop breaks.

Michael

I wonder if the zip tie might have a sharpish edge?

I wonder about that too.

How about a zip tie through the little ring, as far up as it would go to help with leverage, instead of through the white loop?

Edit to add - This way if the white loop breaks OR the yellow cable gets pulled the 3-ring still wouldn't release.

could you use slinks instesd of s zip tie?

I really don't see any reason why a slink through the small 3-ring wouldn't work. As long as the white loop never fails and the cutaway is never pulled, the slink would be totally transparent as far as the system goes.

Only when the cable is pulled or the wite loop breaks would the slink ever get loaded.

I'm going to make some and put them on my rig.

Just a thought, has anyone here ever taken their hook knife to a set of risers? I wonder how difficult it would be to just lop off the risers if you needed to get away from the law. I imagine my "Jack the Ripper" would make short work of a set of risers.

If you're using slinks couldn't you just pull the cutaway cable and then hack away at the slink? Wouldn't that be easier than hacking through a riser? I don't know I never seen a slink in real life and I'm not exactly sure what they're made of. Yes I've been out of skydiving for that long!

I think if you need to get away from the cops, it doesn't really matter what you cut. If you manage to get away, the canopy is history.

It's not like you're going to walk ino the PD and say, "Hey, I'm the guy who ran faster than you last night... you happen to see my parachute kicking around here?"

I figure the fastest thing to do would be to grab the risers and slice 'em. Trying to find a little spectra loop around your riser, in the dark, is going to cost you time you don't have.

I bought a Rescue Hook for a hook knife, they are made for cutting off seatbelts I imagine a type 17 riser would be like butter.
It would probably be a good thing to have if you needed to get a rig off an injured jumper as well.
http://www.clavey.com/se_benchmade_hook.html
~J

Any hookknife that is actually worth using will slice through a loaded set of risers like it goes through butter. I was actually taught this was one of the main risks when using a hookknife. Make sure you cut only the offending line. Stay away (above) from the risers, and preferably from the other lines as well.

If you can't cut your risers with your hookknife, throw it away.

Cheers,

Jaap Suter

Disclaimer: I will not buy new risers for the person who, after reading this post, cuts them to tests his hookknife.

No, it would probably be better to ask your rigger for a length of type 8 you can test it on. Fold the webbing so it's double thickness like a riser pair, then have at it.

Note: It's probably best to replace the blades on your hook knife after you've tested enough to be satisfied. I know if I need to whip out my hook knife, I want some nice shiny, webbing/line-hungry new blades on there.

L -Bars - someone has died using them. Bad in strong winds and in flowing water. or on quick getaways. Ditto for fully sewn in risers.

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU NEED TO CUT AWAY QUICKLY. If you use any of the systems above, make sure you have a quality knife handy.

Capewells - they are outdated for a reason. Check out Poynter's manual to see how they work. You basically have to manually unclip them. They are bulkier too.

3 - Rings. Best system available at this time IMHO. It takes stuff all time to do an inspection. i.e. minutes at most. Every jumper has this time once a month or so. If you don't have this time, you are either an extremely busy executive, a pepsi max dude with a 3 second attention span, don't give a shit. or you thought that the 3 ring inspection takes longer than it should. The inspection is worht doing. Especially for faster opening canopies (BASE) and if you do water jumps.

Future designs. Other designs already exist. There are a few patents out. Only problem is lack of marketing and not a lot of beneficial differentiation from the established 3 ring system.

Hi Treejumps

The 3 ring system also requires a rotation / twist / bend & stretch inspection also. See your rigger for details. Its easy. Not just the visual inspection. You are referring to checking for configuration when referring to just a visual inspection.

There can be tension in high water flows.

Think less. Maybe not jump anymore!!!!



Think more. Maybe jump less.

Hi Jaap

Its cool to see people doing a lot of thinking & discussing.

There seems to be a lot of discussion / debate / etc about various gear issues and configurations.

One thing that people have to remember is this: NO MATTER WHAT BANDAID/OTHER SOLUTION YOU COME UP WITH TO RESOLVE PERCEIVED OR REAL PROBLEMS WITH EQUIPMENT, YOU STILL HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF HUMAN ERROR ENTERING INTO THE EQUATION. Human error is one of the main (if not the main) root causes in all accidents.

Increasing the complexity of a system in order to reduce the likelihood of one problem occuring is very likely to lead to other problems occuring. By definition, increasing complexity means a system is harder to manage if a situation deviates from the expected. People are more likely to react incorrectly in the face of increased complexity and higher stress.

The second thing that needs to be considered with ANY perceived or real problem is the root cause. If there have been 1000 riser releases in skydiving using 3 rings, does that mean they are dangerous? You have to look at the root cause of each situation or the collective situation if someone has done all the number crunching already. If for example, you find that all the riser releases occured on a certain type of gear whilst inexperienced jumpers were performing a certain maneouvre, then you fix that scenario. The problem is then minimised.

Most three ring releases occur because:

- cable is too short.
- cable is too short.
- loop is far too large.
- loop is incorrect material, improperly installed, or excessively worn. Not many people replace this loop yet it does wear out.
- cutaway handle is not firmly attached to its "mounting position" - i.e. worn velcro, etc.
- the cutaway handle it to "catchy". I recommend the soft loop behind the lift web for BASE gear or a lower profile handle.
- the cable is far too exposed to catch points, especially near the cutaway handle or the loop.
- design issues - one that comes to mind is routing. If the cable is routed in a complex fashion around the harness/container and the path is not firm (i.e. the cable can be tensioned/loosened by the parachutist moving in the harness), there is a chance that the cable can be pulled / cutaway. Check the worst case cable length by packing the gear and then pulling and twisting it to see where the end of the cable ends up.
- etc.

I check my 3 rings on every jump (30 secs), and I do the flex tests frequently.

 

A jumper has successfully used "hey, my parachute was stolen from the dropzone yesterday...oh my gosh, they used it in a BASE jump?!" to get confiscated gear back.

Yeah, I was thinking the hook knife wouldn't cut through the risers in one cut.

Hi Tree,

Well, I don't agree that a 3-ring system is bombproof. It is a good system, but can fail (usually due to improper rigging or wear/age).

The main thing on your post I want to point out is, that the closing loop has a much lower strength than 550 pounds. The loop is made of Type III SLEEVEING, not the whole cord with the inner strands. it is only the whole cord intact (not stripped of the inner strands) that is rated at 550 pounds. I don't remember the strength of the sleeve, but it is considerably less. It is somewhat subject to wear, and is the same thing as your pin closing loops are made of (usually). For BASE only (not skydiving) a more durable alternative MAY be the smallest braided line one could find - much stronger and wears better, though may require manual pulling and tugging to get a release (hence, NOT suitable for skydiving, but more "releaseable" than L bars for BASE).

Another idea if one wanted to turn his 3 rings into a non releaseable system, is to just put the smallest french link through the loop. In emergency, the loop could be cut (oops, there goes another $80).

If one wished a different set of hardware, then Capewell releases are quite sturdy, and having several break aways with them, I can say they work well when understood, properly assembled, and maintained/inspected -- like any other system. Another system one could possibly use for custom design harnesses is Koch releases or the Rocket Jet releases that were on Pioneer "piggyback" containers featuring "switchable" reserves (switchable from piggyback to chest mounts). I don't know if any real gain would be made using these other releases, but sure would get ya some conversation!!

Since this isn't face to face, you may not be able to tell it is intended to be non-confrontational, so I add this disclaimer to that effect!

later,
t

I jumped with Capewells too and the problem I see with them in the BASE environment is, even when closed, they aren't that snag proof. I'm thinking of the bridle catch during an over-rotated aerial or just plain being unstable. They are also so beefy a bad landing, or hitting something can have the Capewell break your collar bone.

The later versions of the Capewell, like the Velcro closed types, aren't secure enough for BASE. (Hell, they weren't really secure enough for skydiving). The Rocket Releases were intended for non-emergency use and can be hard to operate in a hurry or if you are hurt.

I think the only time a quick release is needed is for intentional water landings, or for when there is a chance you "might" land in water. Other than that if the Three Ring scares you go with L-bars. Ditching your gear in a hurry with L-bars just means dropping the whole rig, and a hook knife will always get you out of tree.

Another thing is even with the recent "incident" we've been using the Three Ring system to BASE jump with for almost thirty years without an undo amount of problems . . .

NickD
BASE 194

100# for the coreless sleeve

 

From Poynter Volume I, Section 4.040, describing MIL-C-5040...

Code

Tensile strength for Type III coreless is, for some reason, missing. My impression has always been that Type IIa is just coreless Type II, but I could be wrong on that. There's a green dotted stripe on the white loop on my risers.

Michael

P.S. Tensile Strength in the above table is the minimum tensile strength; Feet per Pound is minimum feet per pound.

I can think of several life threatening scenarios where the need to cutaway is while the lines are under tension.

I have used my 3-ring cutaway a number of times, I like the system and think that for the type of jumping I do I need a quick and easy cutaway system.

I have personaly cut my canopy away:

>Hanging in trees (Cops on route and back country)
>Canopy hooked on Pole (downtown)
>Intentional still water landings (much easier to swim if cutaway and pulled by PC)
> I also use it for faster get aways when needed. I stuff my rig leaving my harness and helmet on and run. When I reach my car i cut my rigg and drive.

I also heard about a guy who landed next to fast flowing water, his canopy droppedin and dragged him in with it (integral risers). He drowned. This is second or third hand info............... anyone know any more??

Greeny

I believe you may be thinking of a fatality here a few years back. If I recall correctly, the jumper had a 3 ring system. He just spent too long (in this case that may only have been a few seconds) trying to recover the canopy rather than just cutting it away and letting the river have it.

Tom,

I was told it was a few miles up river from you??

Greeny

Yep. That's the one. It's #54 on the list.

I thought "gutted 550 cord" (aka Type IIA) had a tensile strength of 300 pounds.

If you need to cut away, for example landing in fast-moving water, then you need three-rings, or some similar quick-release system.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How well do Seawars work in fresh water?

Evil laughter!!!