Basejumper.com - archive

Has anyone ever had a problem skydiving with BASE risers at a DZ? And what I mean by problems is, I could see me getting a gear check and getting pulled of my load 'cause my risers are "backwards".

Has this ever happened to anyone? And could they keep me from jumping with them, cause of USPA stuff?

I know I could simply go there and ask, BUT, if told no, I would like to have some info before hand to relay back to them.

Thanks
-A

Nope, I have made a few jumps and no one made any comment what so ever.

I think the size of the rig, and the fabric sticking out of all the cracks distracts them from the risers. (Just kidding, about the fabric sticking out, or am I kidding?)

As a novice rigger, everything I know says that the main could be bed sheets and dental floss. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but there is nothing that would regulate the risers... Now, I guess the question becomes, is the 3ring system part of the TSO container/reserve, or part of the non-TSO main? As far as I know, it is not part of the TSO system.

Also, while they are unpopular and deemed to be "unsafe" (for justified reasons), reverse risers were/are used in skydiving. I have seen them on rigs every once in a while with sport mains. The biggest risk I know about is the inability for a cutaway if for some reason the risers are held against the harness and the rings can't fold open - such as in a baglock that does not have enough drag to sit you up and open the riser covers, thus leaving a bag to entangle with your reserve.

But proceed with caution, as you may have a malfunction that you can't cutaway if not compatible. I studied the container I was using and I felt comfortable knowing that I freepacked the canopy into the tray - so a "bag lock" would be impossible and with 290 sqft of fabric overhead, even the worst ball of crap would still have enough drag to sit me up enough for the rings to fold open.

There was a skydiving fatality a few years ago due to connecting reverse/integry risers to an incompatible container:

http://www.dropzone.com/..._latest_reply;so=ASC

I have seen a European guy skydive w/
these types of risers at a DZ in the US
and he was not given any problems at all.

Of course, like the others guys said, be
sure they are compatible with your sky
rig's cutaway system.

I actually used to make a point of getting gear checks from at least 20 people when I packed my base rig up in skydiving gear. especially the brand new students!

you'll be fine unless your DZO is a complete bonehead :-P

A fairly popular skydiving container, the "Reflex" uses integrity-type risers.

the risers belong to the rig. they are part of that and therefore, if you change it, you are probably using incompatible parts on your rig.
the D-rings, on which the 3ring system is attached may be in the wrong place for reverse risers.
of course do skydiving rigs with reverse risers exist, I´ve jumped an atom from pdf for many years, but this doesn´t mean that you are allowed use reversed risers on every rig.
also think about the routings of the housings from the cutawaycable...
but mostly, reversed risers can lead to main/reserve entanglements.
therefore, DZOs are completely right to do things like this.
for your own safety and the reputation of the DZ.
solution:
open the links and use the original risers.
if you are an experienced skydiver and basejumper, you should be more than able to switch the canopy from your set of base-risers to the skydiving rig.
benefit:
no problems with the DZO

I admitted I was a novice and asked for someone to correct me if I was wrong. It appears I was. I was going by the fact that the various drop test standards and, precedent of use, indicated that the risers were not tested as part of the TSO, and general accepted practice is to mix and match risers. Further, users (especially CReW dogs) heavily modify their risers and/or repair their own risers - all stuff that indicates they are accepted to be non-TSOed.

I called a master rigger (one that is very active), and one of my mentors in rigging, before I even read your reply.

He said just this year at PIA there was a debate on this very question, and not a simple quick one, but one that had lots of varied opinions, some supporting my original impression, and some supporting yours:

1) It was determined that the risers are part of the container system since they come with the container system. The connectors (slinks or links) are the first piece of the system that is not part of the container.

2) Riggers asked about the fact it is standard industry practice for canopy manufactures to ship demo canopies on risers, and/or for users to mix and match risers. The container manufactures, rightfully so, expressed something like: "If they are not our risers, we cannot guarantee compatibility, therefore we will adamantly not accept liability for their use."

My take: Rightfully so, the container manufactures are taking the easy and safest way out, I would too. I would be very cautious, especially if working as a rigger, letting any customer's rig have incompatible risers, and I would probably document on the paperwork and maybe not even re-hook up the main to cover my butt. But at the same time, the situation appears to be very fuzzy between what are the documented rules and industry accepted practice as I see so many rigs with different manufacturer's risers on them. I know people (riggers on their own rigs) who purposely mix-and-match and buy one brand because they like them better.

I would completely respect any DZO, S&TA, or other party at the DZ that would prohibit (or at least question) any incompatible risers being used, and I only personally made the decision after studying the system and understanding the risks. Clearly, using reverse risers poses added risks, especially if not designed for the rig. I would not use them for day-to-day skydiving mains packed in d-bags, even on rigs designed for reverse risers...

So I back to the original person that asked... I guess the question becomes how well you know your DZO and your take on their interpretation of accepted practice vs the actual standards???

only a boneheaded dzo and sta would pull this sort of stunt. all you have to say is that they are integrity risers. integrity risers became popular because the fabric loop on the 3 ring system is not easily damaged since it's not readily exposed to the ground during packing. also, integrity risers became popular because there is no hole through the riser system which weakens the whole system. the only thing that might be a concern is the compatability of the ring size to that of the harness. also, on some high performance rigs, there are stiffeners within the riser to help deal with the consequences of line twists under a high performance canopy.

The Reflex (no longer manufactured) was shipped with standard risers from the factory. Flightline may have done integrity risers as a custom order.

I'm using a Dolphin H/C and the "riser covers" are only a 3" triangle that "tucks" into the container. No velcro, magnets, or snaps(if there is such a thing, it just seemed to go with the flow) I jumped the same H/C at BD last year, went hand held and I routed the bridal under this "triangle cover", obviousley it worked, would you think that a bag lock and PC would creat enough drag equal to a 42" PC at sub term?

Thanks
-A

I've made several pairs of base specific risers, regular 3 ring system, however the toggles have a straight pin on them to set the brakes. I only make them with the mini rings to be interchangable on the rigs I have...no problems with hook up or release.

K

Hajo's home country may have different standards for which parts of the system must pass TSO.

I am not certain that you are appropriately evaluating what the risky part of the reversed riser setup is. Forgive me for a digression, if I'm repeating things you already understand.

The problem is that in a high speed (belly to earth) malfunction, the 3 ring stack is effectively "trapped" closed, against the jumpers shoulder/chest, unless the big ring is placed higher on the harness (at the top of the shoulder).

If you are ever in this situation, it's possible that knowing this can save you (because you can either "sit up" to release the rings, or you can manually reach up and disconnect them by pressing the risers away from you [down, toward the earth]).


Regardless, Hajo's advice is the best given here. Leaving the BASE risers on is basically a result of laziness (because it's far easier to cut away and switch than to open the links and switch to new risers). It'd be a shame to die from laziness.

so your saying that the force of the riser covers against the integrity riser will pinch the retaining loop and make separation more difficult than with the standard riser?

No, not the riser cover. The riser itself. Because the rings are sitting behind the riser, the actual fabric of the riser is holding the rings "closed" against each other when the jumper is in a belly to earth position (and the risers are routed back over the shoulders). There is insufficient force pulling the rings open, and a very small resistance holding them closed. At high speed, this can become a very serious problem in short order.

How many cutaways did you have in this configuration?

If none, where are your data coming from?

Fatality Report linked earlier in this thread.

Autralian Parachute Federation Safety Bulletin.


I have never experienced an emergency in this configuration.

So let me understand...you're basing your conclusion from one incident that involved one system and you generalize this to all systems.

If you read the APF safety bulletin at some point it says:"When improperly mated..." note the adverb improperly, that means incorrect, not in accord with fact, truth, or right procedure.

I can already foresee jumping my Warp III with integrity risers and being approached by a pimpled-face-100-jump wonder telling me how dangerous those risers are because he read it "online", which at that point I'm bounded to say that I have read that there is a god hence I should believe in it, or along those lines.

simulate the issue with ground testing. that should be able to provide some info to work with other than 3rd hand info.

The "rigger" in TF who hardly ever posts, explained the reason last night, why the "integrity riser" is frowned upon when used in skydiving.

If you have a "two out" situation, the reserve risers will be pressed up against the 3-rings, making for a difficult cutaway.

Makes sense.

I'm basing my conclusion on this incident, and on the mechanics of the system, and on the conclusion of the Australian Parachute Associations rigging committee, and their investigation into this incident and it's mechanics.

I am generalizing it to include systems with the same underlying characteristics, as identified by the APF (in other words, systems with a reversed ring configuration and a large ring mounted low on the harness).




I believe that the APF safety bulletin implies that it is improper to mate a reversed 3 ring to any harness that has a large ring location placed too low to allow the 3 ring to open. The safety bulletin describes this as "high mounted harness rings" in the following sentence:






Would you feel better if he read about it on-line in a safety bulletin from a major national parachuting association?

The obvious response would be to explain to him _why_ the reversed risers can be dangerous when mated to a low ring mount, and then, with him, to look at your gear to see if that applies to it or not.

That makes sense Tom, I put my rig on and laid down on the floor, and I can see the problem, my big ring attached to my harness IS lower down on my chest vs. higher up on my shoulders, even with constant pressure and a good stout tug the ring stack stayed there. Once the pressure was released and there was slack they came off.

Lesson learned-the equipment is made for a reason.

Thanks to all
-A

Improperly designed risers are out there. Standard risers have a criteria to meet. RWS now UPT has clear blueprints available. Many standard risers are not built properly. They usually just work anyway but some are far enough out of spec they are destructive. Integrity risers have a design criteria as well. Basically it's exactly the same as a standard riser however the locking loop and the tab with the grommet have to be of proper length

Put your rig on a human, lay on the ground and have someone pull upward on the riser while you pull the cable from the loop. Make it easy, don't route the cable through the channels ... and watch your nose when the riser releases. Seldom are integrity risers a problem but there are possible issues.

The 2 out scenario is certainly a thought so don't let that happen.

The one that wouldn't concern me too much is cutting away falling face to earth. Sure anything is possible but I've yet to be in a stable face to earth position cutting away. If the ring is rather low, sure, but it does have to be pretty low over the shoulder. Put it on and do a few tests.

I won't go into this issue very far since I just don't use integrity risers for skydiving anymore. I personally would however, put my Asylum risers on a rig for test jumps without concern. I would check for computability and go for it. ... you did note the "personally" disclaimer didn't you?

Integrity risers used for skydiving have a tight design criteria. If the tab with the grommet is too long it is possible to trap the loop against the grommet. <=== I've duplicated this on the ground a few times during repack cycles. Pulled the cutaway with a load on the riser and it did not release. You'd be surprised at who the manufacturers were.

The cutaway force can be higher as well. You lose the mechanical advantage of the locking loop pulling from behind the riser. Instead it pulls from below the front of the 3-ring. If the tab is shorter, the mechanical advantage is higher since the loop pulls almost straight down on the ring. If it's longer, the ring is allowed to push outward.

Most hard cutaways while using integrity risers were not caused by the integrity design. It was from line twists trapping the cutaway cable especially with type 17 risers.

The DZO isn't likely to do anything because most don't have a policy for or against main risers. I'm won't suggest using the risers or not, that's up to you so good luck.