Basejumper.com - archive

 
What methods ( if any) do you use to lock off your 3 ring assembly.
I like having the flexibility of having a cutaway option ( other than riser hacking) on a rig if jump requires it....but in balance would prefer to be able to lock off the cutaway assembly for those jumps that pose a low risk of needing to cutaway ( just in case of of that black death random factor of perhaps snagging the handle/assembly etc on something you didnt think about)
My preferred method at the mo is a set of slinks on the 3rings themselves...( big to small)
Anybody else use anything else...?

(Other than dildo's/midgets/cocaine baggy/underpants etc etc ......yawn)

Calvin...saw your method in the pictures thread..prompting reignition of this thread.

You can put a second cable through the loop. With a very small handle on the lower side: to pull the cable out in case of a cutaway, but also to ptrvent the cable from slipping up. Ther is also a name for this system - but I can't remember.

you're a lower side...

it's called superlock system made by ulli wambach, germany.
the tab is velcro'd to the risers.

 
I've used keychain rings when I ran out of cut away handles. I've also built cutaway risors where there was a cutaway cable attached to a tab that velcrowed on each risor. Same idea but the cable ran up the ordanary channel on the risor and I think that made it a bit cleaner. I've been thinking about just building my rigs that way. There really isn't that great a need for a single point release.

Lee

And I can tell you, the one time I used the cutaway system without my feet on the ground I pulled one at a time on purpose releasing one at a time. It also reminded me why I had three rings.... I would not have wanted my rings interlocked in a way I could not have released them when needed without tools and with only one hand. So the slink thru the rings thing would not have been something I would have wanted.

While I never have been in a fast moving river, which would be the polar opposite of my shenanigans, it is clear that the ideal system has to address many different types of less than ideal situations... In a river, I would want no interlock and a single handle.

So , you have a 3 ring and then you want to lock it off . Strange .
I never heard about this stuff . Somebody used this on skydiving already ? :-)
Only more work for nothing and extra stuff that can go wrong in my opinian .

Even on a low risk you may always need it . object strike and ....
Just check your 3 rings before each jump and tuck away the handle secure behind the mijn lift .

Btw . Never used it on 500 jumps so for . Only to get my canopy back out of the knot after a boush landing . Hahaha .

Ciao

didnt I post pics of this?
I used another one or two tech cords per side, wrapped 3-10 times through the cutaway loop.
ZERO chance of accidental cutaway.
(look in my pics, im sure its in there)

Adam Filipino taught me this..

When changing/modifying/developing anything follow these three rules...

1) Is there actually a problem?
2) Is what you're proposing actually going to solve the problem?
3) Does your solution create another problem?

So in this case, the answer to Q1 is No, 3-rings don't malfunction if they are assembled, maintained and checked properly. The problem is actually in your head, not the 3 rings. Look at BASE jumping and skydiving incidents, all 3-ring problems are caused by incorrect assembly, use or maintenance. They are a super simple and super reliable system.

This effectively negates Q2 and Q3, but if you want to make the answer to Q1 yes due to the voices in your head then the answers to Q2 and Q3 is yes and yes. You're now creating problems due to the fact that 3-rings are designed to be used and loaded when correctly assembled. If you start tying things together then you risk loading the system when it is incorrectly positioned, possibly creating a failure. Also you might forget and have the system disabled when you really need it to work and then you're hosed.

You're thinking too much m8, and creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The 3-ring system is a masterful example of perfect engineering. Assemble it correctly, maintain it well, check it regularly and trust it. That should quieten the voices.

If you want any further clarification you should get in touch with Bill Booth. I'm led to believe he knows all about the 3-ring system.

www.unitedparachutetechnologies.com

Stay safe,

Max

Nice one, max!

Thanks Max...thats a good point well made,
Its not the 3 ring assembly that bothers me.

I totally agree ,it works just fine....but the release system for that assembly ( specifically releasing before you want it too) is the part I have issues with...

The solution using a slink can easily be achieved without 'loading' the slink or distorting the 3 ring assembly until it actually needed to be loaded ( 3 ring assembly released during flight for example)

I hear what you are saying....but but my question was bourne out of seeing a potential situation that couldnt be forseen with equipment checks pre jump ( ie the handle , correctly stowed, getting 'snagged' during harness load and sheared off its velcro platform)...the answer is simple....use an integrated riser design...but as I said originally, I like flexability in the system I am using to choose to make it cutawayable ( is that word ? ) via a single point of release....or not...depending on what the risk of each jump presents with.
Some other posts in this thread have presented some other novel solutions to this 'concern' as well...much better than a slink.

Its not something that keeps me awake at night....but thought I'd throw the bone out there and see what others thought.

Yeah, I know what you're saying but the root of it is to identify (in the case you quote) how the handle got snagged during loading of the harness during loading (opening shock and weight in the harness I presume somehow causing clothing/ancillary equipment to pull the handle) and alleviate that as a cause of the problem, rather than trying to mitigate the result of the problem. A classic example is the thread last year about the PC in tow fatality in Lauterbrunnen. Lots of theories about changing/enhancing PSs/bridles when in fact the solution is correct operation of the system.

The strength of BASE gear is in it's simplicity. Any compromise to that simplicity can result in unintended complications and hence unforseen problems.

The "cut aways" thread on the back of this thread quotes two unintentional occurrences.
One in Norway where one riser released after the cable was snagged. This couldn't happen just by chance, a thorough investigation would almost certainly reveal something lacking in assembly/maintenance or operation that left an opportunity for this to happen and that's the root of the problem.

The other occurrence happened to Dave. He's a jammy b**tard for sure, but by his handling of his gear he created the opportunity for that to happen. Quite rightly, he changed his practices to ensure that the problem could not occur, not to mitigate it when it does.

The problem in the instance you refer to, is not in the fact that the risers could have released due to the handle getting snagged, but in the fact that the handle got snagged

If you look at skydiving world, so much is set up to mitigate the results of poor maintenance/operator error/plain stupidity. As BASE jumpers we take on the responsibility to do our shit right, and in doing so we retain the integrity of simple, effective equipment.

Y'knaa what I'm saying?

Stay safe,

Max

I do...thanks

I agree, which is why I just ordered a
Gargoyle from Morpheus with risers
that are sewn into the harness.
What could be simpler?

Of course I know there are risks from
having integrated risers as illustrated
by the posts in the 'Cutaway' thread.