Basejumper.com - archive

I am very interested in rigging opinions about moving the handle of my 35" PC from apex to base specifically for terminal tracking.

I had an unreported incident last month at a sensitive location. Result was an instantly knotted/hitched PC on deployment. This managed to pull pins but not extract canopy. After digging hands back there i had an inflated canopy after approx 4sec.
I have also previously landed with a knot in my bridle and i know i am not alone with that.

From 1988-95 i skydived with a pull-out/bunny tail system with handle at base of PC - No incident.
Australia has/had a reserve system using pull-out system with handle at base of PC.

What are the rigging pros/cons of building a PC with handle at base for terminal tracking?

It looks to me like the Violetta WS pouch seems to works so well because the PC is not being deployed inverted.

I don't believe you would be able to throw it as far. I know bunny tails are pulled and then kind of released instead of a traditional throw. So I think you would be avoiding 1 problem but creating another.
I know you like Marty's products, why not use floating handle? Seems the best of both worlds.

The faster a pc inflates means that it is closer to one´s burble which will redirect the vector. So you need speed to make the "V" narrower. A burble vs pc size vs bridle length is a ratio.
The understanding is that the inversion takes time to sort it out of the burble getting the pc out of the narrow part of the "V". i hope this makes sense. take care,
space.

Where exactly are you talking about when you say "the base"? I just want to make sure I'm understanding you properly. would you move it to near the attachment point, or just under the mesh like an internal handle?

Near bridle attachment point

Hmmmm, how would you pack it and where would you have the bridle? I can see the theory, but I feel like there's even more potential for snag when the bridle is right next to the handle. I feel like a good hard outward throw prevents most entanglements, or you could use Gerdes style of packing as well with the bridle basically feeding out of the boc.

I would pack bridle seperately as many of us have now for a long time, so as to feed from boc. with similar mushroom technique for pc fabric.
If the bridle was to snag handle it would have much less affect on overall pc performance than if bridle snags external apex mounted handle?
A good hard throw prevents most entanglements but not always all.
I am now curious if this pc configeration has ever been tested for terminal base..

floating handles seem to work so far.
but dead jumpers normally dont post much.
sorry for being grim.
take care,
space

In my mind at least, I feel like the normal mushroom style configuration works well in that it seems to start inflating when it is out in clean air past the wing. Seems like the bottom first way might start inflating instantly while still in your had almost which could actually lead to it being stuck in the burble even more and more likely to tumble and knot. I guess the answer is build one and try out of an airplane. I guess I'm not convinced that it solves a lot of problems and may actually create more. It seems like if he bottom of the pilot chute is the first to come out, it might kind of strip the mesh out first leaving the zp still in the boc with bridle floating around it. Pack a non handled pilot chute how you'd pack this theoretical type and take a pic. I'd be interested to see it.

Warning: uninformed post follows.

It seems this (pilot chute knotting) does happen enough that it needs fixing, but it's scary to start messing with the current system.

High drag bridles anyone?

http://www.dropzone.com/...&t=search_engine

I will say every video I've seen of a bridle knotting, maybe 2 total, has been a weak pitch into a burble. I'm not saying that's all of them, but it's all the ones I've seen documented to know a cause.

full ack.

the ones ive seen, the pc went into the burble and was thrown around around behind the jumper. this is where the knotting happens.

also i dont think that the handles contribute that much to the problem, ive got multiple pictures of knotted pc's (some from fatality reports so im not posting them), but all of them the bridle knotted around fabric and not the handle.

but if one would still want to get rid of the handle on top, i would rather go with a floating handle than one fixed to the base. just a gut feeling...

I agree handle does not seem to contribute to knot but would the PC react the same way if it was not inverted? If it was actually inflated would the bridle have the same affect?

Why is your PC inverted?

Thats the way the system works when you fly not just fall

So why not use a normal internal floating handle? Like other people have started doing... I assume you know what those are, but if not give them a look. Why at the bottom specifically, instead of inside the pc? It's pretty difficult to knot inside the pc too, and probably harder than at the base

I think that what Dunny is trying to say is that when you extract your PC in forward flight modes you end up with the apex of the PC anchored in your hand and everything else starts moving down wind, then when you release the PC it's apex is facing the airflow, completely the opposite direction that it needs to be to do its job.
So a handle at the PC base will have the PC correctly orientated as you extract it from the BOC and allow it to begin pulling as soon as you release it without the need for it to reverse its position in the airflow.
He is not so much concerned about the PC Handle/Bridle entanglement as he is about the PC orientation leading to PC flipping and knotting. So an internal handle will not achieve the effect he is after. (Of course I could be way off base here).
My take is that PCs with handles mounted at the base cannot be thrown as far on deployment leading to more PC/burble interaction.

Look at a Racer with a pullout pilot chute (as opposed to a throwout pc) and all your questions will be answered, and you will also know why your snag comment is, well... check out a Racer and then you will know what adjective to apply.

So, having a handle at the base of a pilot chute is a lot different than a pullout like on the Racer (lanyard to pin, then attachment to pilot chute stowed in the container), so no, none of my questions are answered. Having pullout in base jumping, the adjective I would used might be "fucked".

I feel like we are now having the exact same discussions people did in the 70s when coming up with base specific gear. If you want to jump a pullout, by all means do.

I dont believe anyone is saying we use pull-out pin system.
But the pull-out system always used a PC with the handle located/attached to the base of PC near bridle attachment. Many of early jumps on skydiving gear used this system.

what are your thoughts on no handle at all?

I like a handle i can feel. Sometimes my hands are cold.

valid.

i don't know if the handle itself makes any difference in this case, but just curious how many people prefer handles vs. no handles.

personally, i don't prefer them.

I prefer them, I just got a new Toxic 42 with a fixed internal handle

I want to be consistent. I allways want to pack the PC the same way, have the same feeling, when I reach back.

Handheld - no handle,
Stowed - with handle.

I case of problems with the pull, i. e. PC slipping deeper inside the pouch or loss of pull force in the right arm, the handle will give you a bit of an edge.

consistency is a really good point Walter.

i suppose my issue is that a slight majority of my jumps are sub-terminal where i'm using a 38"-42" PC with no handle stowed. i like a nice big "nug" of fabric to grab. if there is/was a handle there, i wouldn't even know as i'd just be grabbing right over top of it, and throwing it like a grenade. the handle i don't like mainly because if i'm pulling by that, it pulls apart my PC packjob, and i would like it to get thrown as one big chunk just like it is packed until it hits bridle stretch.

this reminded me of a time i had packed a 36" PC with handle a little tighter from high ultimate. during pull time i somehow managed to instead push the PC inside the BOC, and then had to dig for the handle inside the pouch. it was an interesting experience to say the least.

that was the turning point for me to standardize the big fat nug hanging outside the pouch. :)

a picture is worth a thousand words... so despite this being a lame example of what i imagine most people do, this is my pitch technique. albeit, a very short delay, but easy to see my goal of throwing the PC like a ball hard to bridle stretch before it comes apart.

https://www.instagram.com/...y=tonsidog&hl=en

^this.
I have had many PCs over the years, most have no handle, several of my smaller ones came with external handle that I cut off.
I pack it consistently with the 'nug'' mentioned above. It always feels the same to me. (400ish stowed jumps)
The only PC I own that still has a handle is a 34" snatch. ive only used it once though.

I just saw a video that made me reconsider my previous thoughts on this topic. Thats about as specific as I can be for the moment. More to come for sure.

I am super interested to see some wind tunnel simulations so i dont have to reinvent something in the field...

Thanks. That vid is a perfect example of why this technique is not optimum for terminal tracking base jumps. This thread was posted for discussion specifically for terminal tracking.

i'm discussing, because i'm curious to learn.

why is it a perfect example of non optimal technique?

i apologize if what i thought was a contribution to the discussion is viewed as a detractor. i will refrain from here on out.

I am discussing because is am serious to learn also. (I did say thanks)

Throwing down, throwing to side and throwing up and over.

Some examples.. https://vimeo.com/176223099

thanks, sorry i may have misinterpreted...

i'm not good at internetting.

that video you linked showcases my own fear, which is why i don't like handles. all of those deployments by the handle allow everything to spill out before it's actually released. opposed to say, getting the whole chunk of packed PC out into the air almost as fast if not faster than the bridle (that follows). in that light, i would agree that putting a handle at the base as you suggested may deploy it cleaner.

i would love to see an easy way to test out some of these ideas and methods to really clean up deployment in general. the PC toss is the part of the deployment sequence that i find to be the weakest link and truly frightening.

Even the good ones look ugly to me...

When can we see "my" idea tested?

I hear it works very good for crw dogs for many years now...

Up and over looked real good to me for the last 99jumps..

Really nice for a big flare from fast track..

https://vimeo.com/113161403

Learning to track and timing this is not easy...

Havent thought this trough but what about smaller pocket inside the original BOC pocket for the bridle. Just tight enough to slow down the bridle release phase? Atleast i think airspace would be much cleaner for the PC.

Maybe someone much wiser than me can think this trough

the smaller pocket has existed for a decade or more

I've always seen my PC handle as a backup. I've rarely used just the handle (maybe once?). I go for the nug and then if all I gots is that handle in my hand, I throw it instead of trying to find the nug.