Basejumper.com - archive

(From someone looking to get into BASE...)

There's a great YT video from way back showing a skydiver jumping from a bridge. He gets into difficulty, cuts away and just about has a reserve above his head before he hits the water. He gets roasted in the comments.

But he presumably survived.

There's another one of a multi-way off Perrine, with about four canopies deploying and some poor soul trailing a packjob all the way to the bottom.

So.

Does anyone BASE jump with a reserve? CAN anyone jump with a reserve? Should anyone jump with a reserve?

Why don't you?

There is a Mirage SKY rig that could be jumped
by an experienced person off a few objects safely.

There was a double-canopy BASE rig called a Sorcerer.

BASER makes a BASE rig with a belly mountable reserve.

I have personally never made a BASE jump with 2 parachutes.

FYI - a well packed BASE rig is more reliable than a SKY reserve.

However, a SKY reserve works really well for a variety of
air speeds, where as an expertly configured BASE set-up
can be much more reliable, but only for a given air speed.

Example: 300 foot building BASE rig will not help you
much if you are flying Delta and the plane goes down.
While a rig set for a jet jump, would kill you at a span.

It's a mistake to view a BASE rig as having no reserve. It's more accurate to say that it has no main.

Whenever you exit an aircraft, you are carrying a parachute that you rely on to operate 100% of the time, whenever you need it. You call it the reserve. You have another, "fun" parachute you mess around with first, but you don't rely on it to function every time.

BASE is the same way. Whenever you exit an object, you are carrying a parachute that you rely on to operate 100% of the time, whenever you need it. You just don't have another (less reliable) parachute that you mess around with first.

Think of a BASE rig as not having a main--it's a rig where you go to the reserve first, every time.


That also means that a BASE pack job should be viewed as a _reserve_ pack job. Something that was missed by the jumpers in the two videos you are referring to.

If you are jumping low stuff and have a malfunction say a pin lock, there is no time to deploy a reserve, if you have a line over or other canopy related problem again no time
You would have to go through the fatality list but I don't think canopy malfunctions are the main cause of deaths for us

i only jump low shit so even if i had a reserve id rather ride a line over etc into the deck then cutting it away as there would be no time for a second canopy....in saying that ive thought about a design with maybe some shitty roundy as a reserve so u dont have to chop the main....like a paraglider they just throw the reserve leave the main attached and hope for the best..... if it was a true last resort the round could be small and breaking your legs would be common but still save your life...patent pending lol oh wait theres a belly mount...fuck that noise but thinks something better can be done for sure

Hi Tom,

Thank you for your thoughts. I think I see where you are coming from... I have always been told "need one, take two". Take the first example YT video (which isn't a great one, but it'll do) - the guy had a bad day with the main. But he did have a plan B. I think having a Plan B is kind of useful and...have reserves never failed?

and


That's reassuring! Is this why we don't need that Plan B, Tom? If I'm over-thinking this then that's cool, as long as I can work out why.

Skez wrote:

<snip>....in saying that ive thought about a design with maybe some shitty roundy as a reserve so u dont have to chop the main....like a paraglider they just throw the reserve leave the main attached and hope for the best.....

I fly a paraglider and have the reserves you mean. They are a bit primitive to deploy (chuck and hope). You get around 4 seconds freefall before they go out of spec (e.g about 78mph before mine could burst), that's only about 250ft.

But, you can get paragliding harnesses where a cut-away main deploys (via RSL) a BASE canopy as a reserve. Very expensive. I guess that's what the BASER rig is like?

So is the answer that you COULD jump BASE with a reserve but people don't because the pack jobs are reliable enough and/or there wouldn't be enough time on some jumps to deploy them?

Skydiving rigs don't "take two" though.

They only take one reserve.

If you really wanted to go with a "need one, take two" philosophy, you'd be either skydiving with a reserve style canopy in the main tray or jumping a 3 canopy skydiving system.

Same with paragliders. When was the last time you went flying with two reserves?




Using a reserve in BASE has several big hurdles to overcome, including, but not limited to;

1) The reliability of BASE systems is a critical component of their success. Adding a second canopy and it's deployment system increases the complexity of the system, reducing it's overall success rate.


2) Reserves require a certain amount of altitude to deploy successfully. Unlike skydiving (or paragliding) deploying a parachute higher in BASE usually doesn't mean that the deployment is safer.

In fact, lower deployments are safer in most BASE situations because, among other things;

a) they increase fall rate, reducing the effect of actual wind, both by putting the jumper into the wind block and by providing relative wind to push the extraction angle closer to vertical and further off the horizontal (where horizontal extraction angles can asymmetrically load risers and generate off headings), and;

b) they give the jumper greater separation from the object because of the increased free fall time.

By encouraging higher deployment, a reserve could very well _decrease_ the safety margin of a BASE jumper at deployment on the _vast majority_ of jumps. Compare this to the tiny minority of jumps that could be made safer by a second canopy deployment.


3) Reserves require additional inspection, maintenance and re-pack. Every human has a finite amount of time, money and energy, and it's better to spend them on the primary parachute system. This is the basic issue that led to the Xaver Bongard fatality. Xaver Bongard went in under his malfunctioning reserve off Staubachfall, after cutting away a first canopy that he probably could have dealt with, had he focused on corrective action instead of relying on his "reserve."

There have been double total fatalities (failure of both main and reserve canopies) in skydiving, as well as the (previously mentioned) Xaver Bongard fatality under a second canopy on a BASE jump.

I think having a 2-parachute system makes more and more sense now for WS BASE. Both BASE canopies and reserves got lighter and more compact (thanks to ultralight fabric). So, a skydiving rig without an AAD with 2 ultralight canopies won't be significantly heavier and bulkier than a BASE rig.

A bird strike breaking the pull arm is a very real scenario. I personally almost stroke a goose on a WS BASE jump. The goose was flying very fast almost parallel to me, same heading, and I couldn't see it till the last second because it was coming up at me from the bottom, not from forward where I was looking at. In the last second when I discovered the bird and realized that our paths might intersect, I immediately pulled since I instantly thought it's better to pull now while I still have my pull arm than risk a chance of having it disabled by impact.

Also, several experienced WS jumpers went in because they couldn't find the pull. If they had a reserve, they could have saved their lives. In these cases, the reliability of the BASE rig itself played absolutely no role.

A conservative WS jumper who only chooses jumps where the pull altitude is at least 500-600ft, considering slow fall rate, still has some reasonable amount of time to activate a reserve in case of a no pull find or bird strike, or a problem with the "main" canopy.

Skydiving rig with BASE canopy as a main is very, very reliable system, which also gives you a second chance. I've been skydiving my BASE canopy for several years now and can't be happier about this setup. (Even landed with a broken steering line, with one toggle and rear riser; it would definitely be a chop if it were a skydiving canopy.) I see no issues why this setup couldn't be used in WS BASE. In fact, I'm planning to make my next skydiving rig my dual-purpose rig and WS BASE with it all the time. Shit happens, and sometimes you do need that second chance.

As for 100% reliability of BASE rigs, that's not true - any system has less than 100% reliability. The reserves greatly reduce the chance of two consecutive random processes with nearly 100% reliability, failing. For example, if main has 99.9% reliability (1 malfunction in 1000 jumps) and reserve (or BASE "main") has 99.99% (1 in 10K jumps), then the chance of both consecutively failing is 0.001*0.0001 = 1/10,000,000 (one in 10 million). While if only reserve was used (like in BASE rigs), the chance would be 1 in 10 thousand. (The high number should not, however, convey the sense of confidence: as a random process, it doesn't happen after 9,999 jumps; it can happen on the 100th or 10th jump, and then with 1-canopy system, it's Game Over.)

To clarify, I did not say that the system was 100% reliable. I said that the jumper relies on it 100% of the time--which is true in both skydiving (reserve) and BASE.

Thanks again Tom. Lots to think about.


In paragliding, it's really only acro pilots who fly with two, and mainly where it's a requirement for taking part in competitions. Even then, pilots have died where they have become entangled, which echos your comments on complexity.

(Randomly, I do actually fly with two reserves, but that's only because my new reserve (a steerable rogallo-type) is huge and front mounted and I couldn't be bothered removing the side-mounted round! )

Thanks again Tom.

Yes, but I think that saying that we jump a reserve in BASE and implying that it is the most reliable way of doing it, is not always correct. The 2-canopy system (provided that the main is a BASE canopy) is still overall more reliable than a 1-canopy one. I'm not talking about jumping a pocket rocket swooping canopy and chopping it every time there's a linetwist. Provided that the skydiving rig is proven with time as not having any issues with, for example, main pin flap hangups, or reserve corners line hangups; and having everything maintained well, 3 rings, emergency handles, pins, etc; and having a BASE canopy as main and reasonably sized reserve (no more than 1.4 wingloading), the skydiving rig, I believe, is a more reliable option for WS BASE. (For that fatality off the bridge mentioned in OP, there would be time only for the reserve PC to pop, that's it. Reserves are useless for low objects.)

Now you can see why I named my first reply: Depends
Every choice in Economics, Physics, Life is a cost benefit analysis.

I SKY jump with a Sabre2-120 & a PD143R, both packed by me.
My main is less reliable than my reserve, but so much fun to fly!
My BASE jumps have been on canopies 230 to 305 square feet.

The reliability of a parachute is dependent on many variables.
However, ceteris paribus, in my experience: big, square, lightly
loaded 7-cell canopies are more reliable than jumpers or drivers.

Interesting. Any examples of choice in physics as cost-benefit analysis? Is there even choice in physics? I thought physics is like a dictatorship. F=ma, OBEY! E=mc^2, OBEY!

<pedant /on>
F=ma is Newtonian physics - I think it breaks down when you get to Einstein's stuff.
<pedant /off>

(This is super-important when it comes to parachuting, obviously.)

If it was to work u would have a reserve for slider down speeds and another to swap out with for one suitable for high speed....still think a roundy could work as a last resort and I hope I never have to use this hard landing pos style backup ...

Yes, the trade-offs in most Choices are based on
Economics and Physics, like driving a motorcycle
versus a 'safer' Volvo or an expensive sports car.

Think of all the different type of lines available
skydiving, BASE jumping, paragliding canopies
and consider the pros and cons of each choice.

Or maybe the space race between USA & USSR.
The former focused more on miniaturization to
reduce payload and requisite fuel requirements.

Not having a 2nd canopy does not mean you have no Plan B. For example, I can jump and land any size canopy with no trouble at all but when I go BASE jumping I choose to use large docile canopies because my Plan B in the event of a malfunction is to control that malfunction as best as possible to landing. Something that is probably not possible on a skydiving size reserve.
Another Plan B is to use the terrain to your advantage. If you can pull over water or possibly a stand of trees it might save your life in the event of a partial malfunction. Plenty of documented cases of those exact 2 scenarios.
Obviously this only helps with partial malfunctions, not totals.

I agree. Especially with the amount of exits we have now that take little to no effort to access. Things like gondolas and shuttles and heli rides that eliminate the hiking also eliminate the need for ultra light gear to carry on said hike.

I'd also like to debunk the perpetual dogma that skydiving rigs are so complicated and thus so unreliable and BASE rigs are so simple and thus so reliable.

Compare a skydiving rig with: BASE canopy as main; your standard non-collapsible BASE PC; your standard non-collapsible BASE mesh slider; no AAD; no RSL; no MARD,

and

a BASE rig with: 3 rings and cutaway handle, same canopy, same PC, same slider.

Where's the extra complexity? Other than the self-contained unit of reserve, with its extra handle, nothing else is different. If all skydiving rigs were equipped with BASE canopies and non-collapsible PCs and sliders, there will be virtually no cutaways in skydiving, and the fatality rate will be dramatically reduced as well. Skydiving rigs are very, very reliable and have a huuuge test base of hundreds of millions of jumps. Every possible gear issue is well known and gets resolved quickly. Compare this with BASE, where test base is much much smaller, and with recently discovered/demonstrated ways that almost any BASE rig can have a pin lock, as well as various virtually unavoidable malfunctions such as tension knots and PC bowties and bridle wrap around the tailpocket - and you have no 2nd chance with these - BASE rigs don't seem to be so reliable anymore.

Yes, if we compare a skydiving rig with a small swooping canopy, collapsible slider and PC (which can be forgotten to be uncollapsed), AAD that can accidentally fire, etc. - all these complications make the reserve rides more frequent than necessary. But I'm talking about comparing apples to apples, BASE canopy to BASE canopy, and no collapsible stuff.

Also, I'm talking about stable WS flight, with at least 10 seconds to impact at pull time. Obviously, in non-WS, low BASE, reserves are useless.

And another factor in favor of a skydiving rig in WS BASE: familiarity with gear. This is especially important for seasonal jumpers like me. After several months of not jumping a BASE rig, it feels very different from skydiving rig, the pull is different, steering through opening is different, even the toggle reach distance is different, which makes the control inputs and flare be a bit different (even if you skydive this same BASE canopy). Always jumping the exact same setup is great for safety. (I even sometimes skydive with my stashbag, water, hiking poles, extra clothes, etc. stashed in WS, just like in BASE, to get used to all these inconvenience factors, so that the difference between skydiving and BASE is minimized as much as possible. Nothing is worse than coming to a BASE exit after several months and putting on all this stuff and feeling all the stiffness and bulk from the extra gear. It feels like you've never jumped before, this is your 1st jump! Better have exact same setup, skydiving and BASE.)

PS. Forgot: no D-bag, just a BASE canopy free-packed, with standard BASE pack job, just couple of extra folds to make the stack fit the main tray. And cut corners for WS.

You're creating a straw man there. I hope you're doing that unintentionally.

All of those "so..." and "so..." imply that people are using some kind of absolutes. No one is.



Any system that is more complicated is, as a result, less reliable than any system that is less complicated. This is certainly true when we are talking about extremely complicated mechanical systems operating in inherently chaotic environments.

The simpler the system, and the less chaotic it's operating environment, the more reliable it will be.

That's why, for example, deploying at higher airspeed is generally more reliable than deploying at lower airspeeds. The increased (relative) airspeed of the jumper and the movement into the wind block reduces the (chaotic) influence of the absolute wind (and it's turbulence).

All of this is happening at the margins. We are stacking the odds up (one way or another) with various decisions we make.



We're also kind of talking past each other, because you are mostly discussing wing suit deployments, and several other people are not, which complicates the issue further.

I don't think that _anyone_ (unless you want to volunteer to take that position) is arguing that one specific system is going to be safest for _all_ deployments.

Thus, we are either talking about;

a) the average "safest" system to use for an average user on an "average" BASE jump;

b) the average "safest" system to use for an average wing suit pilot flying a wing suit directly away from an object and deploying with good altitude and lots of clear air around them;

c) the average "safest" system for an average jumper to use on a slider down solid object jump;

d) the average "safest" system for an average jumper to use on a slider down jump from an object which is not solid;

e) the average "safest" system to use for any of dozens of other very specific scenarios (still specifying an average jumper)...

And the list goes on--especially if you want to start specifying a particular jumper, or a particular style of jumping (or specific wing suit, presence of terrain, etc)....


I think that if we really want to keep the discussion going in the direction you're headed, it would be most efficient if you specified which of these you are discussing.



Personally, my assumption (based on the OP being a not-yet BASE jumper) was that he would not be engaged in wing suit flight terribly soon, and that he was asking questions about an average set up or a new jumper to be used on beginner type jumps from beginner type objects.


One of the specific jumps he referenced was made from my local object, and I would argue, both in general for this object and in specific for that accident, that the use of a reserve would not have increased the safety level. In that specific accident, the best safety equipment the jumper could have used was a solid 48 hours of sleep, to dissipate his massive BAC (post-mortem BAC tested more than double the legal limit for operation of a motor vehicle in this state) and allow him to make better decisions (both packing and jumping).

I'm only talking about conservative WS BASE, intermediate or more experienced jumper.

Not if the only complication is the subsystem that mitigates the failure of the primary system (provided there's opportunity to use the reserve subsystem, as in conservative WS BASE). And especially because we're dealing with the inherently chaotic environment with random malfunctions, even with properly maintained, state of the art, gear. It's just stupid to die because, for example, bridle wrapped around the tailpocket, being at 1500ft above LZ. There should be plan B.

I'm sure many of those wingsuiters who went in with no pull find or PC chocked by bridle, thought in their last seconds, "what if I had a reserve?"...

> I'm only talking about conservative WS BASE, intermediate or more experienced jumper.


It sounds like your argument is basically:

"Deployments in skydiving-like deployment conditions are better done with skydiving rigs. The safest possible skydiving rig is one with a BASE (or reserve) canopy packed as both the first and second parachute."

Is that a reasonable summary?

If it is, I don't think anyone is going to argue with you. There's a reason that skydiving rigs (not BASE rigs) are used for skydiving.

Yes.

Define complicated. Why not eliminate the tailpocket and thus making the system simpler?


That's a more reasonable statement.

I'm not arguing for a reserve but "simpler -> more reliable" may be an okay rule of thumb but is not a universal law.


Edit: check out this article. Your statement is universally true for a system of components in series and is universally false for a system of components in parallel. The keyword here is redundancy. Look at engine failure in aircrafts, power grid design etc. - very complex and very reliable.
You may still save your statement by a favourable definition of complicated , then it will be at best misleading.

The tail pocket is a simplification for the deployment system, and is used in place of the (more complicated) deployment bag because it is simpler and more reliable.

The deployment system itself is necessary for deployment, which is an essential functional task of the parachute. Eliminating essential functions may simplify the system, but would also render it unfit for it's overall purpose.

Every sport parachute system I'm aware of deploys a second parachute in series (after the first parachute). In these systems, parallel operation is classified as a malfunction (I believe that skydivers commonly call this a "two out").

Are you aware of any sport systems that deploy multiple parachutes in parallel (i.e. at the same time)?

Two components in parallel does not mean that they are functioning at the same time. It means they function independent of each other.

A system of two components in series fails if one or both components fail.
A system of two components in parallel fails if and only if both components fail. (Maybe take a look at the article)

You can argue that in skydiving the two components are not entirely independent, fine theory is theory, this is still much more a parallel system rather than one in series.

While as explained above a skydive rig is already a parallel system, in paragliding (esp. acro) some people use multiple reserves without cutting away.

The tailpocket makes the deployment less chaotic, which is way I pointed out that you other statement is more reasonable. If you eliminate it (without replacing it by a different component, d-bag) you remove a component from the system, just chuck the lines into the container. You use 'simpler' as you see fit.

Simpler(!) example: You are climbing and arrive at to bolts where you want to build an anchor. The simpler option is to clip a biner to one of the bolts, done. The more complex option is to build an anchor with redundancy using two bolts such that the failure of either does not result in total failure: this anchor is more reliable even though it is certainly not simpler. Do you disagree?

The only two canopy BASE container ever made was the Sorcerer (the precursor to the Skyhook used in some modern skydiving rigs), which used a "riser to direct bag" system where the reserve was deployed by the risers of the first canopy as they were cut away. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as the components functioning in series, both in time and function.

The same logic applies to RSL systems and AADs, for what it's worth, but I don't think those have ever been used in BASE (except for the aspects in which the skyhook/sorcerer system is similar to an RSL).

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make (relative to BASE). Can you summarize what you are trying to argue (in BASE terms) so I can understand? I feel like we're having an argument about semantics here, rather than a technical discussion about BASE systems.

I know why you think this is in series but when talking about systems and their reliability this is not the case. You can call this semantics but I linked to an article where this is very thoroughly explained.


Check out my initial post:
"I'm not arguing for a reserve but "simpler -> more reliable" may be an okay rule of thumb but is not a universal law."
In response to your statement:
"Any system that is more complicated is, as a result, less reliable than any system that is less complicated."

I hear this all the time and it is simply not true.

Ah, I see.

My point about chaos at deployment was;

Having time to use a second canopy requires a higher initial deployment altitude.

In a subterminal environment, higher initial deployment altitudes generally mean a more chaotic deployment altitude because there is more influence from environmental factors (like environmental wind and turbulence).

Using a system which encourages (or actually requires, if you ever want to actually use the safety component of it) a higher pull altitude increases the environmental chaos factors during deployment.

Since the vast majority of deployments will not require use of a second parachute, but the use of a two parachute system will encourage higher deployments on _every_ jump, the use of a two parachute system in the subterminal environment will likely lead to an overall decrease in safety from increased environmental chaos at opening.


Note that this is only one factor, and probably less important than the fact that the higher deployments will take place in closer proximity to the object, increasing the risk of object strike after opening.



In my mind, this is a practical discussion framed by the forum in which it is being held--one for beginner (i.e. non-wingsuit), BASE jumpers (i.e. not skydivers).

I am not arguing that in a skydiving deployment environment (terminal fall rates and clear opening environments, with pull altitudes allowing sufficient time/altitude to activate a second parachute) BASE rigs would be safer. I'm happy to accept that skydiving rigs are safer for skydiving. I do not agree that they are safer for general purpose BASE, and especially not that they are safer for beginner BASE jumpers in a subterminal environment.

Not in terminal big wall jumping, esp. WS.


And in this particular case, this particular complication of the system may indeed reduce it's reliability. That does not make "simpler->more reliable" a universal law, as you stated it and is often stated by others in the context of BASE.


Depends on the beginner. I did 8 bridge jumps, one slick ITW and only terminal tracking jumps since. (Without a reserve but I'm as I already said in my first post, I'm not even arguing for the use of one - I merely criticized your reasoning 'simpler -> more reliable'.)

You're posting in a forum where beginner BASE jumpers ask questions about BASE.

The question posted was (to summarize) "why don't BASE rigs have reserves"?

Can you please summarize the answer you are giving, or the argument you are making, with relation to the original question?

Are you saying that BASE rigs (specifically those used by beginners) should or should not have second parachutes in them?

Thanks.

You're telling a beginner:

"Any system that is more complicated is, as a result, less reliable than any system that is less complicated." (My emphasis)

That's my issue. I think I've made that clear.

I honestly believe that any of the currently available two parachute systems that he might use for BASE are more complicated and less reliable than any of the currently available systems one parachute systems he might use for BASE.

So I guess we're just going to have to disagree on that.



I am NOT talking about;

Skydiving systems
Power distribution systems
Theoretical parachute systems for BASE which do not exist in the real world

Or anything other than currently existing BASE systems that are suitable for beginner use for general purpose BASE.

I apologize if I gave you the impression I was generalizing about something outside the scope of the original question (BASE systems for beginner use).

The OP, though made by a beginner, is a general question, "No reserve - a philosophy, a cost saving or what?" that even very experienced jumpers should revisit from time to time. Indeed,

"Does anyone BASE jump with a reserve? CAN anyone jump with a reserve? Should anyone jump with a reserve?

Why don't you?"

And it's a ripe time in wingsuit or big wall tracking BASE to revisit this question. It's probably about time to have further specialization in BASE gear and make 2-canopy systems acceptable (and advisable, though not enforceable) choice for big walls. After all, we do already have specialization for different types of jumps. For example, for superlow objects, static line is used. Static line is not used for WS BASE deployments, although one can imagine a large spindle with 2 miles of fishing line installed on exit that will pull the pins. Velcro rigs are still being used for low BASE, but not advisable on terminal jumps. Etc. etc.

I already discussed this above, so no need to repeat.

But I do have an issue with this popular statement:


I believe this statement was invented long time ago when talking to media or skeptical skydivers or beginners, to defend BASE as not this crazy Russian roulette thing, but a well calculated risk. This is, essentially, just a smart wording trick, "Look, we're not crazy to jump this unreliable thing called "main". We jump the reserve all the time!" and the media or skeptics went like, "Wow! This is smart! These guys are not stupid as we thought! They do jump with a reserve, it's just they use it all the time and don't need the main!"

This is patently false. We jump the main and we don't have a reserve. It's the very definition of the word "reserve". It's not about reliability of one or the other, it's about having plan B.

Reserve definition from dictionary:

- a supply of a commodity not needed for immediate use but available if required

Just because our main is as reliable as a skydiving reserve, doesn't mean we're jumping the reserve every time! We're jumping a reliable main, and we do not have a reserve. A WS BASE jumper, who can't find the pull, or has a sudden seizure in their pull arm, or bird strike, or hit tree branches with their pull arm, or got bridle wrap around PC, or got bridle wrapped around the tailpocket, or lines broken in hard opening, or tension knot, lineover, stuck slider, etc. etc. - has no reserve, no "supply ... available if required", he's dead. While he could have been alive and tell stories in the bar, drinking beer and laughing, "no shit, there I was". And BFL would be a dozen or so, if not several dozens, names shorter.

A reserve in general meaning is also something usually not designed for all-time use, only for emergency. Examples: reserve tire in the car, usually a lighter version of the tire that is only designed to get you to tire shop; reserve rocket on manned spaceship launches, it's a solid propellant booster that can take the cabin safe distance away from main rocket fire or explosion and land it - but it won't take it to the orbit; etc.

So let's stop fooling ourselves that we're jumping a reserve all the time, we're jumping a main, and we don't have a reserve! (And in certain situations, when reserves are actually useable, we should.)

If we rethink our philosophy, this might result in not only acceptance of using skydiving rigs properly configured for BASE, in WS or big wall tracking BASE, but development of specialized 2-canopy rigs that are fine-tuned just for this purpose.

I'm fine with that clarification.

Your original statement is a lot more general and reads as if less reliability is a necessary consequence of any complication. My bad if I'm the only one who would read it that way.

Let me add this imaginary scenario to discussion:

Twin brothers went to wingsuit-jump Brento, one with BASE rig, the other with a skydiving rig configured for dual purpose. They have exact same BASE canopy, slider, PC. They fly straight out and pull above LZ at 1500ft. They both (what a chance!) have identical tension knots, sending both of them into high-speed spiral not compatible with survival. The twin with a reserve cuts away and lands the reserve, no problem. (or just uses it as more fabric and lands in the trees with minor scratches) The other twin dies. He had no plan B. Was it necessary to not have plan B? Was it necessary to die?

I’m late to the semantics convention, but to answer your actual original questions.

Does anyone BASE jump with a reserve?
No one actively I know of, but possibly a couple, very few if any

CAN anyone jump with a reserve?
Yes, but there’s nothing base specific currently being built I know of. Old systems have been discussed by other rambling posts.

Should anyone jump with a reserve?
This question has been debated many times over many years on here. Cost, additional weight, and lack of time on many types of jumps are some of the factors. It’s been done, it didn’t catch on, likely for a variety of reasons already discussed, and we’ll have this same discussing in a couple more years too.


Why don't you?
I rarely pull high enough where I’d feel comfortable cutting away (I don’t even exit much at altitudes I’d feel comfortable cutting away). I choose big docile parachutes I can land with minor malfunctions as needed. I have lineover toggles and hookknifes that could help improve more severe malfunctions. For me and 99.9% of base jumpers, this seems to work.

Back to arguing what the definition of “is” is.

I think that in modern skydiving the definition of reserve is more about the type of parachute and the packing method (and licensing of the person doing the packing) that about the order in which the systems are activated.

For example, in a low exit situation (aircraft malfunction) for example, you'd hear skydivers talking about going "straight to the reserve". That implies that the reason for using the reserve is not the failure of the first system, but it's inherently lower reliability.

Given this context (that skydivers generally view the reserve as "more reliable" rather than as "always second") I think it's fair to characterize a BASE rig as "reserve only" rather than "without reserve."

I guess it boils down to semantics, and whether you view the commonly used term "reserve" in skydiving to refer to a more reliable system or simply to a system of equal reliability which can be activated as a "second chance" after the failure of an equally reliable "first chance."

That's definitely a fair point.

Maybe we ought to start a thread in the Technical forum on that topic?

We have specialized canopies for lots of different things, but containers remain (mostly--leaving out things like the Stream and L/D+) pretty general purpose.

I know I've seen people jumping Skyhook equipped rigs with ultralight BASE canopies in both trays (not on skydives). It seems like that's a good discussion to have, and one that has been playing around the fringes for a while now.

That's an interesting point.

Would there be a use for a "two out" round reserve system in terminal BASE? The round reserve would be much smaller and compact than a square reserve, and not requiring cut away would reduce the total time to deploy it?

Maybe that's a question for another thread, though.

Anyone want to move this discussion over to the Technical forum?

Its a matter of redundancy. The FAA even includes the phrase "not intended for use" in their mandate to carry reserves, for example an intentional cut away and reserve deployment violates the rules unless a 3rd redundant "not intended for use" canopy is also used.
BASE rigs have no redundant canopy therefore they have no reserve.

This is what I have always envisioned when thinking of BASE reserves. Small round to throw out with the rest of the mess, much like paragliders.

First I totally agree with the facts that we are jumping a very reliable main and also with the statment that a skydive container is more complicated but only for the reserve deployment, some have no DBag like for the CRW guys if I'm not mistaken so it's a BASE system + a reserve and the main deplyment is not more complicated than a BASE system.

We should think more out of the box !
No pull ? When was the last no pull without a WS ? The first problem of the no pull is the WS. The BOC that has never been engineered for a use with a WS, alternative solutions should be developped like the WingTip Pouch. With a broken arm, frozen hand or no more energy to deflate my WS I can still pull with the WTP
Why the reserve has to be like the skydive one ? I'm joining Fledgling on this one, in case of a canopy malfunction the best system would probably be a reserve like the paragliding one. This system is very simple, reliable and low weight, could be put in a place where it could be launch with both hands, and it is designed to be used with an already out canopy, which means that you do not have to release anything and you save time and altitude.

I have no idea, but I would have thought a sky hook set up would have been the fastest way to get a reserve out?

The Skyhook was adapted from a BASE system. The Sorcerer (two canopy BASE container) was developed by Mark Hewitt, who was then the owner of Vertigo BASE Outfitters, while he was working at Relative Workshop (now UPT). He conferred with Bill Booth about the design, and many years later the basic idea was resurrected and refined as the Skyhook.

MARD is an acronym for a Main Assisted Reserve Deployment.

The SkyHook is a name brand version of a MARD.

A reserve would ideally be able to be used if u got a bridle wrapping the mains pilot chute etc not needing the drag of a main to pull out the reserve .....I've got more of a fear of the main not coming out in the first place then landing a malfunctioning one......

If that's the case, wouldn't it bring you back to the idea of having a "cut away" for either the pins and PC or the walls of the pack tray itself?

Its been a long way for some improvements. The pilot chute bridlesystem havent changed or improved for 30 years. Im sure we getting close to one million base jumps, and statistic about no found pilotchute or pilute chute mailfunction is not a major factor, but it happens. Could a loop release system saved anyone? Is it possible to make, or simular?

Today, wingsuit jumpers even have a big flare at the end,

http://www.basejumper.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

A release loop system has already been done by some guy(s). At least I know one.
I just don't see what it is needed for ? Pin lock ?

In the actual malfunctions the tension knot is at the top, this is were the safety canopy would be very usefull.
In the actual BFL the no-pull directly killed 2 guys this year, 2 last year.
It is a lot IMO, and we have no statistics on how many people had trouble to pitch.

I made a small change on my bridle system, I hope it can be considered as an improvement:
https://www.facebook.com/laporte.antoine/posts/10217254075094373

BRAVO

Now, that's some thinking outside of box (or BOC?), that's some innovation!

I would still leave longer bridle outside of sock, this length as in video looks to me a bit short and can be sucked in into the burble.

What about, risk of the bridle getting bunched up inside the sock and thus failing to fully extend?

Is there a reverse taper, or something, toward the direction the bridle exits the sock?

Can similar "delay" effect be achieved by a simple rubberband (thin, like normal band cut in half lengthwise, or even a thin office band used for business cards, etc.) larksheaded near or on the bridle-PC knot, with folds of bridle stowed in the band? (yes, the band will release at once, unlike gradually as the sock, but by that time PC is inflated and pulling away, so I don't think the bridle can outpace the PC and wrap around it)

Another idea to improve upon original: sew in the sock inside the PC, on the center line, with its "mouth" coming out of the mesh near the PC attachment loop. Bridle will be stowed, essentially, inside the PC.

Why not put the "sock" inside the BOC? It would look a lot like the system that Rob Jones worked on, oh, 15 years ago...

I still have my Razor that Rob personally delivered to me in Zephyrhills back in 2009. I later cut the mini-pocket off, because I didn't like that idea and having even a bit of extra bulk/friction in BOC if I'm not using this thing seemed to be unnecessary.

The reason I don't like the idea of it is because it's in the way of pull force to the pin, so if it somehow bunched up there, the pull force will be delivered to that pocket/bunch, not to the pin directly. In Antoine's idea, pull force would still pull the pin even if the bridle bunched up.

What width did you use for the sleeve? I tried making one to play with around 30mm wide and it was much too tight.

With the sock into the BOC the force to extract the brible may vary depends on the angle of extraction, big difference between the bridle friction on the container if you are head up or head down, wingsuit or slick ... Also the pins are getting out earlier with the action of the wind on the bridle with the sock close to the PC where it has to wait for the bridle to be unfold with the sock in the BOC.

@Colm: I've tested a lots of configurations and James Boole too, the worst we got was a 20kg force needed to extract thebridle, but to have this result you have to make a knot before putting the bridle in the sock.
If the folding is well made the maximum for to extract the bridle was 600g for me.
If I was warping the bridle around itself so a knot could (would) happened during extraction I got a 2kg force to extract the bridle, a PC extraction force is way over that, depends on it's size and speed of course.

@Yuri: the rubber band could work but the sock is I think better to avoid knots, during packing or extraction. The bridle has the tendancy to get out at once if it is not well fold, the folds have to be completly inside the sock. I think with a rubber band the unfolding would probably happends very offently at once.
I though about the bridle in the PC, it was the original James idea. At the end I though that the sock would not be as still as on the outside, the folding would be much complicated as the installation, and I found no real advantages to have it inside.

I think mine is close to 30mm wide, but probably less.
It depends on the bridle lenght too, mine is 3m or so so it is thicker when it's fold.
Probably depends also on the fabric.
Best is to test, make it a bit large and just add a new sewing to make it thiner if it's too wide, it's not much work.
The good force to get the first fold out is probably between 500g-1000g.
I'm waiting for people to test it too to find the right way to build it, I have not the time to do all the needed test as I am not jumping close to my workshop.

BTW this could be also not bad in hand held jumps, maybe less chess of a GoPro bridle warp, to be tested too, I'm not jumping so much slider down.

Would be interesting to get Luke Aikens input after his 250+ 1000 foot or lower openings using a 2 canopy skydiving rig while practicing for his jump into the net.
I heard him speak last weekend, but did not get a chance to ask what type of main he used and what was his plan B during practice jumps.