What deployment method do you have on your primary sport rig?

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

And I believe the inventor of both systems has posted on here that he prefers throwouts.

Great, he has an opinion. I don't think it hold more weight than other experienced opinions, and I don't agree with it.

Quote

1. A BOC pilot chute, in a spandex pouch, is by far the most reliable deployment system for your main. Hard pulls and pilot chutes in tow are very, very rare, and floating handles are, by definition, impossible. Add to this the fact that you can't "throw" a pullout out of the burble (which extends well beyond your fingertips in a stable face to earth deployment position) because you never have ahold of the pilot chute itself. You end up "dropping" your pullout in the burble everytime, unless you contort your body (go slightly unstable) right at pilot chute release to "break-up" the burble. All successful pull-out jumpers have developed this talent, whether they realize it or not. But we all know that being "slightly unstable" at pull time is not a good idea with a small elliptical canopy.

There is nothing unstable about my deployment, and I have 3000 "small elliptical jumps to prove it. Having seen video of my deployments, I CAN get the P/C outside the burble every time all day long.

Quote

2. We all also know that "out of sequence" deployments are not a good thing. (For instance: You don't want your canopy to get out of the bag before your lines unstow, do you?) Well, do you really want you main container open before your pilot chute is developing drag? A pullout deployment is out of sequence by definition.

What a bullshit argument. A pull out deploy in the EXACT same sequence as a reserve. The advantage to a pullout is that I can place my P/C into the airstream OUTSIDE the burble every time all day long. If I could have a pull out reserve, I would.

Quote

These first two reasons is why wing suit jumpers shy away from pullouts, but they apply equally to everybody.

Nonsense. The original problem with wingsuits and pullouts stems from manufacturers traditionally using a shorter bridal for a pullout. A shorter bridal has been used in the past as a "snatch" is not needed to open the container. I've got 400 wingsuit jumps on a pull out with a 9 food bridal (that also happen to be on "small ellipticals") with NO malfunctions, or hesitations.

Quote

3. Since both pullouts and BOC throwouts are in the same location, with similar (if not identical) handles, it hard to make the argument that a pullout is more secure to freefly with.

Now that the pullout tuck tab pud has been copied and called a "freefly handle" you may have a point.

Quote

4. The lost pud (pullout handle) malfunction is very dangerous, because you "know" you can fix it if you just try a little longer. Many very experience jumpers have gone all the way into the ground working on that theory.

This is not a problem with the system, it's a problem with training. The EXACT same scenario has occurred just as often with a "hard pull" on a throw out.

Quote

5. No one in their right mind would start a student out with a pullout. Why? Because everyone knows that they are simply harder to operate correctly. This means you must transition to pullout (probably with no instruction) and all transitions carry risks. (I know, if you start out with a ripcord, you have to transition to a hand deploy. But one transition is better than two, and main ripcord deployments are invaluable training for that inevitable first reserve ride.)

What nonsense. A pull out is no harder to operate than any of the other systems, and simply owing to the fact that ripcord and spring loaded pilotchutes used to be the norm, shows that training is the issue. People used to say "No one in their right mind would start students on a throw out."

Quote

6. Over 95% of the rigs we sell are hand deploy, so it has become the defacto standard. With no real advantage to pullout, adhering to a standard is better for everybody because of problems caused by borrowed and used gear.

Great, that's peoples choice.

Quote

I'm not saying it's impossible to jump a pullout safely. I know many jumpers who have done it for thousands of jumps. What I am saying is that it is harder, and therefore will result in more deployment problems than a BOC. You have enough to worry about on a skydive. Why add a pullout to the list?"

Don't believe the hype. There are way too many generalizations in Mr. Booth's statements. Either system functions well, it is up to the user to know how to properly operate the equipment they choose. Neither system is "better" than the other. Each has it's benefits, and flaws.

The scare tactics used to sell one system over the other are bull.

I could argue that the pullout is safer in regard to the horseshoe malfunction, or that a throw out wears out P/C's and pockets faster (both items which Mr. Booth sells). But that too would be a BS scare tactic.

Use your heads people, and figure out how each system works, and why it does what it does well. The choose wisely for YOU.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Beatnik 2]

Quote

2. We all also know that "out of sequence" deployments are not a good thing. (For instance: You don't want your canopy to get out of the bag before your lines unstow, do you?) Well, do you really want you main container open before your pilot chute is developing drag? A pullout deployment is out of sequence by definition.

Your reserve container opens before the pilot chute is developing drag as well. I guess it is out of sequence and all the reserve systems out there are a bad thing. Plus any main ripcord operated system and any static line system with a pilot chute assist. I disagree that is a out of sequence definition since so many system use that sequence and a lot longer than the throw out has been around. This "sequence" definition shouldn't apply to anything.

[skydiverek 63]

Quote

Quote

2. We all also know that "out of sequence" deployments are not a good thing. (For instance: You don't want your canopy to get out of the bag before your lines unstow, do you?) Well, do you really want you main container open before your pilot chute is developing drag? A pullout deployment is out of sequence by definition.

Your reserve container opens before the pilot chute is developing drag as well. I guess it is out of sequence and all the reserve systems out there are a bad thing. Plus any main ripcord operated system and any static line system with a pilot chute assist. I disagree that is a out of sequence definition since so many system use that sequence and a lot longer than the throw out has been around. This "sequence" definition shouldn't apply to anything.

Bill Booth again: "The Cypres put an end to any thoughts of a hand deployed reserve on sport systems. Actually, I originally designed the Vector to be a dual hand deployed rig, but got talked out of it. When I think back on it, I'm glad I didn't do it. When "stuff" really goes wrong, and you go into a panic, a ripcord is just simpler."

[Beatnik 2]

Quote

Bill Booth again: "The Cypres put an end to any thoughts of a hand deployed reserve on sport systems. Actually, I originally designed the Vector to be a dual hand deployed rig, but got talked out of it. When I think back on it, I'm glad I didn't do it. When "stuff" really goes wrong, and you go into a panic, a ripcord is just simpler."

That still doesn't say anything about the other deployment methods I mentioned. I am sorry, there is no way you can say one is out of sequence and then say it better for your reserve. Either method container opening then drag on a pilot chute or drag on a pilot chute then container opening both seem to be in sequence.

Considering that the Vector was designed long before the CYPRES came out, there is probably many other reasons he went the way he did. I doubt a device that wasn't invented at that time had any influence in the design. Reading what he says, he goes and contradicts himself. It seems to me he prefers something and is trying to convince this is the way to go.

[usernametaken 0]

Quote

The scare tactics used to sell one system over the other are bull.

I could argue that the pullout is safer in regard to the horseshoe malfunction, or that a throw out wears out P/C's and pockets faster (both items which Mr. Booth sells). But that too would be a BS scare tactic.

Use your heads people, and figure out how each system works, and why it does what it does well. The choose wisely for YOU.

I really appreciate this. Only after being told I would "go in" due to a throw-out system and the inevitable pilot chute in tow, my first rig was a Racer on a predominantly Racer DZ. What bummed me out was that the owner had a deal with the JS and that he got more money when people ordered Racers.

I needed pure information so I could make a decision for myself. Did I ever have a problem or deployment related malfunction? No.

My next rig was a Talon and I loved that rig. It was comfortable and bullet-proof, but I don't think the throw-out made it a great rig, it was an combination of things, as opposed to JUST the deployment system.

"Think like a man of action; act like a man of thought." -Henri L.
Bergson

[NancyJ 11]

I have transitioned dozens of student jumpers from spring-loaded ripcord deployment to pull-out. I like to have my students pull and repack the pull-out 5 to 10 times on the ground. As a result I’ve never failed to have a student land and say, “That was easy… that was fun.” Once they’ve done it correctly once, they always retain the skill.

The first lesson to remember is, you don’t throw a pull-out. You PUT the pilotchute where there is no burble, in the fast air beside your head (slightly bent arm, relaxed grip). EASY.

I have over 5000 jumps on a pull-out and I‘ve never had a floating handle or any other difficulty with it. Of course I was trained by the best – the inventor of the pull-out, John Sherman.

Having made about 100 (springloaded pilotchute) ripcord jumps and over 1200 throw-out jumps I can say without a doubt that the pull-out is easier to use and faster and easier to pack.

In the training video “Breakaway”, I was asked to simulate what might happen if the pull-out handle were to somehow get out of its dual end pocket. So in freefall I plucked the handle out of its pocket and let it go. The pull-out handle is attached to a short lanyard that is tucked up under the side flap. When I let go of the pull-out handle, it simply sat there on my butt, sort of leaning against the bottom of the rig. It didn’t float, it didn’t move; it just sat there in my burble. A few moments later I reached back and felt the handle right where I dropped it. From there it was a routine pull and deployment. Upon viewing the footage, the films’ producer and editor dismayed, “That’s not very exciting.”

“No, it isn’t”, I said.

They were disappointed that the worst scenario malfunction mode of the pull-out was quite benign.

The pull-out is so much safer that the throw-out in a number of ways. Neither the pull-out pilotchute or handle are vulnerable, the way the throw-out handle and pilotchute are. The pull-out pilotchute is safely tucked away, inside the container, “where god intended it to be!”

The Pull-out is supremely secure for freeflying, sitflying, speed diving, speed style, actually every discipline of skydiving. It effectively makes your rig 2 inches shorter because you don’t have the pouch on the bottom of the container (which is not very attractive to begin with). And you don’t have to replace the BOC pouch when it gets worn and “piccky”.

If your container opens prematurely, say from a broken loop, the pilotchute is already out there ahead of the bag.

Pull-outs don't sneak their way out of a pouch the way a throw-out can, causing unexpected openings (in the doorway of an aircraft or in freefall). It was a throw-out pilotchute that killed Tom Piras, in just such an accident.

It takes about the same force in pounds (if not less), to pull a pull-out pin than it does to pull a throw-out out of its pouch, So there really is no advantage to a throw-out in that regard.

With regard to packing, you don’t fold the pc; just flop the pilotchute on top of the bag, stuffing it somewhat into the depression formed by the loop over the top of the bag. Hopefully you’ve packed properly – soft in the middle, firm on the outsides -so that you have a soft area to stuff the pilotchute into.

"Why is the throw-out more prevalent than the pull-out?" you may ask. Very simply, aggressive marketing of the throw-out when it first came out. One very prominent instructor from DeLand told me years ago that he thought the pull-out was eminently better (safer), than the throw-out but that in his opinion it was easier to teach the throw-out. He admittedly, was lazy.

[DocPop 1]

Hey Nancy - thank you so much for a very informative thread. It is great when really experienced people like you give a detailed informative answer like that.

I am really excited to get my new rig!

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

You PUT the pilotchute where there is no burble, in the fast air beside your head (slightly bent arm, relaxed grip).

You really think it should be brought all the way up next to your head? That doesn't seem like a good idea or necessary.

Quote

I can say without a doubt that the pull-out is easier to use

How can it be easier to use when the throw out is better for lazy throws (assuming you agree with that). People will be lazy with their throws, at least some of the time.

Quote

When I let go of the pull-out handle, it simply sat there on my butt, sort of leaning against the bottom of the rig. It didn’t float, it didn’t move; it just sat there in my burble. A few moments later I reached back and felt the handle right where I dropped it.

Clearly experience has shown that this is not always the case. Even if it should always happen with a new rig and proper packing, people and rigs are less than perfect, so I don't think you should dismiss this point as invalid.

Quote

Neither the pull-out pilotchute or handle are vulnerable, the way the throw-out handle and pilotchute are.

Many rigs now have handles very similar in configuration for both designs, so I do not see the distinction here, at least in how it can be configured with newer handle options. The pilot chute vulnerability is not relevant, only the handle is what matters.

Quote

The Pull-out is supremely secure for freeflying, sitflying, speed diving, speed style, actually every discipline of skydiving.

No difference in how secure the handle is with current options available.

Quote

Pull-outs don't sneak their way out of a pouch the way a throw-out can, causing unexpected openings (in the doorway of an aircraft or in freefall).

They don't "sneak" their way out, something pulls on them. A pull out handle can be pulled unintentionally also. No difference with the current options available.

Quote

It takes about the same force in pounds (if not less), to pull a pull-out pin than it does to pull a throw-out out of its pouch, So there really is no advantage to a throw-out in that regard.

If that is true, then that reinforces my point that a pull out handle is just as vulnerable to unintentional activation than a throw out. However, it is the experience of many that a pull out does in fact usually require more force to activate.

I have had rigs with both types. The design of both systems has improved over the years in many ways, including that pull out handles used to be held in place with just velcro, and we now can get handles for throw outs that are just as secure as a modern pull out handle.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DocPop 1]

UPDATE:

I have now had my new for a couple of months and I have to say I am really liking the pull-out. It seems extremely secure and I like the fact that there is no velcro or spandex to wear out.

It did seem a little odd for the first 4 or 5 jumps, but after that transition phase I am completely comfortable with this deployment method.

I deliberately dropped my handle and there was no issue. It just stayed there, tethered by the lanyard.

Finally, the rig looks so neat without a BOC pouch.

I just wanted to update so that anyone considering a pull-out could read my opinions soon after making the transition.

I now believe that the only TRUE downside will be if I ever try to sell this rig. Due to the prejudice against pull-outs I may have more trouble than I would selling a throw-out system.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[billvon 2,975]

>I deliberately dropped my handle and there was no issue. It just stayed there,
>tethered by the lanyard.

Do NOT rely on this. A lot of people have died trying to find that handle that's "right there." (it wasn't)

[DocPop 1]

Point taken, Bill.

Two tries then go for reserve.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[airtwardo 7]

I now believe that the only TRUE downside will be if I ever try to sell this rig. Due to the prejudice against pull-outs I may have more trouble than I would selling a throw-out system.

It's a quick and relatively inexpensive alterations, wouldn't be concerned.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[jumpwally 0]

all good info,,but i am surprised by the number of people i've come across with rotator cuff issue's and they all seem to use pull outs,,,,,,,it may or may not be the issue,but i find it odd. If you were to high speed film the arm/shoulder movements at deployment, i''l bet you would see slight differences in angle/twist that may or may not be the culprit.

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083