Building Escape Parachutes

[Jimbo 0]

It's on the front page and judging from the number of votes everyone seems to have an opinion on it, but no one is talking about it. So here's your chance, let's talk about building escape parachutes.
Personally, I think they're a bad idea. My suspicion is that they'll kill or injure more people than they'll ever save. They'll interfere with rescue operations. People will die or be severely injured on landing. People will jump, but not pull. People will jump too early (before a legitimate attempt to rescue has been made). People will injure others already on the ground.
Need I go on?

[lazerq3 0]

I see your piont but the web site says that you have to get training on them so I think if you had the proper training for them what the hell, you should be alright to fly them. I mean we didnt just jump outa a plane by our selfs the first time with no training. Now that we have it (training) its not a big deal(knowing how to fly that is). Now if they're just hanging on the walls for anyone to use I'd say NO way. I could also see a law being passed saying they are for last resort only, as in you WILL die if you dont jump. But then again who needs more laws being passed . we have enough of those.
I dont know I say go for it. If I worked in a taaaaaalllll building I'd like to know that I have a way out if everything else is blocked. just my .02
jason

[Jimbo 0]

How are you going to train "[Joe|Jane] Office worker" how to jump out of a building? A burning or otherwise compromised building while keeping their cool?
It just won't work.
Even if someone, somehow, made it out of the bulding and managed to deploy some kind of parachute, the winds around any building tall enough for the average person to survive a jump out of are going to be a nightmare that even most skydivers wouldn't want to deal with.

[christopherm 0]

I have to say that I agree with you Jimbo. Though legitimate arguments can be made for both sides, I think it is simply a matter of people not knowing what goes on during an emergency situation and what people will do during an emergency situation.
I can completely understand why people might think they would be usefull. First of all, the obvious, the World Trade Center. People were trapped above where the plane crashed and those people never had a chance to get down. If they had parachutes, they may have been able to jump and could have landed safely somewhere below. However, this situation is about the only one that you can give for having these parachutes.
Why we can't have these parachutes far out weigh the pros. First of all, the incident in New York is the first time something like that has happened in history of skyscrapers in America. So what will happen is that you pay an enormous amount of money to outfit these buildings with parachutes. Then when you have a kitchen fire on the 60th floor, everyone above slappes on a parachute and jumps instead of going down the fire escape. A tough job of putting out a small fire, 60 floors up, has just become tougher from all the injuries people have aquired from trying to land a parachute among 300 other people, on their side of the building, and skyscrapers all around.
I can go on, but I would like people to challenge my opinion so far, so that maybe I can learn something new.

[allieram 0]

I agree, I don't think they are a good idea. Yea, the manufacturer states minimal training, but I doubt that everyone will get training. If they don't just hang on a wall, then how will they be secured so that only trained individuals will use them? Who's to say that I grab one (being trained) and someone else (not being trained) knocks the crap out of me and grabs it and leaps out the window.
If a company/firm decides to buy them and trains their employees, then what about the visitors to the office? Should they receive training at the reception desk before entering the building or just who cares about the visitors?
Everytime a firm hires a new employee, are they to train the new employee on use? Who trains the employees on use: company management? building owners? a local DZ (won't that increase the DZ's revenues)? or the emergency chute manufacturer?
Who's to purchase the emergency chutes: the company/firm or the building owner?
According to USPA, we as skydivers are to remain current on our jumps or receive refresher training. Will this be required for the emergency chutes? I seriously don't see this happening on a regular basis.
What about any inspection requirements? Similar to our reserves? Who's to do the repacks, either after use or after every x-amount of days? (some more revenue being created for local DZs and/or riggers)

[Zennie 0]

I keep telling my wife that I need to take up BASE as a survival skill and she's not buying it.
"Wear the grudge like a crown. Desperate to control. Unable to forgive. And we're sinking deeper."

[skybytch 273]

I sell parachutes... started getting calls and emails asking for parachutes on the 13th. I tried to explain why what was available wouldn't work for what they wanted and why. My reasons - assume you are exiting a burning building from the 50th floor and you just happened to have a BASE rig next to your desk. First thing required is a solid body position on exit. Next, a clean throw of the p/c. Next, a fast on heading opening. Now you have to steer to avoid flames, explosions, streaming fire hoses, other jumpers with and without parachutes.. oh yeah, and steer to a good landing area at the same time, all while dealing with the wierd winds around tall buildings combined with the wierd winds caused by the fire, smoke, explosions, etc. That good landing area? Remember that most of the streets around the building will be covered with emergency vehicles, plus there'll be the usual lookie loos and the lucky ones who made it out from below the fire filling the rest of the spaces. Now imagine doing all this perfectly if the highest thing you've ever jumped from is the high diving board at the pool. Not very likely, imho.
The next day we learned that Basic Research was working on an almost idiot proof static lined round system. The system as explained to me requires no training. The user puts it on, hooks the static line to something inside the building (desk, door, even a chair), breaks the window as needed and jumps. It's static lined so no worry about tossing a p/c and it doesn't require a perfect body position on exit. It's a pretty small round - 16 feet - so it's likely that only a jumper who'd landed rounds before could stand it up (or even just land it) without injury and it's not steerable. Theory is better laying in a hospital bed with severe injuries than the alternative.
Even with that system, I still think they are a bad idea for the average person. Maybe for those willing to learn how to make the jump as safe as possible by learning to skydive, then learning to BASE jump... but even at that, I think it would take an very talented and experienced BASE jumper to have survived without injury a jump out of the WTC on 9/11.
pull and flare,
lisa

[FallinWoman 1]

I think that people would use these parachutes without exhausting all other possibilities. They would not understand all the things that could go wrong, from an unstable body position for deployment to wierd winds from surrounding buildings... They would think have parachute, will jump.
If we have to have our reserves repacked every 120 days, woudl building parachute have the same requirement? Probably not. Since they would not be used for sport jumping, i think repacks and currency training would not apply.
Again, scary that such untrained people would rely on such a parachute, possibly made, packed years earlier to save their life before ALL OTHER MEANS OF RESCUE WERE EXHAUSTED!!!
just my .02
Anne

[lazerq3 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong but These arnt something thats going to hang on the wall . These are chutes that you buy for personal emergency use. If you want it YOU buy it ,not the company and YOU are resoncible for the training. SO from that stand piont If I bought one and got the training. I dont see a problem so long as its use as a LAST RESORT!!! YOu always hear stories of 800ft bldgings on fire and people jumping out to save there lives. If people are going to panic there going to panic.and if there going to jump there going to jump, theres nothing we can do about that but wouldnt it be better to be paniced and jump with a possible chance of living than jump with NO chance. I'm not trying to start an arguement here just trying to find the good in these things!
jason

[FallinWoman 1]

Jason,
My fear is that people would have a false sense of security iwht a parachute on their backs and jump when without the parachute they would not. I fear that people would jump, get hurt or die, when they should have stayed put and waited to be rescued. These parachutes should only be as a last resort and I am not sure that the general public would really understand the danger involved in jumping under those conditions.

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

OK, here is the real deal with some of the systems offered now:
There are straight-up BASE rigs that are being marketed as "rescue devices", and then there are the ones that are going to actually function in a simple manner. The latter is what I will concentrate on. The one offered by Precision is going to have a square parachute, but be SL activated. Another I have heard of will have a round parachute and be SL activated. The basic principle is that you knock out your window with the supplied snap aul (nail set), don your rig, hook the SL to a solid object and HAUL ASS straight out the window. A complete no-brainer. Body position could be either a military-type exit, or a sort of forward leap. Deadly off-heading square openings do not apply, as your trusty round will lower you straight down and bounce off the building if blown backwards. I am all for this type of system for people who work above a minimum height. "Real" skydivers in that situation need to go out and buy a damn BASE rig and learn how to launch without going ass over tea-kettle. Work below that height? No problem, have a kern-mantle proline (pre-coiled, cut to length, and attached to a solid object in your office), a 12 foot length of rope to tie a swiss seat, some gloves, and a carabiner or figure eight.
This all seems very reasonable to me.
Chuck
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

[wceviper 0]

I don't think the building or office owners should supply them. If you want to own a rig in a tall building, go for it. SL would be the best deployment method. The only problem I would have is leaving other friends/co-workers behind. But at least it would be their choice to own one or not. I think rig inspections should be once a year. Being that the chute is not used all the time and doesn't get shifted around, there would be a minimal chance of disturbing the pack. personally, I would own one. My only problem is I would be tempted to use it at the end of every work day :)
-jason

[PhreeZone 20]

Well on Wednesday I happened to over sleep and since I was already late, why not watch some TV too? (Great logic huh? It was basicly webbing with a Nylon tube that the round was packed in. (Actually it was a sleeve, but most people don't know what those are). The host asked the seller to have his assistant put the system on after the seller just said how quickly and easly these systems could be put on. The lady could'nt get the leg straps on and actually had to be caught from falling over trying to put it on. Then she managed to get the chest strap and the static line tangled together. The chest strap was a B-12 connecter, and when she finally got it put on (over 3 minutes) the static line was wraped around her, under the mainlift webs, through the B-12 connector and under the sleve. Can you say MAL?????
The Host had asked if she was having problems, she said it was her first time with the setup, but if she could do it again she would get it done faster. Now imagine a full office of people trying to get these on as they are in panic mode. Then only to break out the window, jump, have a canopy open, then get collapsed from someone who jumped out a story above you at the same time as you. Now, If you have a good canopy you are going to be having an enire office building landing in a small area. With Rounds you are looking at 100 -150 feet max travel from 50 stories up. Now put over 100 canopies in that area around a building and its REALLY crowded. The canopies would keep the resure and fire equipment back from the building making it harder to save anyone still in the building. Ya get my point.....
I say get some skydiving experience, do a few BASE jumps and make sure at least 1 is sub 300 feet ,and keep your spare BASE rig in your cubical or office at work. If you can manage to get this much done, you should be able to determine the possibility of doing a high pressure BASE from your office window. If you can do this you should be able to afford to adopt me too. I'm fairly cheap to keep as long as I get my monthly amount of jump tickets. BTW the "Basic training" that some companies are talking about is Basic Research's BASE class. You are taken through 5-10 BASE jumps with them. Prereq's to get into the class used to be 100 Skydives and a couple hundred dollars.
A rainy day at the DZ is better then a Sunny day at work

[billvon 3,006]

It seems to me to make as much sense as encouraging people to break into the cockpit of an airliner during an in-flight problem. After all, both pilots could be dead, and taking over the controls could save the day.
Of course, that's incredibly rare (even after the events of 9/11) and most people could not safely land your typical passenger jet - a similar situation to a typical person using a BASE rig. The use of alternate, intuitive rescue devices, like self-contained breathing equipment or nomex overalls, would save more people - and much more importantly, would kill far fewer people.
There is a saying in medicine that, above all else, do no harm. Implicit in that is the idea that it's better to do too little, and let someone come to harm, than do too much and harm someone. I think the same applies here. I would want nothing to do with a system that kills 2000 people, even if it saves 3000.
-bill von

[Kelly 0]

jimbo,
i gotta agree with you 100% on this one.
When it comes to BASE jumping we dont just go and rush into it. To those of you who do BASE and those of you who have friends who BASE, think of what they go thru. Learning to pack a BASE rig doesnt just assure that youre comfortable with the pack job, the delicate and detailed care you provide when packing instills respect for what youre doing. We can trash pack a main in 5 minutes, but wouldnt dare do that to a BASE rig. also, what about the hours spent talking to experieced BASE jumpers? the careful selection of what the first BASE jump will be off of? of the appropriate gear? Of obstacles and hazards? How about the explanation of winds, even going so far as to teach a new BASE Jumper to take slivers of paper to throw to tell the direction at night?
and finally, what about the fact that actual BASE jumpers have the option if they want to jump... the can and most times will climb down if conditions arent right.
Imagine if you had an aircraft emergency at 1,300 on your AFF level 1 skydive. Never before jumped. never before pulled your own ripcord... now, at 1,300 youre being told to get the hell out. bail out on reserve, main whatever... youre level of conscious intelligence would be severely compromised.
do you think that you would hear and listen to your instructors radio comands? wait, thats assuming your instructor made it to the ground safely and before you. THey didnt deploy lower, freefall longer, there wasnt much altitude for them to do spirals down... etc etc.
you would be completely alone in that situation, even if the world was screaming directions to you. I dont think that the outcome would be pretty, and thats even assuming you actually landed back at the dropzone, an area pretty much cleared of obstacles.
see, and AFF level 1 with an aircraft emergency/bailed out at 1,300 is in a shitty and life threatening situation. and they chose to get on that airplane in the first place. they were trained right before they boarded that plane.. thier tremendously better off than an office worker who bails out at 900, thru glass, without immediately prior experience, jumping into hazards, no real analasis of the landing area (winds, obstacles, turbulance)...
please remember what fills our fatality listings in parachutist.. Landing fatalities. whether it be a hook turn initiated to low by an experienced jumper or a panicy student whos thinking 'downwind' spells disaster, a lot of fatalities happen cause people land hard.
Being an EMS provider, I know what a hectic mass casualty scene can look like. I train for it. what I dont need in addition to that burning building is dozens of people, in the streets, carlots, on garage tops, on vehical roofs, everywhere dead or dying because they plunged to their death when they could have awaited help or gotten the hell out another way.
in a mass casuality incident, you treat the majority of victims for similar injuries. if the building is on fire, its for burns, if the structure collapsed its for fractures and penetrations and lacerations and internal damage... throw in there burn victims, multiple fracture victims, sprains, twists, strains, trauma due to structure collapse (which isnt uncommon in serious fires), and the always present respiratory and medical victims (heart attack from the stress), youve just witnessed a major crack in the immediate medical care service being provided. And what about the firefighters going into a building burning for reports of 10 victims on the 17th floor... thier looking for these victims and even the best Incident command operator couldnt possibly account for those 8 people who parachuted out and are now laying there dead... the firefighters would be in there for no reason, the people they went to save would have already died, not from fire but from serious traumatic injuries. the firefighters are now searching fruitlessly for thier victims, and not about to give up... they will never find those victims inside that building.
EMS personelle arent perfect, but we strive to do the best we can. we often handle more than we would ever expect ourselves to be able to (and the rescuers of 9/11 proved this to the world), but there are some things that are just too out of the element. things that cause even the most seasoned EMT, Paramedic, Firefighter to crack.
In a mass casuality incident, making sense of a scene, striving to gain some sense of order is what improves the care provided. Its hard enough when you have dozens of victims, and the exact numbers are unknown...
This is just my point of view.
kel

"i can not attest to what i did, just what i remember...."
~me, after one too many

[Kelly 0]

.. one more thing.
for the majority of medical care patients who have not broken a bone, one rescuer can provide adequate care until further help arrives or until care is transfered to a hospital staff...
with trauma patients one person can not stabilize, splint, and further treat a patient. thats why i can run 100 medical calls and treat by myself, but the second i have a semi serious MVA patient i have another EMT in the back assiting me both with patient care and intitial patient treatment...
so that adds to the mix the need for even more EMS providers when the resources are already being stretched thin. One EMT can go a long way with 10 medical patients, 1 EMT isnt enough for one trauma patient, no matter how minor the injuries are.
kel

"i can not attest to what i did, just what i remember...."
~me, after one too many

[fatboy 0]

I, like any other civilised being on this planet, was shocked and apalled by the events of 11 sep.
I design and specify escape systems for large offshore oil rigs, which present similar problems to escape from high rise buildings. We often provide bridge links between installations, retro fitting to existing structures would be prohibitively expensive, however the Petronas tower in KL has this facility, so they could be incorprated at the design stage.
A more reasonable solution to this problem would be the provision of smoke hoods, chemical light sticks, heat resistant gloves and overshoes, and a nomex suit. Most people are killed in building fires by smoke inhalation, avoid that and you have a reasonable chance of getting yourself below the fire and thus to safety. The gear is cheap, requires very little training, and has a high probability of successful use.
Most building fires will not cause the structure to collapse like the WTC, so you have plenty of time to reach a safe place. Building codes require that critical structural members are coated with fire protection.
Catastrophic events such as terrorist attacks are best countered at source, ie better security and vigilance. Last Dec, I was on a flight out of Lagos that had at least two burly security guys on board. Perhaps something similar could be initiated by the airlines themselves. At the end of the day there is not a lot that can be done to mitigate the effects of some lunatic taking control of a large aircaft and subsequently crashing it into a densely populated area.
As a skydiver, I would rather jump, but not everyone who works in tall buildings is familiar with what is actually required to enable a successful parachute descent under these conditions. I have jumped rounds and believe me, even the sports chutes we used were very difficult to control, and land effectively. For me weighing in at over 200lbs, the thought of donning a 16 ft round and trusting to luck to deliver me to a safe LZ is not one I relish.
Just my tuppence worth...
stay safe folks,
Davie
PS anyone know a good DZ in Houston, I am moving there from Europe shortly.

[wildblue 7]

fatboy's got a great point.... for what these people would spend on an "emergency escape parachute" - develope a 15 min oxygen mask, and some nomex outfit. Not nearly as spectacular, but a much better chance of working, less to screw up, little to no training required, and less likely to cause massive internal injuries.
Cuz I need sunshine-The kind that everybody knows-My sunshine-She finer than a painted rose-

[fatboy 0]

Thanks Wildblue, the equipment is already developed and has been in use in the mining, marine, and petrochemical industries for ages. Offshore, we normally stash this gear in little backpacks that we call grab bags, site them in a suitably conspicuous place and away you go....

[SpeedRacer 1]

Geez, you people are writing friggin' NOVELS!
Yeah, if they had these parachutes, some of the people on this forum would bend over backwards to get executive jobs in skyscrapers!! And then they'd probably never get any work done!
"Well, I'm off to lunch!!! <> DOOOOR!!!"

Speed Racer
The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind
-Bogart

[skymama 37]

I find it intersting that almost all of the posts on this thread are from people who think it is a bad idea (myself included), but according to the poll results so far, most people think it is a GOOD idea. Let's hear from the people who voted in favor of it, I'd like to read your arguement.
Andrea
The brave may not live forever, but the timid may not live at all.

[freeflir29 0]

"The user puts it on, hooks the static line to something inside the building (desk, door, even a chair)"
Hehehehehehe....I have this funny mental picture of a guy with this rig on...falling from the 75th floor....trailing the static line which is attached to the broken of leg of a cheaply made desk....I think this is definately a bad idea for Joe and Jane average. However, I don't want anybody telling ME that I CAN'T use one. Just like I think it's bullshit that I can't exit a commercial airliner that's out of control. Anyone remember the one that crashed in Sioux City, Iowa. Passengers had forever and 3 days to get out of that one. But nobody onboard had a rig. I'd be rather pissed off if I found myself in that situation.
"There once was a man named Enis....."-Krusty the Clown
Clay

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Ok, ok, I'll bite.
I did vote in favour, I did so before I read all the postings on this thread and have to say most of you are right in many situations it would be a bad idea. I easpecially understand the points of view from the EMS people, it would really make your job so much more difficult. And yes, many people would probably get severely injured or die in landing these chutes. and YES there are better options, like the nomex suites etc etc.
But, here is why I voted in favour. I was thinking of the people that did jump out of the WTC. Those who decided that falling to their death was a better way to go than burning or choking to death. If I was one of those people, facing that decision, I would love to have an alternate rescue option, however bad that option might be, it would still give me a better chance than nothing...
Once again I explicitly agree with most reasonings with the whole idea being a bad one....but if I put myself in the situation those people must have been in, I would have loved to have any type of parachute.
Justin

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

I find it intersting that almost all of the posts on this thread are from people who think it is a bad idea (myself included), but according to the poll results so far, most people think it is a GOOD idea. Let's hear from the people who voted in favor of it, I'd like to read your arguement.

That's why I started this thread. I saw what I perceived as too many 'yes' votes on the front page. I want to find out, did people just see 'parachute' and automatically vote yes? Or do they really believe that a building escape parachute will actually provide some real relief. So far, it seems that people just voted yes because parachutes are cool.
Come on people! Over 250 of you thought this was a good idea. Why? Come on, let's hear it!

[ERICCONNELLY 0]

I voted yes cuz I thought it would be cool to have a supply of BASE equip in most buildings over 40 stories.
Yep, selfish thrill seeking motivation, not self preservation. I just think it would be way cool to see the number of bandit BASEr's (Scuse me but could you open the window, it's a little stuffy in here. WHAAHOO!!)