IS IT TIME FOR USPA/CSI?

[katzas 1]

I seem to have a penchant for asking provocative questions--so here goes another one.

Is it time for the USPA to create, train and deploy a CSI-like individual or team to investigate incidents--particularly fatalities?

Before y'all jump on me I will state for the record that I am NOT suggesting they do it.....I am asking the question to see what y'all think of the idea.

I do see some potential advantages to it. The guy or gal or team would have to be highly experienced in skydiving and gathering of forensic evidence--people who actually go to the site of the incident and gather evidence. It would eliminate or greatly reduce the whuffo comments from the press. It would also educate us as to their best estimate of what actually went wrong and how to avoid it. Recommendations could be made as to gear design, emergency procedure training, statistical analysis, etc. It would help us all to understand the whys and whens of incidents.

I confess ignorance as to what the FAA does when a fatality occurs in skydiving. But--I will speculate that the FAA does not have the specialized skills to deal with these situations. They do when it comes to aircraft incidents--but these are rare in our sport (and sadly, yes it does happen).

The speculation as to the causes of fatalities I note in the incident forum runs rampant after every one (and there have been too many fatalities already this year).

How it is set up, who would be part of it, how it would be funded are all organizational issues to be decided later. The first thing--in my opinion--is deciding on whether or not it should happen. What do y'all think? OH--btw--dumping on me for asking the question will be regarded with the appropriate amount of not giving a shit.

[DocPop 1]

To what end?

We usually end up with an answer anyway, except in those case such as low cutaways when even a CSI-type would not be able to go back and ask why they didn't chop sooner.

Quote

It would eliminate or greatly reduce the whuffo comments from the press.

I don't think so. Those sorts of comments tend to come out in the immediate day or two after an accident, before there is time for any CSI investigation and would therefore be unaffected by the results of any investigation.

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

~ CanuckInUSA

[topdocker 0]

Unlike the police/sheriff/FAA, USPA has no ability to hold evidence, question people, or compel someone to discuss an incident. Everything in any incident report is voluntary. And really there is NO way some USPA guy is going to point out a manufacturing defect in the gear! Not with the current group on the BOD being PIA lackeys (not all, but many).

And for the most part, by the time the local police, the FAA, the DPRE assigned by the FAA to look at gear, the police again have finished "handling" gear, any real evidence is probably gone.

top

Jump more, post less!

[NWFlyer 2]

DocPop

We usually end up with an answer anyway, except in those case such as low cutaways when even a CSI-type would not be able to go back and ask why they didn't chop sooner.

This. Speculation happens because the people who do have all of the available information don't share it immediately for various reasons. Generally the information comes out anyway, either in the form of a well-written complete report like those that come out of SDAZ, or through bits and pieces of information that filter out through various sources, or in most cases something in between.

If there is believed to be criminal activity involved (very rare!), law enforcement will get involved as appropriate. If the incident may have been caused by a failure to follow relevant regulations in the US, the FAA will get involved. The USPA would add no value to such investigations and might in fact complicate it.

Quote

Recommendations could be made as to gear design, emergency procedure training, statistical analysis, etc. It would help us all to understand the whys and whens of incidents.

We already have a good understanding of nearly all of them. Even the best analysis won't get you statistical significance, but USPA (well, actually it's Paul Sitter, who's been doing the analysis for USPA for a long time now) does a pretty good job of aggregating and tracking incidents over the years. If you haven't yet read the annual analysis that comes out in Parachutist, take a look. Then try to convince me what a "CSI" type of body could add to the analysis that would justify the overhead of such a group.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[katzas 1]

NWFlyer

***
We usually end up with an answer anyway, except in those case such as low cutaways when even a CSI-type would not be able to go back and ask why they didn't chop sooner.

This. Speculation happens because the people who do have all of the available information don't share it immediately for various reasons. Generally the information comes out anyway, either in the form of a well-written complete report like those that come out of SDAZ, or through bits and pieces of information that filter out through various sources, or in most cases something in between.

If there is believed to be criminal activity involved (very rare!), law enforcement will get involved as appropriate. If the incident may have been caused by a failure to follow relevant regulations in the US, the FAA will get involved. The USPA would add no value to such investigations and might in fact complicate it.

Quote

Recommendations could be made as to gear design, emergency procedure training, statistical analysis, etc. It would help us all to understand the whys and whens of incidents.

We already have a good understanding of nearly all of them. Even the best analysis won't get you statistical significance, but USPA (well, actually it's Paul Sitter, who's been doing the analysis for USPA for a long time now) does a pretty good job of aggregating and tracking incidents over the years. If you haven't yet read the annual analysis that comes out in Parachutist, take a look. Then try to convince me what a "CSI" type of body could add to the analysis that would justify the overhead of such a group.

Ahhh....dear lady.....I rarely if ever try to convince you (or anyone else on here) of anything I merely pose the questions. The answers (yours in particular) to several of my questions have been most enlightening.

[riggerrob 643]

I know a TI who's day job is in an RCMP crime lab. Unfortunately, he is not ambitious enough to earn a rigger rating.

[airtwardo 7]

Who would pay for it...the membership?

I doubt there would be a whole lotta support from within the ranks when the dues tripled - so we could get the same information that eventually comes out anyway.

And what happens if the 'findings' don't reflect the conclusion drawn by law enforcement or the FAA?

Nope - it would never work...kinda like asking Major League Baseball to do an in depth investigation on steroid use and publish an accurate & critical assessment on the findings.

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

[wstcstcmtr 0]

The FAA doesn't investigate plane crashes either. That's the NTSB. When there is a plane accident I, as an airline transport pilot, recognize tons and tons of errors by the media and the "expert" guests they have on their shows. The NTSB often takes well over a year to publish the report... Having a regulatory body do investigations would do nothing to stop immediate speculation.

I can't remember who said it, but basically: we recognize all the misinformation that the media puts out because we're very familiar with the subject... but when they report on the economy or the war we take it as fact.

[mjosparky 4]

USPA has a system in place to investigate incidents both fatal and not fatal. Like many things with USPA there is no oversight of this program. Like Topdocker said it is like the fox guarding the chicken coop.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals