Summary of 2013 US sport skydiving fatalities

[unkulunkulu 0]

Can you post a link to some of your work as a video guy? Your words imply that you jump video, right?

[bluebird932 0]

What's the point? I asked how many of them jump with camera because I'm sure that almost all of them. Few posts before they agreed that RSL + camera might be dangerous

[unkulunkulu 0]

Why not share? That way we can know more about you. They have shared some things about themselves, you haven't.

[bluebird932 0]

No because I'm shy I don't put any videos on youtube. It's not what we are talking about now, it doesn't change anything and you don't need to know anything about me. I can be even alien from the space

[unkulunkulu 0]

Shy? Really? You mean, you jump video, insist that you possess enough experience to spread your opinion on EPs and you have no work shared on the internet. Now that's just impossible, if you ask me.

[flydog 0]

Or you.could be ChrisD trying to sound different and still argue stupid shit that defies industry standards.

[normiss 854]

YAHTZEE!!!!


I doubt blue even jumps.
The "advice" he espouses here is flat out wrong, worthless, and dangerous.
DO NOT heed this advice.

[Hellis 0]

bluebird932

Yes Hellis, you are're right I guess you want to say that first seconds after cuting away is not easy to get stable because it's similar to 0 wind exit, same like with base, balloon, etc

Yes, I believe so.
Don't know for sure as I have no chops, but I have done a few balloons, choppers and BASEjumps.

I know it's hard to get straight if you fuck up the exit in BASE, I would be surprised if it was easier with a spinning mal.
But then again I'm not as awsome as you


For anyone reading here this Bluedude is saying RSLs are only for studentsand you are better off without one if you are not a student.
That is pretty much the opposite of what everyone else says, experienced or not.
Think before you act.

[ufk22 33]

The videos you posted don't show anyone dead because of unstable reserve deployment.
Sorry, but the question is not "would you rather be stable or unstable for reserve deployment?"
The question is "would you rather have an inflated reserve with line twists at 500' (or less) or a stable body position as you hit the ground ?"
I jumped for 8 years without an RSL, 18 years without an AAD. The first 5 or 6 years in the sport I NEVER wore a seat belt. Neither did anyone else i jumped with. These were my choices at the time, but even then I didn't try to say that my choices were right, just my choices. I now know better.
You can say that RSL's are not for you, but you can't say that there are safety advantages of not having one. It's just not the case (CRW being the obvious exception to the rule).
The best argument for RSL would be what appears to be the longest running continual thread on DZ.com, "stupid things I have done"

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[bluebird932 0]

I don't do any anti RSL campaign here. In my first post I just said its not good if we write with 2 meanings because not everybody understand and also why I don't use RSL. If its stupid shit what I say for you, do what you want you can pull your reserve in unstable position but I'll pull in unstable position only if its too low.

Of corse if it's too low I will pull reserve even in unstable position

And now you say that everbody without RSL are stupid, for me it's just free choice

[Hellis 0]

bluebird932

I don't do any anti RSL campaign here. In my first post I just said its not good if we write with 2 meanings because not everybody understand and also why I don't use RSL. If its stupid shit what I say for you, do what you want you can pull your reserve in unstable position but I'll pull in unstable position only if its too low.

Of corse if it's too low I will pull reserve even in unstable position

And now you say that everbody without RSL are stupid, for me it's just free choice

I have not said everyone is stupid that does not use RSL.
I think those who do jump without should think really hard about it first, and not listen to someone who has (as far as we can see from your posts) very little experience.
Think hard, talk to someone with RSL and someone without, talk to the instructors. Think hard again, then make your decision.

Talking about your first post... Looking at the posts you have made here on the forum most of them seem to be about how dangerous RSLs are.
And then there is a few about cutawayhandles on helmets.
If you had not said you were not on a campain regarding RSLs I could have sworn that was what you were

And yes I jump with camera, and with the RSL connected.

[bluebird932 0]

I would rather say that sometimes people with RSL do RSL campaign, I even saw some special pictures on facebook. I don't like it because as I said before I know about fatalities with RSL + camera. My opinion was just it will be good to not write with 2 meanings and its better for students if they will understand situation and all what is for and what is against and later they can make some choice.
Beside that I know experienced jumpers without RSL

[bluebird932 0]

Look at him, no RSL, its also dangerous, everybody have free choice, but he also likes to get stable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCZPuc-c_6g

[JackJ 0]

bluebird932

I don't like RSL because I like my universal algorithm. If you have malfunction with hard spining it always works

1. Higher deployment.
2. Time to get stable
3. Reserve in stable position

but RSL doesnt ask you how hard is your line twist or what is your body position

Guys #1: Hey Bro, did you hear Chris went in yesterday!
Guy #2: No way Bro, what happened?

Guy #1: He pulled a little low on this jump as people were all on different levels and i assume he wanted to clear his airspace, he then had had a spinner and had to cutaway, didn't have an RSL and he fought for stability for too long...

Guy#2: Ah well, not to worry at least he went in stable

....said no one ever!

[normiss 854]

He also likes to get stoopid.

Given you're the "expert" here, care to start the list of what REALLY went wrong on that jump????

[bluebird932 0]

How about his AAD?

[bluebird932 0]

For us today:
- maybe he deployed too low (lets say 2 s),
- definitely he was fighting too long with line twist instead of cutting away quicker ( lets say another 2s) ,
- and maybe he didn't train before how to get stable quicker ( after 10 jumps + tunel lets say another 2 s)
(But he saved both handles )

So we have easy 6 seconds = about 1000 feet

I would also take AAD and I wouldn't ignore my audible altimeter

That's my choice

[Hellis 0]

bluebird932

For us today:
- maybe he deployed too low (lets say 2 s),
- definitely he was fighting too long with line twist instead of cutting away quicker ( lets say another 2s) ,
- and maybe he didn't train before how to get stable quicker ( after 10 jumps + tunel lets say another 2 s)
(But he saved both handles )

So we have easy 6 seconds = about 1000 feet

I would also take AAD and I wouldn't ignore my audible altimeter

That's my choice

How can 6 seconds be 1000 feet?

You have no clue what you are talking about.


And about the "campain" you earlier wrote about.
Yes there migh be a campain about 'use RSL'.
Just like there are campains about 'don't drink and drive' or 'use seatbelts'.
But do you know why there are such campains?
They have a proven result to back it up.
Just like RSLs there are far less fatalitys than without seatbelt and beeing drunk.

[bluebird932 0]

I said "about" I know that time with spining canopy is not same like on free falling and also after cutting away we dont fall 50 m/s/ He could also save more seconds

About all the rest I was writing before

[unkulunkulu 0]

http://makeithappen.com/spsj/altaware.html

[70sGuy 0]

bluebird932

...I don't like it because as I said before I know about fatalities with RSL + camera. ...
Beside that I know experienced jumpers without RSL

Four experienced jumpers on the OP list went in with low cutaways. We can be very sure every one of them thought exactly the same things you do... "I know what i am doing and I prefer to be stable...."

No one went in due to an RSL + reserve entanglement. Think about it.

True story: years ago a neighbor (husband and wife) and their daughter were sitting in line at a toll booth on the New Jersey Turnpike. An 18 wheeler plowed into them, the driver too busy filling out his log book to notice the stopped traffic.

The parents were belted in, in the front. Both died, and I presume they were burned alive (the gas tank exploded). But I had the decency never to ask the details on that.

The daughter was in the back seat, not belted. She was somehow thrown clear of the crash and walked away without a single scratch. How that Miracle Occurred, I have no idea. But it happened.

Personally I wear seat belts and I go with statistics, despite this morbidly fascinating anecdotal and very true story.

[pchapman 279]

70sGuy

No one went in due to an RSL + reserve entanglement. Think about it.

From statistical averages, using an RSL does seem to be safer, but there are still some risks to RSL's.

I don't know about RSL's specifically, but unstable reserve deployments do occasionally seem to cause problems. (Accident reports online often don't mention details like what activated the reserve.)

For example, one can look at the list of "reserve problem" fatalities in the DZ.com database. Most have nothing to do with RSL's or instability, but some do.

There's stuff in there like "Possible [reserve] entanglement with the GoPro camera ", "On video he was observed deploying his reserve in a head down orientation. The reserve opened with multiple line twists and was spinning."

Or there was a specific RSL related accident, one that happened to "just a student" who screwed up, but could theoretically happen with a regular jumper who, say, a baglock mal start to clear just at the wrong moment:
"the student exited well, but when he went to pull the Practice Ripcord, he instead mistakenly pulled his cutaway handle. The jerk from the release of the deploying main parachute flipped him on his back and when the RSL released his reserve in this position, the pilot chute shot between his legs and tangled around one of his legs. The pilot chute remained tangled around his leg until impact"

(Students don't clear bridle entanglements well, but it still isn't a healthy situation for any jumper.)

So maybe one might say that any RSL + reserve entanglement issues appear to be extremely rare, but I wouldn't say nobody ever went in because of it.

The whole RSL argument to some degree comes down to whether one thinks one is better than average. IF you can always remain altitude aware in a mal, and always find the 2nd handle, and not chop so low so an AAD won't work, then you'll probably be safer without the RSL. But that's the big, big "IF"...

[70sGuy 0]

pchapman

So maybe one might say that any RSL + reserve entanglement issues appear to be extremely rare, but I wouldn't say nobody ever went in because of it.

I didn't suggest no one ever went in because of an RSL. I said (implied) that no one managed to do it last year, at least in the USA.

pchapman

The whole RSL argument to some degree comes down to whether one thinks one is better than average. IF you can always remain altitude aware in a mal, and always find the 2nd handle, and not chop so low so an AAD won't work, then you'll probably be safer without the RSL. But that's the big, big "IF"...

Exactly. And history proves it is, truly, a big, big IF. History proves that statistically RSLs are a huge winner, saving far more than they kill. And I think history proves many people that think they are smarter than the average bear.... aren't. Just last year, four people who thought they were better than average... weren't.

And if, in fact, the vast majority of skydivers do use RSLs, then the statistical benefit is far greater than what shows up in the statistics. If most people use RSLs then most fatalities relevant to the use or disuse of RSLs would tend to relate to RSLs that failed the skydiver. But that statistical anomaly simply does not exist, except as anecdotal incidents.

I said previously here that if you extrapolated out the fatality rate of the late 70s you would have over 400 fatalities a year now.

Why the drastic decrease? Is the gear fundamentally better, in the sense that the main malfunction rate is 95% lower than back then? I don't think so, considering that the main impulse now is to downsize as quickly as possible into canopies that can't even recover from simple line twists.

Are skydivers fundamentally smarter now than back then? I don't think so.

That leaves basic safety improvements... things like AADs and RSLs that only a few lucky students had back in the day.

Six of our club members from that era went in. Four would have been saved by a properly functioning AAD. The other two went in with line stretch on their reserves after a low cutaway.

Now days so many people jump with RSLs that it is difficult to assess their effectiveness. The happy endings never end up in the incident forum.

You gave a great anecdotal example of lightning striking, with an RSL very possibly contributing to a fatality (or maybe not since a student cannot be expected to get stable anyway?).

I gave you a great anecdotal example of why either you should never wear a seatbelt - they CAN kill. Even worse, they will burn you alive after a crash. Or, perhaps, that anecdotal freak incidents should not be used to disprove the effectiveness of basic safety features that have stood the test of time.

The logic of your argument (and it is a common one) is that a very careful and very skillful driver should perhaps not use a seat belt. Isn't that too a statistical loser?

Something I learned over time is that on any given day, any given person might do something really stupid. And eventually they will. And that, I think, is why the fatality statistics are now so heavily stacked with highly experienced jumpers with thousands of jumps. Or said another way by someone else here, perhaps no one is as good as they think they are?.

[Divalent 145]

Since this thread seems to have become about RSLs (because in 2013, 4 fatalities followed a low cutaway, and all 4 lacked an RSL), I'll note the following from the two years prior to 2013:

2011 - 1 died after a low cutaway, no RSL
2012 - 2 died after low cutaways, both had an RSL (one was student)

In addition,
2011 - 3 died riding a main mal to the ground with no cutaway (one was student)
2012 - 2 died riding a main mal to the ground with no cutaway
(In 2013, no fatalities resulted from riding a main mal into the ground.)

I note the "no cutaway" ones to point out that there may be cases where experienced jumpers lose altitude awareness all the way to the ground. (I say "may" because it may be the case that some of those no-cutaway ones the jumpers were incapacitated; we just don't know.)

There were probably thousands of main mals last year where a reserve was deployed in time to land safely, with and without RSLs, so what we are looking at are the tail end of the distribution down low: most respond in time, some get extremely close, some eventually act but too late, and others never realize they are too low before the planet kills them. (And in some cases, it's not the altitude they chop at that can be the problem, it's finding the reserve handle in time.)

[riggerrob 643]

bluebird932

What's the point? I asked how many of them jump with camera because I'm sure that almost all of them. Few posts before they agreed that RSL + camera might be dangerous

..................................................................................

Yeah!
Many GoPro mounts look worse than ships' anchors for snag risk!