Reasonable risks (was: Fatality Skydive Arizona)

[RIGGER 0]

Hi

I knew Chris he was a great person.

There are no any logic reasons that a 21 sq.ft or a 39 sq.ft canopies will be in the air.

Mfg. MUST stop do that, I do not understand the reasons why they do it & show with a great pride that the "canopy" fits into an envelope.

The lost of life does not worth any kind of HP parachute.

Having better parachutes does not means that skydivers should die - no way !!!

There must be a limit for how far mfg. should go with small mains & small reserves & one of the ways is that the skydivers & DZO will understand that there is a LIMIT & refuse to play with the too small toys.

Safe Skydiving for all !!!

[hookitt 1]

Quote

Mfg. MUST stop do that, I do not understand the reasons why they do it & show with a great pride that the "canopy" fits into an envelope.

It was for fun. If you read back that canopy was designed as a model with no intent to jump it. Then someone did.

Up until now, the finality of a "minor" problem was not understood. That minor problem became a major problem that was unforeseen. It won't go un-noticed.

As terribly sad as it is, I have to commend Chris for going out to have that fun. I envy the position he was in to be allowed to try such an endeavor.

R.I.P

To Chris: Good on you for living like so many of us can only dream.

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[billvon 2,991]

>There are no any logic reasons that a 21 sq.ft or a 39 sq.ft canopies
>will be in the air.

There are no logical reasons why 78 square foot canopies should be in the air either. The first ZP canopy at my DZ was a Monarch 190. No one but the DZO was allowed to jump it; we understood that it was a deadly canopy that would kill you unless you had thousands of jumps.

That was 14 years ago. Nowadays it's the canopy someone buys after student status. Technology moves on. Someday people will be jumping 39 square foot canopies more regularly than they do today; we can stop that no more than we can stop the people jumping sub-100 sq ft canopies.

>Mfg. MUST stop do that, I do not understand the reasons why they do
>it & show with a great pride that the "canopy" fits into an envelope.

WE determine the future of skydiving, not the manufacturers. If there was no demand for tiny canopies, none would be built.

>The lost of life does not worth any kind of HP parachute.

Many people say that - "hook turns/bigways/freeflying/skydiving isn't worth the loss of life." Usually it's a whuffo saying that, and usually we disagree with them.

>Having better parachutes does not means that skydivers should die - no way !!!

For as long as we have the will and the means to fly, we will continue to see injuries and deaths in this sport. We are not the sort of people who stand behind the line; we're the sort who inch up on it, stand on its edge, and (sometimes) cross it. We wouldn't be skydivers if we didn't do that.

[mattsplat 0]

If the canopy was for a model purpos, Then was it rated faa approval?

[billvon 2,991]

> If the canopy was for a model purpos, Then was it rated faa approval?

The FAA does not approve main parachutes in the US.

[hookitt 1]

Quote

If the canopy was for a model purpos, Then was it rated faa approval?

What bill said.

You can build your own main parachute and jump it. The FAA doesn't care.

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

a Monarch 190. No one but the DZO was allowed to jump it; we understood that it was a deadly canopy that would kill you unless you had thousands of jumps.

That was 14 years ago. Nowadays it's the canopy someone buys after student status.

Quote

True statement Bill...

But doesn't that say something.

Has the training and supervision kept up with the technology?

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

[billvon 2,991]

>Has the training and supervision kept up with the technology?

HP canopy training and supervision has improved quite a bit since I started, but has not _quite_ kept up with the technology That's why we're seeing dozens of fatalities under small canopies but not hundreds.

[dnewcomer 0]

Quote

"For as long as we have the will and the means to fly, we will continue to see injuries and deaths in this sport. We are not the sort of people who stand behind the line; we're the sort who inch up on it, stand on its edge, and (sometimes) cross it. We wouldn't be skydivers if we didn't do that."

Bill,

With 3,800 jumps, 13 yrs in the sport, and nearly 15,000 posts (Whew!), I hold your opinion in very high esteem. But I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. I hope you will give my thoughts on this fair consideration.

IMHO the assertion that people need to be injured or killed in sport skydiving to make performance and technological advances is nonsense......and repugnant. Furthermore by taking the necessary precautions and applying new technologies in the proper forum, "experimental" canopies, containers, systems, materials, or whatever can be introduced safely. Pronouncing these kinds of accidents as "an inevitable part of skydiving so we can progress" just doesn't cut it.

I hope others who intend to try new things will consider every possible contingency (and then some) and prepare appropriately before jumping. I don't think entering a very big number after "Jumps:" in one's skydiver profile necessarily guarantees anyone will be able to cope with whatever happens. Experiments are still experiments subject to unforeseen outcomes and need to be planned very carefully. That has got to be the most important lesson to be taken away from this accident.

My $0.02.

Dave
WEB SITE: www.newconthenet.com

[RogerRamjet 0]

Quote

>Has the training and supervision kept up with the technology?

HP canopy training and supervision has improved quite a bit since I started, but has not _quite_ kept up with the technology That's why we're seeing dozens of fatalities under small canopies but not hundreds.

Perhaps... But, if you look at the fatality database and extract the canopy incidents alone, and look at the experience levels, you will see they are across the board from 200 to over 7000 jumps. What this seems to mean to me is that the canopies are so high performance now, that it only takes a very slight lapse of attention or judgment to kill yourself. When the squares available were Para-Planes, Strato-Stars and such, you could certainly still kill yourself, but it took a lot more input to the controls for a lot longer time than it does now.

This means (IMHO) that even the best of the current should be paying attention all the time and anyone else should be taking advantage of canopy control courses if a HP canopy is over your head and particularly if HP landings are something you want to be doing. Those two things are just to save your own life, if you're flying in the air with other HP canopy pilots, you have traffic issues to deal with also.

I gave a pre-meet canopy safety talk to all the square canopy pilots at the 1975 Thanksgiving meet in Z-Hills because of a nearly fatal incident involving a spinning square malfunction (and because I had the most square and the most Strato-Star jumps on the drop zone at the time). The person was hurt, but survived the Strato-Star spin into the ground. The only thing talked about concerning landings was that they should be into the wind.

If I were to give the same sort of talk today, I think it would be a totally different speech (though I would no longer be the person to choose for such a thing).

Each time I read one of these reports, it seems I see phrases like "not known to be a radical pilot" or "was an extremely accomplished canopy pilot", etc. Flying these newer highly loaded canopies leaves no room for complacency or casual attention.

I think I know why Bill Booth feels the way he does. Out of his shop came the two most life saving developments for skydiving after the parachute, the hand deploy (whatever flavor it is now) and the 3-ring release system. These were to largely eliminate the types of fatalities that were most prevalent at the time. I think he's quite frustrated that skydivers have found a new way to kill themselves under open canopies.

-----------------------
Roger "Ramjet" Clark
FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

[RIGGER 0]

Hi Bill

I'm sorry but I do not agree with you.

Skydiving is a wonderful sport with some risks but in general is a safe sport - just do not push the envelope.

Yes, there are some risks in the sport but all time you respect the limits you keep the risks at a minimum level.

There is a limit for how small we can go with parachutes sizes even with a "Super Hi Tec" parachute with the best airfoil.

I do not know if skydivers are "asking" for the "Toys"
or the mfg. creates the "Toys" & offer the Top Canopy Pilot to test them but we see them in the air even in very small no.

Does the 21 sq.ft has been jumped to see how small we can fly or just an commercial answer to the 39 sq.ft ? what next ?

Why we need 98 & 99 sq.ft. F111 reserves ? for the
light skydivers ? which became fast the "Big Boys" which like to have a smaller rig even they do not need it.

As a professional Master Rigger & skydiving Instructor I know the limits & I would like to enjoy the sport for many more years & this is the way I educate my students or the skydivers at my DZ.

I'm all the way for better sport parachuting systems,
stronger, safer & better done. BUT I do think that it should be a "RED" line.

The problem with the small size canopies & the high
wing loading is that in case of a problem, line twists,
released toggle or line over it start spinning very fast
reaching high "G" forces in a very short time & you can not even move your hands to react - think about it !!!

Does the "More" extra fun worth the lost of any life ??? NO !!!

Safe Skydiving !!!

[mnealtx 0]

I've been following the discussion about a "g-meter cutaway device" with great interest. I think there is an even easier way to go about it, however:

How hard would it be to set up the Cypress with cutters for the 3-ring soft loops? Such a system would be fairly similar to the existing SOS type cutaway gear, I would think.

A "G-meter" could be incorporated into the AAD, set to fire if certain parameters are broken, perhaps over 4 G's for over 5 seconds, to prevent false firings during radical canopy maneuvers.

The 3 ring cutters could be set to fire 1 second before the reserve cutter, which would give an unconscious jumper under a rapidly spinning canopy a chance to get clear of the main before the reserve fires.

Thoughts?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[RIGGER 0]

Hi Roger

You should credit Bill Booth for the "Skyhook" RSL system too.

This is one more life saving device came out from the RWS.

Safe Skydiving !!!

[Remster 30]

Quote

Skydiving is a wonderful sport with some risks but in general is a safe sport - just do not push the envelope.

What is the envelope?

A few years ago, it was roud canopies. Then it was falling in a stable boxman. The it was doing SL for 1st jumps, then IAD...

A few years ago, jumping an AAD or a square reserve was viewed as dangerous.

People and companies pushed the envelope on what was considered safe and mainstream, and now we have AFF, tandem, ZP canopies, AAD which are considered the norm rather then the execption, and more flying slyles (both in freefall and under canopy) that are now the mainstay of the sport it seems.

If it wasnt for people pushing the envelope, this sport wouldnt be what it is now. Maybe you feel this is a bad thing. I disagree.

Remster

[RIGGER 0]

Hi

I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about the present & I'm talking about the too small canopies - you may ask what is too small ? when I wrote "do not push the envelope" I point on know your level & know what you jump as a system & think twice before you move to a canopy which might not be for you.

There are many very good skydivers that put a personal limit for the canopies sizes they are jumping, not because they can not jump smaller but because they would like to keep the fun SAFE.

Too many skydivers lost their life under OPEN canopies, like the 30 jumps or so skydiver who jumped a Stiletto 190 or other low level skydivers jumping too small & HP canopies for their level & no body care.

Ram Air reserve has been always better then rounds.
Regarding AAD - why it is not mandatory ? It should be like here in Israel they are mandatory for years.
Why we still have AFF instructors jumping AFF jumps without an AAD. Why we still have skydivers jumping without AAD ?

I have a lot of respect to the mfg., skydivers & all good people that developed the more & more safer & better parachutes & I do think that it will continue.

let me inform you that I'm all the way for Better & Safer parachuting systems I do not think that R&D is bad, I think it's great & a part of the sport but I also think that there is no reason for the lost we have in the sport, even one is too much !!!

The main aim of the mfg. now is to deal with the speeds of today skydiving & create stronger systems
& reserves.

Look around even with all the best we have, we still deal with harness failures, hard openings & reserves failures, let deal with these issues first & then go "Smaller"


Safe Skydiving !!!

[dnewcomer 0]

Quote

If it wasnt for people pushing the envelope, this sport wouldnt be what it is now. Maybe you feel this is a bad thing. I disagree.

?????

I haven't seen any posts saying "Let's stop all progress in skydiving in the interest of safety." That's nonsense. I, for one, am a real advocate of progress. No one is suggesting we never try anything new. "Pushing the envelop" is a necessary part of any activity like sport skydiving, but that can be defined and done in many ways.

What we would all consider experimental jumps need to be made with new/smaller canopies, unproven equipment, safety gear, whatever, but these need to be made under very carefully planned and controlled conditions. I understand canopy manufacturers have special three-canopy harnesses and take other safety precautions to jump gear like this.

I don't think anyone would consider jumping a 21 sqft canopy to be a "conventional" or "normal" jump, even if the jumper never intended to land it......too many unknowns (like how is the canopy going to react with certain toggle input, line twists, torn steering line, line-over, radical spin, etc.). More planning, thought, and preparation needs to go into jumping gear like this compared to conventional gear.

I've heard people say "eventually someone is going to land a wingsuit." OK......I don't jump a wingsuit, but I am open-minded enough to think that could possibly happen. Also I would like to see it happen, but I hope the first time it is tried every conceivable measure has been taken to make the attempt safe.

Let's not let enthusiasm for progress get in the way of good judgement. Jumping experimental gear should not be like a roll of the dice for the life and limb of the user.

Dave

[billvon 2,991]

>IMHO the assertion that people need to be injured or killed in sport
> skydiving to make performance and technological advances is
> nonsense......and repugnant.

We don't 'need' people to be injured or killed to make progress in this sport. However, by pushing the limits of technology and skill, we will occasionally lose people. Most big-way record attempts have a fatality or serious injury associated with them; most BSR's came about because people died. We should try to minimize these incidents while at the same time try to continue the advances we've made in the sport.

>Furthermore by taking the necessary precautions and applying new
> technologies in the proper forum, "experimental" canopies,
> containers, systems, materials, or whatever can be introduced
> safely.

In some cases, that's true. However, when wingsuits started out, people died left and right. A reasonable reaction, taken by someone whose goal was to minimize deaths, would be to outlaw wingsuits. But we didn't do that. Instead, we kept trying new things. And gradually we _did_ start building safer suits and coming up with better training methods. The risks went down. That's the cycle of any new technology; it's risky when it's introduced not because people are careless, but because we didn't even know what to be careful _about._ We had a collision between a wingsuiter and an aircraft at Perris a while back. No one had seriously considered that you had to take the jump aircraft into account, because that was something that skydivers usually don't worry about. We're usually under the aircraft. Now we know better.

As we look to the future, we will see more deaths and injuries as new technologies are introduced, as new records are broken and new limits pushed. It's a good goal to try to minimize them, but we are not the sort of people who declare that "if they can happen, then it's not worth it." We've all read the waivers and seen what can happen; we know that it _is_ worth it.

[billvon 2,991]

>Skydiving is a wonderful sport with some risks but in general is a
>safe sport - just do not push the envelope.

So far I've set three world records; they have been some of the most dangerous (and some of the most rewarding) jumps I have made. We push the envelope on every one of those jumps, and sometimes we pay the price. The trick is to try to do it with a reasonable level of safety. "Reasonable" is up to each person; a jump that is acceptably risky to me may be too risky for you (and vice versa.)

>There is a limit for how small we can go with parachutes sizes even
>with a "Super Hi Tec" parachute with the best airfoil.

I remember hearing exactly the same thing about 12 years ago; someone was 'proving' that canopies cannot get any smaller than 120 square feet and still be landed safely. Technology improves.

>The problem with the small size canopies & the high
>wing loading is that in case of a problem, line twists,
>released toggle or line over it start spinning very fast
>reaching high "G" forces in a very short time & you can not even
>move your hands to react - think about it !!!

Agreed. So we need better systems if we try such a jump again in the future. And someone will design such a system, and then test it. And the test will no doubt involve some dangerous jumps, but they will (in the end) lead to new options skydivers can use to increase their odds of surviving a jump on a small canopy.

>Does the "More" extra fun worth the lost of any life ??? NO !!!

I think that, often, it is worth the risk. I have a lot of fun flying wingsuits, even though I know they significantly increase the risk of my being injured or killed (compared to, say, a four way.) Is it worth it? For me - yes. For you, that answer might be no. And that's fine. Deciding what risks we are OK with is what this sport is all about. Just don't try to impose your idea of what's too risky on other people. They have the right to make the same call as you do as to what is acceptable and what isn't (within limits, of course.)

[winsor 236]

Quote

Hi Bill

I'm sorry but I do not agree with you.

Skydiving is a wonderful sport with some risks but in general is a safe sport -

Bullshit.

Skydiving is an activity that involves a near-death experience every single time. You are, in effect, committing suicide, convinced that intervention - when you have scant seconds to live - will be effective.

EVERY time you skydive, without intervention you are dead.

You can count on the magic gizmo to open a 100% reliable parachute that will flat guarantee that you will land uninjured, but I have news for you - the gizmo is not magic, NO parachute is 100% reliable and you can do everything right and still die.

You can reduce the level of risk to acceptable levels by a combination of equipment and procedures, but you can make it fatal in short order by some relatively innocuous actions.

Skydiving may be accurately described by a number of adjectives, but "safe" is not one of them.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[Zep 0]

Quote

>There are no any logic reasons that a 21 sq.ft or a 39 sq.ft canopies
>will be in the air.

There are no logical reasons why 78 square foot canopies should be in the air either. The first ZP canopy at my DZ was a Monarch 190. No one but the DZO was allowed to jump it; we understood that it was a deadly canopy that would kill you unless you had thousands of jumps.

That was 14 years ago. Nowadays it's the canopy someone buys after student status. Technology moves on. Someday people will be jumping 39 square foot canopies more regularly than they do today; we can stop that no more than we can stop the people jumping sub-100 sq ft canopies.

>Mfg. MUST stop do that, I do not understand the reasons why they do
>it & show with a great pride that the "canopy" fits into an envelope.

WE determine the future of skydiving, not the manufacturers. If there was no demand for tiny canopies, none would be built.

>The lost of life does not worth any kind of HP parachute.

Many people say that - "hook turns/bigways/freeflying/skydiving isn't worth the loss of life." Usually it's a whuffo saying that, and usually we disagree with them.

>Having better parachutes does not means that skydivers should die - no way !!!

For as long as we have the will and the means to fly, we will continue to see injuries and deaths in this sport. We are not the sort of people who stand behind the line; we're the sort who inch up on it, stand on its edge, and (sometimes) cross it. We wouldn't be skydivers if we didn't do that.

I have to disagree with some of what you've said
Some one in the forum said (not so long ago) that sky diving was a two part afair, I agree, a canopy can killyou just as quickly as a no pull situation (may be a bit over the top but it's true) we have A;B;C;D licences for freefall In at least one European country or DZ we have a licence system for FF, May be it's time for a licence system for canopys, no waivers, we should find a system where
the canopy fits the experience..
I for one am sick of hearing that a friend has stoofed in on a canopy that was obviously to small for him/her
As AFF seems to be the way to go an becomes more afordable to the general populas how about including canopy handling
in the program, In my view this will stimulat canopy sales for the manufacturas....Also DZ managers/owners should have the responsability of checking that the jumper has the experience to fly his rig.


Probably just a pipe dream.
....

Gone fishing

[billvon 2,991]

>we have A;B;C;D licences for freefall In at least one European
> country or DZ we have a licence system for FF, May be it's time for a
> licence system for canopys, no waivers, we should find a system
> where the canopy fits the experience..

We have discussed exactly this scheme before. Here's a letter a few of us wrote and sent in to PARACHUTIST concerning this topic:

-----------------

Letters to the Editor
USPA
1440 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 836-3495


Over the past few years, we have watched as more and more skydivers injure and kill themselves under high performance canopies. In 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the education and experience to fly his canopy safely. In the majority of cases, a larger canopy would have prevented the fatality or mitigated the injury. We, the undersigned, call on USPA to increase their role in canopy training to help prevent these sorts of fatalities in the future.

It is our position that only education can prevent accidents like these. Modern, heavily loaded high performance canopies can be flown safely only after sufficient education and/or experience has been obtained by the jumper. We ask USPA to do the following:

-Develop canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. They should include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, and a written and practical test. Once these are in place, add canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license, with a grandfather clause so this does not affect people currently jumping high wing loadings. As with other skills, restricted licenses would be available for jumpers who choose not to demonstrate HP canopy skills.

-To prevent exceptional jumpers from being held back unnecessarily, allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills.

-Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; it is possible to progress through the ISP jumping only a 288 square foot canopy. With the rapid development of very high performance canopies, canopy skills are as critical for skydiver survival (if not more critical) than freefall skills. The intent of the CI would be to teach the canopy skills required for the new licenses, and to waiver those who demonstrate the skill required to progress to small canopies more quickly than their jump numbers would ordinarily allow.

We recognize that any additional restrictions placed on skydivers should be considered very carefully; skydiving has never been a sport of heavy regulation, and regulations alone will not keep anyone safe. However, new regulations are falling into place already. Individual DZ's are implementing canopy loading restrictions with no education, no commonality and no way to "waiver out" of the requirements. We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping.


Signed,

William von Novak D16479
Chuck Blue D12501
Derek Vanboeschoten D18847
Lisa Briggs

[LouDiamond 1]

HEY! I seem to remember my name being on the bottom of that one too

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[billvon 2,991]

oops. Yeah, your name and Lisa's D number got cut off when I pasted. Not that anyone paid much attention to the letter.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Bill, how can you in one post castigate Mommy Rules suggested by Shlomo and then in another post suggest Mommy Rules that fit 'your beliefs'?

Keep in mind that you said: "Just don't try to impose your idea of what's too risky on other people." while you re-read Risk and Safety and About Risks

See also Square1 BSR for information on why a BSR waiverable by an I or S&TA will not work in the real world.

Please also inform me on how 'your view of how the BSRs ought to be written' would have had any influence on Chris' jump?

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Agreed. So we need better systems if we try such a jump again in the future. And someone will design such a system, and then test it. And the test will no doubt involve some dangerous jumps, but they will (in the end) lead to new options skydivers can use to increase their odds of surviving a jump on a small canopy.

I agree with most of what you are saying Bill.

I have been involved with canopy and system testing for over 20 years and in most cases the test jumps I have done were safer than some of the big way records you have been on.
In a dedicated test program there are step by step tests that lead up to a live jump. All conditions are tightly controlled and monitored. But in the end a person has to exit an aircraft wearing the test item. And sometimes things don't go right. The test jumper always believes he will be able to handle any eventuality. They must think they are 10 feet tall and bullet proof or they would not be able to do the job.
All true "test jumper" I know are very safety oriented to the point of being anal about it.

Compare it to race car drivers. Think of all the advancements in car safety that came from racing. Seat belts, disk brakes and improved tires.

There will always be those who have a "better idea" and there will always be those willing to take a chance to prove it. (for the right price of course)

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals