theonlyski 8 #26 August 22, 2011 QuoteIs it possible that in the case you presented, the questionable judgment was in the choice of rigger? I know there are many variables involved, but when I choose a rigger to pack my reserve, I do so with the expectation that I will have a good reserve overhead when needed. IMO, if you don't trust the rigger that packed it to save your bacon when/if the time comes, you shouldn't jump that riggers work. I've seen some rigger that I wouldn't want to jump their packjobs, and that's why I got MY ticket. I realize it's not as easy for tandem instructors, but if you have valid concerns and talk to the DZO/S&TA about them, you might be able to get something worked out to make everyone happy, especially if other TI's are in the same boat."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #27 August 22, 2011 QuoteYes, he made a 'judgement call' and on that he will be judged. I think it is fair to say that the judgement made was poor to say the least, and the inevitable happened. No excuses for this in my opinion. And if he had chopped and the reserve was a bag lock.... And we had these pictures of him flying this main. What would you say then???? Would your opinion change?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
catfishhunter 2 #28 August 22, 2011 No...it would really really suck but it would fall under the..did everything right and still died...category.. MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-ftp- 0 #29 August 22, 2011 I cant believe anyone is actually in favor of this guy landing that, with a passenger. I count 5, 5 of 9 cells inflated properly! are you kidding me? If this was a sport canopy would you try to land it? Let alone being responsible for someone else's life. If I look up and see that, its gone 100% of the time. I'd bet a very large percentage of jumpers have the same line of thinking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #30 August 22, 2011 It can have 9 cells open and _major_ controllability issues. I'm not a TM, but Id jetson something like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-ftp- 0 #31 August 22, 2011 QuoteIt can have 9 cells open and _major_ controllability issues. I'm not a TM, but Id jetson something like that. ok, would that not fail the controlability check then? this doesnt even pass visual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hangdiver 1 #32 August 22, 2011 As a former tandem instructor...there's no rational for landing that...I don't care who's friend had a lineover on a reserve after a chop...I've watched b.a.s.e. jumpers cut lineovers to clear them...weak excuse...!!! When I was teaching I watched a student land 5 cells of a blown seven cell because he had back to back malfunctions...he didn't like the hard landing he had on the first round reserve... so he flew that blown canopy to the ground and made a turn into the wind to land...he said it was harder than the first landing...he was lucky he walked away... I believe he's still jumping but no doubt a much smarter skydiver... oh and some of you get your own canopy packed under that relic every weekend...look up and see if you would even think of landing that...??? Just because someone had a reserve mal is no reason to ride your shit main into the ground...especially a tandem. Guys like that give skydiving a bad name...now I don't think that was criminal but poor judgment for sure. hangdiver "Mans got to know his limitations" Harry Callahan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rover 11 #33 August 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteYes, he made a 'judgement call' and on that he will be judged. I think it is fair to say that the judgement made was poor to say the least, and the inevitable happened. No excuses for this in my opinion. And if he had chopped and the reserve was a bag lock.... And we had these pictures of him flying this main. What would you say then???? Would your opinion change? If you believe in your statement and have a tandem rating, I suggest that you throw it in the bin.2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jshiloh 0 #34 August 22, 2011 QuoteI know everything gets confiscated at DZ's if there's a fatality, but I didn't expect that kind of analysis for just a rare injury & ambulance call. Totally side tracking the convo, but is this really true & standard? Reason I ask is because I'm aware of two fatalities at a local DZ where DZ staff were allowed to pick up, cart off & inspect all the equipment (including a repack). So I'm curious of the confiscation is based on local law enforcement policy, or if the local law enforcement around this particular DZ is oblivious to what is required. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #35 August 22, 2011 QuoteIf you believe in your statement and have a tandem rating, I suggest that you throw it in the bin. It was a simple question.... If you are unable to answer it, maybe you should quit skydiving now before you face a difficult one. Care to try again or just act like a know it all?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rover 11 #36 August 22, 2011 Oh sorry, that was a serious question? My bad. I have an 8 year old son that can ask a more intelligent question than that. Would you care to explain to the injured party to why she's laid up in hospital, having been pounded in under a malfunctioning canopy, when there was a 'perfectly' good reserve there to be used? You don't have to answer that. It's rhetorical. 2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #37 August 22, 2011 Got it.... You can only act like a three year old that thinks he knows everything."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crotalus01 0 #38 August 23, 2011 And if he had chopped and the reserve was a bag lock.... And we had these pictures of him flying this main. What would you say then???? Would your opinion change? No it wouldnt. That canopy cleary should have been chopped. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
psf 1 #39 August 23, 2011 I agree its ugly, and LIKELY should have been cut, but have we heard any other facts? it was alluded to that it was a low pull, how low? Did he try to fix this?, check his altitude and decide chopping was a bad decision? what was the alternate LZ if he chopped and wasn't going to make it back. All I am saying is don't condem someone with just three pictures and ONE side of what happened, and why it happened.ignorance is not bliss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
catfishhunter 2 #40 August 23, 2011 QuoteI agree its ugly, and LIKELY should have been cut, but have we heard any other facts? it was alluded to that it was a low pull, how low? Did he try to fix this?, check his altitude and decide chopping was a bad decision? what was the alternate LZ if he chopped and wasn't going to make it back. All I am saying is don't condem someone with just three pictures and ONE side of what happened, and why it happened. A Tandem pulls as 5500 how low would be low? 4? Cypress fires at 2500 on a tandem right? So just how low would be low to chop? Now if he did pull that low and ended up with that and not being able to chop he should still hand over his rating as he has no business taking someone else's life in his hands. I cannot think of one reasonable excuse to be in that position unless it was a low bail out and they direct deployed at 1500 even then how low is to low to chop a tandem? That I don't know but this person in my opinion has shown they do not have the decision making skill required to be trusted with the life of another. MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #41 August 23, 2011 it is super easy being monday QB. should've could've would've. i've seen double mal on tandem and it ain't pretty. tension knot on reserve do happen. the Ti probably thought that he had enough fabric over the head in order for a safe landing. So the Ti walked away and student didn't in this case. Did student did everything to not to break herself??? Ie. lifting the leg up or not sticking on leg down??Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rover 11 #42 August 23, 2011 Quote Got it.... You can only act like a three year old that thinks he knows everything. Sorry bro, it doesn't look like you are getting too much support out there. With the number of posts you have, I would suggest that you are the one who feels he knows everything, or at least thinks he does. I believe the TI screwed up, and most of the contributors to this thread agree. You come in making a statement that quite frankly, defies logic. Are you trolling? Get over it and move on. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to play with my toy cars & my Lego set. 2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jurgencamps 0 #43 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteCypress fires at 2500 on a tandem right? 1900 ft Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pchapman 279 #44 August 23, 2011 A few comments on my own thread: One poster asked about altitudes and outs. Outs are OK at that DZ. (VR 360 reserves actually fly and land quite nicely too.) The lower main opening shouldn't have prevented a safe cutaway, but shortened the time to make a decision, which has the potential to add time pressure. If one tried to fix the tension knot (good), then took time to evaluate the canopy's controllability, and decided to keep the canopy, one might soon feel pretty low and not want to re-evaluate the decision to stay with the canopy. Reserves aren't perfect but if we weren't supposed to trust them we wouldn't have packers working at full speed packing mains. As for the lady letting her legs down, they were down as far as seen in the "on approach" photo. Upper legs horizontal (good), lower legs straight down, I think using hands on grippers to help keep legs up. Not perfect but reasonable for an older person. The landing itself wasn't that rough, but still there was forward speed plus some descent rate, so they dug in, and flipped forward. One could see from brake positions on approach that he wasn't going to get much flare out of it. Probably still OK if everyone involved were young. The landing actually seemed pretty decent if one were only thinking about all the distortion seen in the canopy. I'm not one to automatically call for pulling ratings, burning at the stake, etc., because we all screw up sometimes. The guy honestly thought he could land it. But I think it was a bad decision, even before knowing the outcome. I'm still making the same point I did at the start: 1) The photos are food for thought (whether or not we all have different ideas & conclusions) 2) A tandem instructor has to consider the passenger. 3) Any skydiver has to consider that if dealing with a minor mal, it can be hard up high to tell just how well you can slow it down and plane it out for landing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #45 August 23, 2011 Quote Sorry bro, it doesn't look like you are getting too much support out there. I didn't ask for support, I asked you a simple question. Two others understood that and found it very easy to answer without adding all the BS you felt was needed to act superior. Next time, try answering the simple question without feeling you have something to prove.... If you are able. Enjoy your toy cars"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BETO74 0 #46 August 23, 2011 Please dont take this as an attack, I do agree with most of the people who post was a mistake to chop in this case I do need to ask about your comment. " Having a tandem student injured while landing a compromised reserve is in my opinion, more tolerable that if the injury occurred while landing under a compromised main." If you change the statemnt to: "Having a tandem student DEAD while landing a compromised reserve is in my opinion, more tolerable that if the injury occurred while landing under a compromised main." This case seem to question MORE the OUTCOME than the PERFORMANCE.http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #47 August 23, 2011 >Would you care to explain to the injured party to why she's laid up in hospital, having >been pounded in under a malfunctioning canopy, when there was a 'perfectly' good >reserve there to be used? Sure. "Sorry you got hurt, but you're alive - and you might not have been if we had had a reserve mal." There is no such thing as a perfectly good parachute. They can all malfunction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 7 #48 August 23, 2011 Quote>Would you care to explain to the injured party to why she's laid up in hospital, having >been pounded in under a malfunctioning canopy, when there was a 'perfectly' good >reserve there to be used? Sure. "Sorry you got hurt, but you're alive - and you might not have been if we had had a reserve mal." There is no such thing as a perfectly good parachute. They can all malfunction. How about, "Sorry you got hurt, you might not have been if you hadn't landed under a malfunctioned main parachute" ...there are a lotta ways of looking at it~ Are you inferring we should evaluate the extent of a malfunction and factor in the likelihood of injury, further evaluating the possible severity of said injury, and then react with an emergency procedure 'only' if we feel that the odds of ultimate survival are 'probably' better on a reserve that may or may not work? I not only disagree with that, but I'm wary that someone may take that interpretation and go with it...what happened to when in doubt whip it out? On another point~ this is an example of why getting away with something sketchy (landing the 1st one) can & does lead to problems down the road. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites catfishhunter 2 #49 August 23, 2011 Quote >Would you care to explain to the injured party to why she's laid up in hospital, having >been pounded in under a malfunctioning canopy, when there was a 'perfectly' good >reserve there to be used? Sure. "Sorry you got hurt, but you're alive - and you might not have been if we had had a reserve mal." There is no such thing as a perfectly good parachute. They can all malfunction. WOW you just told people to land a malfunction rather then to go to their reserves WTF Billy You have a lot of wrong ideas about everything in life but I don't think I have ever seen you say something so dangerous and WRONG when it comes to skydiving. MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #50 August 24, 2011 >WOW you just told people to land a malfunction rather then to go to their reserves . . No. But you may want to land a working parachute with a minor problem instead of going to your reserve. I know I'd rather land a parachute with a stuck brake line than cutting away and having a reserve mal. >You have a lot of wrong ideas about everything in life but I don't think I have ever >seen you say something so dangerous and WRONG when it comes to skydiving. Do you think reserves never malfunction? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
pchapman 279 #44 August 23, 2011 A few comments on my own thread: One poster asked about altitudes and outs. Outs are OK at that DZ. (VR 360 reserves actually fly and land quite nicely too.) The lower main opening shouldn't have prevented a safe cutaway, but shortened the time to make a decision, which has the potential to add time pressure. If one tried to fix the tension knot (good), then took time to evaluate the canopy's controllability, and decided to keep the canopy, one might soon feel pretty low and not want to re-evaluate the decision to stay with the canopy. Reserves aren't perfect but if we weren't supposed to trust them we wouldn't have packers working at full speed packing mains. As for the lady letting her legs down, they were down as far as seen in the "on approach" photo. Upper legs horizontal (good), lower legs straight down, I think using hands on grippers to help keep legs up. Not perfect but reasonable for an older person. The landing itself wasn't that rough, but still there was forward speed plus some descent rate, so they dug in, and flipped forward. One could see from brake positions on approach that he wasn't going to get much flare out of it. Probably still OK if everyone involved were young. The landing actually seemed pretty decent if one were only thinking about all the distortion seen in the canopy. I'm not one to automatically call for pulling ratings, burning at the stake, etc., because we all screw up sometimes. The guy honestly thought he could land it. But I think it was a bad decision, even before knowing the outcome. I'm still making the same point I did at the start: 1) The photos are food for thought (whether or not we all have different ideas & conclusions) 2) A tandem instructor has to consider the passenger. 3) Any skydiver has to consider that if dealing with a minor mal, it can be hard up high to tell just how well you can slow it down and plane it out for landing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #45 August 23, 2011 Quote Sorry bro, it doesn't look like you are getting too much support out there. I didn't ask for support, I asked you a simple question. Two others understood that and found it very easy to answer without adding all the BS you felt was needed to act superior. Next time, try answering the simple question without feeling you have something to prove.... If you are able. Enjoy your toy cars"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BETO74 0 #46 August 23, 2011 Please dont take this as an attack, I do agree with most of the people who post was a mistake to chop in this case I do need to ask about your comment. " Having a tandem student injured while landing a compromised reserve is in my opinion, more tolerable that if the injury occurred while landing under a compromised main." If you change the statemnt to: "Having a tandem student DEAD while landing a compromised reserve is in my opinion, more tolerable that if the injury occurred while landing under a compromised main." This case seem to question MORE the OUTCOME than the PERFORMANCE.http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #47 August 23, 2011 >Would you care to explain to the injured party to why she's laid up in hospital, having >been pounded in under a malfunctioning canopy, when there was a 'perfectly' good >reserve there to be used? Sure. "Sorry you got hurt, but you're alive - and you might not have been if we had had a reserve mal." There is no such thing as a perfectly good parachute. They can all malfunction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #48 August 23, 2011 Quote>Would you care to explain to the injured party to why she's laid up in hospital, having >been pounded in under a malfunctioning canopy, when there was a 'perfectly' good >reserve there to be used? Sure. "Sorry you got hurt, but you're alive - and you might not have been if we had had a reserve mal." There is no such thing as a perfectly good parachute. They can all malfunction. How about, "Sorry you got hurt, you might not have been if you hadn't landed under a malfunctioned main parachute" ...there are a lotta ways of looking at it~ Are you inferring we should evaluate the extent of a malfunction and factor in the likelihood of injury, further evaluating the possible severity of said injury, and then react with an emergency procedure 'only' if we feel that the odds of ultimate survival are 'probably' better on a reserve that may or may not work? I not only disagree with that, but I'm wary that someone may take that interpretation and go with it...what happened to when in doubt whip it out? On another point~ this is an example of why getting away with something sketchy (landing the 1st one) can & does lead to problems down the road. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
catfishhunter 2 #49 August 23, 2011 Quote >Would you care to explain to the injured party to why she's laid up in hospital, having >been pounded in under a malfunctioning canopy, when there was a 'perfectly' good >reserve there to be used? Sure. "Sorry you got hurt, but you're alive - and you might not have been if we had had a reserve mal." There is no such thing as a perfectly good parachute. They can all malfunction. WOW you just told people to land a malfunction rather then to go to their reserves WTF Billy You have a lot of wrong ideas about everything in life but I don't think I have ever seen you say something so dangerous and WRONG when it comes to skydiving. MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #50 August 24, 2011 >WOW you just told people to land a malfunction rather then to go to their reserves . . No. But you may want to land a working parachute with a minor problem instead of going to your reserve. I know I'd rather land a parachute with a stuck brake line than cutting away and having a reserve mal. >You have a lot of wrong ideas about everything in life but I don't think I have ever >seen you say something so dangerous and WRONG when it comes to skydiving. Do you think reserves never malfunction? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
