JaapSuter

True. Doesn't make it less interesting...

Please don't. The subject interests me and this forum is more effective than multi-person messaging. I'm sure Tom will allow us this minor digression. It's still about a BASE paper. Jason, do you have an opinion on the following comment by Rhonda Lea? Are the conclusions in the paper relevant to the fact that base-jumping is sometimes illegal? Or do they merely argue that there is a bidirectional influence between media and BASE and keep this orthogonal to its legal status?

Hi, I was reading Alpine Climbing: Techniques to Take You Higher and it dedicates a short chapter to risk managment, group dynamics, decision making, etcetera. It treats it on a very theoretical level, interspersing it with anecdotal stories. While reading this, it really struck me that this chapter totally applies to BASE as well. One could almost do a search-and-replace and change 'climb' to 'base-jump' and 'fall' to 'offheading', etcetera. Part of it are common sense, but other parts are nice to see explicity writen down for a change. It doesn't assume we're all heroes that make perfect descisions all the time. It recognizes things like peer-pressure, pride, stubborness, etcetera, and doesn't necessarily discard these as only applicable to those that don't belong in the mountains in the first place. It also touches on comfort zones. It explains how there are no absolute appropriate risk levels, but that it's more about understanding risks and making sure you accept them. Highly recommended; it makes me want to read up more on theoretical risk managment and associated psychology. Perhaps if I am bored next week (unlikely) I might make it an exercise and transcribe that chapter into a BASE specific version. Actually, while we're talking about risk anyway, I just realized that Waltzing With Bears: Managing Risk on Software Projects is also a great book for geeky BASE jumpers. I just reread the chapter on risk-mechanics, and its analysis on risk exposure equals cost times probability and how to factor in risk mitigation costs is very applicable. Cheers, Jaap Edit for typo.

Anything going on in Hong Kong? Please PM.

I thought about this argument, and there is some truth to it. It's like saying that having the helicopter and a manual is still better than having no helicopter at all, since you might be able to read the manual and learn how to fly before the ship sinks. It is also better to jump from a building wearing a parachute than without one, even when you've never flown a parachute before. That doesn't make it a good idea necessarily. I agree with you; in a way the LRM has use even if you'e never learned how to land on rear risers. At that point it is the lesser of two evils. Nonetheless, I still don't understand why some people have never given a rear riser landing a try in a safe environment. A recent broken back in Moab could have been avoided this way.

I'm not necessarily worried about the burble with the current system. If anything, I brought up the burble because it might be worse once you throw from the shoulder. The potential advantage that I see is that pilot-chute oscillation is now going to be introduced from front to back instead of right to left. This is a much nicer oscillation to have as far as heading performance goes.

Done this, on both my Sabre 170 and my BASE canopies. Not a problem. I've packed my Sabre 170 with the line-mod in skydives. I regularly drop my toggles at the Perrine for shitz and giggles because every time somebody will yell: "Don't flare too high!" I agree that over-flaring is the issue. But that's a difference between operating a canopy and flying a canopy. People that operate their canopy don't feel what they're doing and they just transform theory into fixed control strokes. People that fly their canopy transform theory into feedback loops where every input into the canopy affects their current theory. This is the difference between just yanking on your risers and dropping out of the sky or pulling slightly on your risers and feeling how it affects your glide angle. Flying versus operating. If you ever spot a bad driver, look at how they are driving. You will notice they are operating their car, instead of driving it as an extension of their body. Once you recognize it, it becomes obvious to the point where you can just spot the little manual in their head that tells them step by step what motions to go through. For anybody that is really worried about first time rear-riser landings, wear your helmet, knee-pads and body-armour (you have body armour, right?) and error on the side of flaring not at all. I actually intend to drop my toggles soon and not flare risers either. Maybe I'll do this into the water first, and then take it to the land. I'm trying to figure out how bad of a landing one makes under an uncontrolled large BASE canopy. It's not really a useful skill, but I'm satisfying a curiousity how hard one would hit the ground if one is unconscious under a large canopy. Of course, if one is really unsconscious, you'd also hit the object a bunch of times and be unable to PLF, but hey I can only take the simulation so far, right? I wonder if I'm going to be the first person on the list that died because he was experimenting with intentional malfunctions. Sorry guys... Edited to add: this post should not be read as a direct reply to Treejump. I'm pretty sure he's a much better canopy pilot than I am anyway.

With proper training (which one should get as with every other aspect of BASE), landing on rear risers is no more dangerous than landing on toggles. I've done plenty rear riser landings on my Sabre 170, and on my BASE canopy I would even argue that my rear riser landings are softer than on toggles. I don't think that injury is relatively likely with rear riser landings. And even if it would be, would you really want to put yourself in training mode when you're already in a high-stress situation because you just accidentally lost a toggle on a non-friendly object? Isn't it much better to ask an experienced jumper (preferably even on your dropzone when you're skydiving your BASE canopy) for advice and practice in a safe environment? I don't think it has anything to do with people being afraid of rear riser landings. It has everything to do with people having to much fun dicking around and not enough fun learning safety skills. This is skydiving all over, where amazing freeflyers can't even put a canopy down safely because all they ever learned was freefall skills. It's AFF versus static-line courses. It's going to be the age of the Potato jumpers. For the record, I'm a very poor canopy pilot whose idea of an advanced BASE landing site is a fifty acre grass field. I factor this into my object selection (except that one time that I landed in a tree). So I'll shut up now.

In no way does this post reduce your right to call me on my own dangerous behaviour. I do plenty of stupid things myself. I'm not bitter, just surprised.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Even if this was written better, the contents alone suggests there is a very niche target audience. Agreed. I'll retract my statement that this abstract specifically is one that hurts science. However, I still belief that science has a duty to communicate clearly, and in my opinion this piece does not. Do you think it is impossible to rewrite the abstract to read much easier without harming the message? If I had more time I would give it a try myself. I know nothing of this field, but I am fairly sure I could significantly improve the readability of the abstract without changing the meaning. I'm not critizing the work. For all I know, its conclusions could be of great value and truly revolutionary. I fully intend to give the paper its due effort tonight. I am critizing the writing style of the abstract. I not only hold the opinion that the authors have neglected to communicate clearly, I also accuse them of taking extra effort to make the message more obtuse. This is not an attack on the contents of the publication or the work itself. It's an attack on the writing style of the abstract and the authors behind it. Unless somebody can convince me this abstract could not have been written better, I stand by this opinion. I also still think that because of this writing style, they are harming the scientific community by limiting the amount of people that could get value out of this paper. And again, I'm not saying their target should be the disinterested public, but certainly it could be bigger than it is now. Theoretical criminology is partially responsible for making descisions whether dangerous people can be let back into society again or not. Holland recently had a few cases where people were deemed fit for reintegration and they ended up murdering and raping several innocent people. Now all of a sudden the disinterested public is not so uninterested anymore. At that point, we need to have a clear, understandable and solid foundation to explain the justification of our decisions. That doesn't mean oversimplified communication, but it demands clarity for sure. I'm sorry to hear that. I think we share many opinions on what science means. I am just very uptight about communication because science is blamed for matters that are only caused by poor communication and not due to actual scientific results.

Thanks everybody. All offered great contributions, and certainly Nick outdid himself with another excellent post. The answer closest to the one I am looking for came from base736. This is not aimed at anybody in particular, but more as a general observation. Why the hell are you using the LRM if you have never landed on rear-risers before? Imagine you are trying to cross the ocean on a boat. For emergency situations, the boat has a helipad with a helicopter on it. During a heavy storm, the boat starts sinking and you have to evacuate the ship. Quickly you jump into the helicopter.... ...and realize you have never flown a helicopter before! There's an analogy for ya...

I am a member of said community too. I have no PHD, but I hold a M.Sc. degree and I still enjoy a great deal of research in my professional life as well as from my armchair. I belief this abstract is a example of what is harming science. If we don't communicate clearly we allow people to trust irrational explanations for phenomenons they don't understand. We would all still be creationists if Darwin hadn't been a great author. Let me stress again that I strongly belief in vocabularies to make communication more effective. I don't see a problem with entry level barriers for those trying to get into a science. Not all papers have to be accessible to laymen. That is always the most important goal, even for non-technical publications. If an author says more or less than what he intended he failed to communicate his message. Making life easy for the reader is a secondary goal. Nonetheless it is one that we should not forget. I have not yet read the entire paper and I am therefore basing my opinion on just the abstract. Forgive me for saying this but unless your vocabulary comfort zone is at a drastically different level than mine, I find it naieve of you to think that the authors chose their wording with the intent of making specific statements. I agree that they chose carefully, but only to further obfuscate their message. Let's have a look... What is useful about this sentence? It doesn't contribute anything to the abstract. But let's assume for a minute that it has purpose, then the use of "been subject to" is still a capital sin. This sentence is more clear when rewritten as: "Edgework experiences are discussed in recent literature." A form? I wrote an email to my mother the other day. It read like this; "A form that offers great pleasure, drinking coffee is an every-day activity." I intended to write: "I like coffee and drink it every day.", but I was worried my mother might think I'm dumb. Sure, an email to my mother is not the same as a scientific paper, but come on.... Furthermore, BASE jumping doesn't find things. Jumpers do. Perhaps BASE jumping establishes a nexus, but it certainly doesn't find it. And what's with licit and illicit activities? You mean that some of things we do are illegal? I can appreciate the fertile field analogy. The inclusion of theoretical research is offensive though. I doubt that the authors meant the meta-science that researches theories. They're just talking about research that is not carried out in the field. Which, in this context, is the same as not saying anything at all. Sensual is a poor choice of words here. They might mean "sensory", they might mean "of physical nature", but I doubt they mean the most common explanation of this word which says that we all get boners from BASE jumping. And why is the framework it provides experiential? Is it because BASE is a real life experience, instead of a made-up scenario? Well, duh. Besides, this sentence is wrong on another level too. I think they are trying to say that within criminology BASE provides insights in sensual motivations, as well as experiential frameworks for blah blah. Now they are saying that BASE provides insides into the frameworks. I doubt this is the kind of insight they are looking for. A flawed definition. Need I continue? This abstract is the kind of text that turns a disinterested society into an uninterested society. Poor communication gives opponents the ammunition to attack our observations and conclusions with flawed logic. I wonder if the authors are conducting a study on how marginalized adrenalin seekers use the form of digital debating over literal frameworks to create a nexus between sensual behaviour and thereotical research. I mean that the authors of that paper are probably lurking around in these forums to find a bunch of bored BASE jumpers flaming each other over a piece of text none of them wrote.

Because all those digits added together form the largest prime number that is less than twenty?

I'm not saying that there isn't a legitimate justification for the existence of their program. There are plenty of niche sciences that I have no interest in, but I'll defend their existence regardless. However, such sciences should realize that because they are vulnerable they need to pay more attention to the quality of their publications. I have not given the paper enough time to comment on their observations and conclusions. My attack is solely on their writing. A great writer aims to make life easy for the reader. For every writing there are many readers, so it is best if the writer bears the burden of getting a message across. A poor writer doesn't realize this and writes what he thinks is best, without putting himself in the position of the reader. Few get lucky and write reader-friendly material by default. A sinful writer throws this principle out the window entirely and tries to use meaningless words to strengthen his perceived intelligence. Through this, he is insulting the reader's intelligence and turning away a large audience. Thanks for this. I will give the paper more attention now than I otherwise would have. I appreciate it.

Yeah. I hear ya. If nobody else comes up with showstoppers, maybe I'll modify my skydiving rig and play around.

Does this setup have potential in general? Instead of putting at the bottom of the container, you reach up both hands towards your shoulders (to stay symmetrical), grab the pilotchute, and pull it out up and above your head. This would reduce the chances of the pilotchute oscillating from left to right, reducing chances of offheadings. There are probably huge changes in the burble dynamics with this change. Also, wingsuiters couldn't use it. Plus, if it was a good idea, skydivers would have used it already.

Holy crap Tree, I'm totally with you one this one. I intend on reading the entire article when I have some more time, but judging by the abstract I am not hopeful. Allow me to reprint it. Paragraphs were added by me to make it slightly more readable. This piece of writing is a disgrace for the entire scientific community. I understand that most sciences have occasional needs for a specific vocabulary that only respective experts understand. This makes communication within that community more effective, and it is assumed that those with an interest will take the effort to learn the vocabulary. Even then, most authors aim for readability. The piece above however breaks every rule on effective communication. Even as a non-expert in this field, I am fairly sure the above abstract is just a tangled mess of overcomplicated sentences in order to find some far-fetched justification for spending my tax-money on their PHD programs. It makes me want to throw up.

This one is a little contest. I can't offer much more than eternal fame for prizes, but hopefully that should motivate some to answer. What is the most important component in a line release modification?

Oops, my bad.

Actually, you bring up an interesting point. I recall it being a big issue when Miles jumped with the waterskis. Can anybody clarify why this was a big deal and why it's going to be okay to take a wheelchair from the bridge? Unless I'm overlooking something, I am very supportive of a wheelchair stunts. At the same time, I also thought that from a purely having-fun point of view, the waterski jumps were okay. So I'm curious what the problem was with the waterski jumps. Edit: apparently it was JT and not Miles who jumped the waterskis.

Man, we nearly died on our way home. Remember you were joking about the driving on braille? Totally what happened! Good thing the Dane could drive for a bit or we would not be here to tell the story. Got home at 6:00am, slept for two hours, and then had one of the most productive work days ever. Not...

I just came to my attention that somebody we all know and love has received BASE 1024! I know we all got very excited when BASE 1000 got awarded (I wet my pants if I recall correctly) but I do want to point out that in this age of computers the number 1024 is an even bigger milestone. 1024 is the number of bytes that are in one kilobyte. It is also the number of kilobytes in one megabyte and the number of megabytes in a gigabyte. 1024 is 2 to the power of 10. It is the number thousand of the future! Especially on an electronic forum such as this, we should all recognize the important of the binary kilo. Congratulations, you know who you are.

...which can be very hard if part of your income comes from students. It's understandable that commercial FJCs have lower standards. The BASE manufacturers are far from wealthy, and I can't blame them for trying to make some extra money throwing students of a relatively safe bridge without worrying too much about their future. It might not be the most ethical thing, but it's certainly understandable. I hope this doesn't read judgemental, it's just an observation. Just out of curiousity; you ask applicants to write down their motivations for jumping, right? Have you found any relationship between these motivations and the perceived attitude during the actual course?

I'm not sure. I guess that touches on a much bigger philosophical issue; can people really change? Certainly in the face of extreme emotional stress, like after a near accident, people can change their attitudes. But if I simply don't have an interest in BASE history, I don't think I'll change my mind when my mentor keeps hammering on it. Since I have started, I have learned a lot about BASE and all associated theory and practice. However, my basic attitude towards it hasn't changed much. I still BASE for the same reasons, and I still care about the same values. I find there are those that get into it for the circus, and those that are in it for more spiritual reasons. I'm a big believer in grey areas and equilibrium. In this case however, my opinion and experience is very black and white. But what if you accept a poor student in good training and find that you can't change his attitude? You have now given him a weapon he can take into the world and hurt himself with. Edited to add; I'm not attaching any opinion to my circus versus spiritual comment. Both types of jumpers can coexist and demonstrate equally foolish or equally skillful and respectful BASE behaviour.