fatboy

I agree with Bill, nobody wants additional regulation in our sport, however providing these rigs would inevitably invoke some form of legislation/inspection regime. Kelly made an excellent point that I also support, there are likely to be a high percentage of injuries associated with the use of emergency chutes. These injuries would bog down the triage process, and soak up rescue resources that could otherwise be more effectively deployed. Don't expect too many companies to fund the provision of these rigs either, they will have to justify the expense by conducting a cost benefit analysis. The situations where the use of such an escape system would be required are thankfully relatively infrequent (in risk terms), the probability of successful use is also relatively low, therefore the budget available for the company providing these to their employees is also disgustingly low. The harsh reality is that instead of providing an emergency rig, it makes better financial sense (to employing companies) to buy a few insurance policies But hey, you guys live in the land of the free, if you work in a high rise, then the choice to buy one is yours...Go ahead.

Thanks Wildblue, the equipment is already developed and has been in use in the mining, marine, and petrochemical industries for ages. Offshore, we normally stash this gear in little backpacks that we call grab bags, site them in a suitably conspicuous place and away you go....

I, like any other civilised being on this planet, was shocked and apalled by the events of 11 sep. I design and specify escape systems for large offshore oil rigs, which present similar problems to escape from high rise buildings. We often provide bridge links between installations, retro fitting to existing structures would be prohibitively expensive, however the Petronas tower in KL has this facility, so they could be incorprated at the design stage. A more reasonable solution to this problem would be the provision of smoke hoods, chemical light sticks, heat resistant gloves and overshoes, and a nomex suit. Most people are killed in building fires by smoke inhalation, avoid that and you have a reasonable chance of getting yourself below the fire and thus to safety. The gear is cheap, requires very little training, and has a high probability of successful use. Most building fires will not cause the structure to collapse like the WTC, so you have plenty of time to reach a safe place. Building codes require that critical structural members are coated with fire protection. Catastrophic events such as terrorist attacks are best countered at source, ie better security and vigilance. Last Dec, I was on a flight out of Lagos that had at least two burly security guys on board. Perhaps something similar could be initiated by the airlines themselves. At the end of the day there is not a lot that can be done to mitigate the effects of some lunatic taking control of a large aircaft and subsequently crashing it into a densely populated area. As a skydiver, I would rather jump, but not everyone who works in tall buildings is familiar with what is actually required to enable a successful parachute descent under these conditions. I have jumped rounds and believe me, even the sports chutes we used were very difficult to control, and land effectively. For me weighing in at over 200lbs, the thought of donning a 16 ft round and trusting to luck to deliver me to a safe LZ is not one I relish. Just my tuppence worth... stay safe folks, Davie PS anyone know a good DZ in Houston, I am moving there from Europe shortly.