Forums: Skydiving: Incidents:
Bad Tandem

 

First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next page Last page  View All

diablopilot  (D License)

May 10, 2014, 6:30 PM
Post #251 of 260 (2670 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hangdiver] re: Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

hangdiver wrote:
Here's what I think...the FAA and UPT didn't want to acknowledge that they gave a TSO to a system with a big hole in it...literally a big hole without the Y-strap.


hangdiver

You mean a system that had not one incident of this sort of thing occurring in 20+ years. Or could it be that the "perfect idiots" were finally found?


(This post was edited by diablopilot on May 10, 2014, 6:30 PM)


hangdiver  (D License)

May 10, 2014, 8:12 PM
Post #252 of 260 (2547 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] re: Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

diablopilot wrote:
hangdiver wrote:
Here's what I think...the FAA and UPT didn't want to acknowledge that they gave a TSO to a system with a big hole in it...literally a big hole without the Y-strap.


hangdiver

You mean a system that had not one incident of this sort of thing occurring in 20+ years. Or could it be that the "perfect idiots" were finally found?

I think anyone jumping out of airplanes is an idiot...to think it's safe.

It's not...shit happens...if you think it's safe you're an idiot.

Have you ever read Eloy's waiver?

I have...

hangdiver


robert_schaaf

May 11, 2014, 12:43 PM
Post #253 of 260 (2164 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Falko] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

All tandems sign a weiver even releasing the ti and dz of gross neglagance. Pay your moneytake your chances. And i watched this tandem land from the loadong area. She was un harmed and not even shaken up about what happened. Still made her lunch plans for the day. Also upt added a y mod shortly after this incident witch wouldnt have happpened if there wasnt a problem with the gear. This also is not the first time this had happened but just the first time the people involved werent chicken shit enough to cover it up. Things like this can be learned from. Share it.


tonyhays  (D 26336)

May 11, 2014, 1:55 PM
Post #254 of 260 (2056 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robert_schaaf] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
All tandems sign a weiver even releasing the ti and dz of gross neglagance

Doesn't matter if it states in the waiver, you can't waiver gross negligence.

Quote:
This also is not the first time this had happened but just the first time the people involved werent chicken shit enough to cover it up

If memory serves this didn't come out til a year after the incident due to someone not on staff putting it on youtube.


The111  (D 29246)

May 11, 2014, 3:14 PM
Post #255 of 260 (1992 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robert_schaaf] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

robert_schaaf wrote:
upt added a y mod shortly after this incident witch wouldnt have happpened if there wasnt a problem with the gear.

That logic doesn't add up. It's like saying cars have seat belts because of a problem with the car. Quite the opposite, it's because of a problem with drivers.

A manufacturer adding extra safety redundancies to their gear does not mean there is a problem with their gear. It means they care about saving human lives in as many situations as possible, including poor use of the gear.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

May 11, 2014, 6:40 PM
Post #256 of 260 (1828 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The111] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

The111 wrote:
robert_schaaf wrote:
upt added a y mod shortly after this incident witch wouldnt have happpened if there wasnt a problem with the gear.

That logic doesn't add up. It's like saying cars have seat belts because of a problem with the car. Quite the opposite, it's because of a problem with drivers.

A manufacturer adding extra safety redundancies to their gear does not mean there is a problem with their gear. It means they care about saving human lives in as many situations as possible, including poor use of the gear.

Plus, the statement of why the "Y" mod is inaccurate.
The mod was offered after UPT and Strong each had a student slip from the harness and fall to their deaths. The Strong case was TI, and a DZ mentality error, in the UPT case the TI took the blame.

After those two incidents, Strong mandated the mod for their rigs, and UPT offered it as an option.

When the TI does their job properly, and perform as a Professional, the Y mod is not needed or even necessary.

Matt


Liemberg  (Student)

May 14, 2014, 3:45 AM
Post #257 of 260 (1069 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
When the TI does their job properly, and perform as a Professional, the Y mod is not needed or even necessary.
Same goes for AAD and RSL.

And any true Professional that is already above making stupid mistakes in the day-to-day practice of tandem-jumping will have no problem whatsoever with properly adjusting the 'extra' Y mod.


The111  (D 29246)

May 14, 2014, 9:12 AM
Post #258 of 260 (897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Liemberg] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Liemberg wrote:
Quote:
When the TI does their job properly, and perform as a Professional, the Y mod is not needed or even necessary.
Same goes for AAD and RSL.

It's not completely the same.

Even if you do everything right, you may still need an AAD (you can get knocked out by somebody else).

Even if you do everything right, you may still need an RSL (you could have a low cutaway cause by somebody else, e.g. after a canopy collision).

BUT... if you as a TI adjust the main harness right... you won't need a Y mod.

Yes, all 3 (RSL, AAD, Y mod) will protect you from yourself.

But only 2 of them (RSL, AAD) protect you from externally caused situations too. So when talking about a perfect professional who does everything right, the Y mod is very different from AAD and RSL, since this hypothetical perfect professional would still have a use for RSL/AAD, but not Y mod.


Liemberg  (Student)

May 14, 2014, 10:06 AM
Post #259 of 260 (851 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The111] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Even if you do everything right, you may still need an AAD (you can get knocked out by somebody else).
The hypothetical perfect professional without any control over who he does or does not share his 'freefal-airspace' with? Been out of the game for a couple of years now, but the last time I looked the TI had total control over that. If you are knocked out by someone else you probably missed the portion where 'tandem under drogue = sitting duck' was explained by your examiner.
Quote:
(you could have a low cutaway cause by somebody else, e.g. after a canopy collision).
First, when Strong risers were breaking occasionally (many moons ago) it was up to the TI whether or not he wanted the RSL-thingy attached (provided the AAD was on) but other than that I do remember everybody else always opening some 2000ft below me...

So even if theoretically there may be a minute difference, in the real world that's completely insignificant.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 14, 2014, 4:57 PM
Post #260 of 260 (720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The111] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

>Even if you do everything right, you may still need an RSL (you could have a
>low cutaway cause by somebody else, e.g. after a canopy collision).

If you are perfect you don't need an RSL since you will pull silver the instant the second riser releases. However, since few skydivers are perfect, an RSL (and even a Y mod) may increase safety overall for the tandem student.


First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)