Forums: Skydiving: Incidents:
New Zealand Fatality

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Nov 19, 2012, 9:31 AM
Post #26 of 58 (3760 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:


I see too many videos of cutaways where, instead of putting their feet on their butt and aggressively arching, people flop around like a bad AFF student doing his first diving exit. CrazyTongue I think better training and practice would lead to people having more stable cutaways and reserve deployments.

I'm with you here. I've been leaving the RSL hooked on camera jumps. I've added "Arch like a Mu+h$R XXXXXXX" to my EP's. On one camera jump (with a shitty opening) where I had pulled a little high, I located my RSL tab as the canopy was sorting itself out. I had time/altitude to make that call. Canopy eventually opened, all is well. The point being... "EP's change with additional tasks. Practice them and use them."






obelixtim  (D 84)

Nov 28, 2012, 8:14 AM
Post #29 of 58 (3011 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

OK, I have it on good authority, although I don't know what rig it was, that the guy was jumping a rig that had been grounded, which he smuggled on to the DZ.

As a result, of the fatality, CAA instigated an investigation, which apparently has been conducted in such a heavy handed manner, that the DZO concerned, has taken his own life as a result of the pressure he was put under. Possibly CAA's reaction in the wake of the fatal crash at Fox Glacier.

So this incident has cost 2 lives, one a good friend of mine who I've known since 1977, and who had over 10,000 jumps to his name. He left a wife and two kids...

It could well mean the end of a well run DZ.....

Really sad news.

RIP Dave.


normiss  (D 28356)

Nov 28, 2012, 8:47 AM
Post #30 of 58 (2973 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think it's fair to the first fatality to the other.

IMO, suicide cannot be associate to anything other than the person committing suicide. That is a very selfish move.
It was that person's issue with dealing....period.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Nov 29, 2012, 3:44 AM
Post #31 of 58 (2690 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
IMO, suicide cannot be associate to anything other than the person committing suicide. That is a very selfish move.
It was that person's issue with dealing....period.

I agree completely, but I was just pointing out it was probably a factor, possibly what was the tipping point.

I guess my point was simply that people who try to circumvent the rules need to be aware that there can be consequences, not just for themselves, but for others.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 29, 2012, 3:36 PM
Post #32 of 58 (2433 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
OK, I have it on good authority, although I don't know what rig it was, that the guy was jumping a rig that had been grounded, which he smuggled on to the DZ.

As a result, of the fatality, CAA instigated an investigation, which apparently has been conducted in such a heavy handed manner, that the DZO concerned, has taken his own life as a result of the pressure he was put under. Possibly CAA's reaction in the wake of the fatal crash at Fox Glacier.

So this incident has cost 2 lives, one a good friend of mine who I've known since 1977, and who had over 10,000 jumps to his name. He left a wife and two kids...

It could well mean the end of a well run DZ.....

Really sad news.

RIP Dave.

This brings up an important point.

I don't know if the rig was grounded for being worn out, but if you look at the DZ roster (his name has now been removed), almost all of the instructors have several thousand jumps; some have 10,000 or more.

Which means most of them are all-day-every-day jumpers, which means their gear gets the poop beat out of it and, human nature and making the next turn being what it is, a lot of necessary maintenance no doubt gets deferred or discarded.

A similar thing happened in the US a few years ago - not a death but quadraplegia paralysis. Staff jumper with thousands of jumps beat his gear half to death so it returned the favor; one of the worn-out Slinks gave way on his landing turn, the canopy collapsed and he hit the ground from high up plus whatever canopy speed he had before it collapsed.

It may turn out that this fatality had nothing to do with poor maintenance and the grounded rig wasn't a factor, but grounded rigs usually mean "not airworthy" rigs, and next time you see some of the 10,000-jump instructors walking around the DZ, check out the condition of their gear.

And as the New Gestapo in the US likes to say: "If you see something, say something" -- because it's just as wrong to jump worn-out gear when you have 10,000 jumps as it is to jump a highly-loaded canopy when you have 100 jumps. In both cases, you're wrong -- dead wrong.

44
Mad


LyraM45  (B 26378)

Nov 29, 2012, 5:43 PM
Post #33 of 58 (2382 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Which means most of them are all-day-every-day jumpers, which means their gear gets the poop beat out of it and, human nature and making the next turn being what it is, a lot of necessary maintenance no doubt gets deferred or discarded.

I would like to think this is not majority of high jump number jumpers. At least it's not at the DZ's I frequent.

There is a difference between jumping 'worn' gear, which I'm sure other people at any DZ do, and sneaking a rig that is so worn it was grounded on to the plane and jumping it. We're not even sure if the rig being worn was the reason it was grounded. Either way, no matter what the reason is for grounding, it's wrong to get on a plane with gear that has something so obviously wrong with it that it was grounded. That's like a big F-U to everybody who's jumping with you, and in this case, the DZO especially. It's not just yourself you're endangering with selfish choices like that.


What kind of time frames do the CAA work with for getting reports out on incidences and fatalities? Be interesting to see if this unfortunate incident is directly related to a gear problem that is associated with why the rig was grounded in the first place.


nigel99  (D 1)

Nov 29, 2012, 7:10 PM
Post #34 of 58 (2332 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LyraM45] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

Just remember gear can be grounded due to paperwork, or even a reserve being 1 day past its repack cycle. While Robins post is valid and should be remembered, it doesn't mean the grounding was related to the incident.


Rover  (D 241)

Nov 30, 2012, 2:14 AM
Post #35 of 58 (2185 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

AAD was mandatory, I understand the gear in question did not have an AAD.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Nov 30, 2012, 7:15 AM
Post #36 of 58 (2079 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rover] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
AAD was mandatory, I understand the gear in question did not have an AAD.

Yeah, thats what Iheard....no AAD. I'm sure in other respects the gear was perfectly serviceable. The compulsory AAD may have been a DZ only rule, not sure what the rule is in NZ now on a national basis, Tiger maybe you can enlighten us. (I'm not up to speed with current NZ DZ regulations)

However if the AAD "mandantory" rule was in the DZO's ops manual, CAA would have used that as a stick to beat the DZO with.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Dec 2, 2012, 7:26 AM
Post #37 of 58 (1808 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rover] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
AAD was mandatory, I understand the gear in question did not have an AAD.

Thanks for the info -- and it's something I forgot in general -- that some DZs ground rigs because they don't have AADs and for no other reason.

My Old School brain just can't remember that silliness sometimes.

44
Frown


Andy9o8  (D License)

Dec 2, 2012, 9:35 AM
Post #38 of 58 (1734 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
AAD was mandatory, I understand the gear in question did not have an AAD.

Thanks for the info -- and it's something I forgot in general -- that some DZs ground rigs because they don't have AADs and for no other reason.

My Old School brain just can't remember that silliness sometimes. 44 Frown

I've come to no longer share that attitude. Even if I don't necessarily agree with a certain safety rule at a particular DZ, it's not me that has to deal with the fallout of a fatality, it's the DZO.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Dec 3, 2012, 3:52 AM
Post #39 of 58 (1381 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Thanks for the info -- and it's something I forgot in general -- that some DZs ground rigs because they don't have AADs and for no other reason.

My Old School brain just can't remember that silliness sometimes.

A lot of tandem only DZ's do that as a matter of policy, most likely the case here.

I'm not sure actually writing into an approved operations manual is a good idea however, because it gives some know nothing pen pusher a stick to beat you with if there is an incident.

Its something I might have as an informal policy which would be pretty easy to implement as an informal code of practise pertaining to the DZ. After all its only a back up device. Unfortunately it has become one of those things that through time, is now seen as an "essential".

FWIW I haven't jumped with an AAD since my student days, unless one happened to be on a student rig I was doing a test jump on....and in most of those cases I would have had it switched off.

But thats just me. I know they save lives, but like you, as one of the "older school", I prefer to rely on my own survival skills. Maybe when I'm senile and 80 they'll put one on me.....


danornan  (D 11308)

Dec 3, 2012, 5:35 AM
Post #40 of 58 (1323 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:


FWIW I haven't jumped with an AAD since my student days, unless one happened to be on a student rig I was doing a test jump on....and in most of those cases I would have had it switched off.

But thats just me. I know they save lives, but like you, as one of the "older school", I prefer to rely on my own survival skills.

The AAD is for what you can't control, not what you can.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Dec 3, 2012, 5:50 AM
Post #41 of 58 (1323 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danornan] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:


FWIW I haven't jumped with an AAD since my student days, unless one happened to be on a student rig I was doing a test jump on....and in most of those cases I would have had it switched off.

But thats just me. I know they save lives, but like you, as one of the "older school", I prefer to rely on my own survival skills.

The AAD is for what you can't control, not what you can.

Well it was pretty well known back then that sometimes you couldn't control an AAD....and I guess the same thing could still apply at times today.

However it was also understood that it was a good idea to have control over situations you were going to put yourself into as far as possible.

That involved careful planning, anticipation of potential problems and selection of who you jumped with, plus an understanding of your own limitations, responsibilities and capabilities.

I'm not so sure that all those things are so well ingrained these days. Some people seem to think technology is the panacea for all evils these days.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Dec 3, 2012, 6:32 AM
Post #42 of 58 (1283 views)
Shortcut
Re: New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

Oh we're going to need a moderator soon as this devolves into a long AAD philosophy argument! Chop, chop.

In the meantime before the cut:

Fuck the DZO's & national associations for wanting everyone on the DZ to buy $1200 gadgets for every rig just to protect their own asses from the possibility of a suit.

(Besides, most people are convinced already and have AAD's - me included).


obelixtim  (D 84)

Dec 3, 2012, 7:03 AM
Post #43 of 58 (1262 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

Its the way of the world....

Maybe in his mind he was waiting for the (non existent) AAD to fire, and delayed dumping his reserve till too late....it was suggested to me that he spent too long trying to sort out the main because he didn't want the DZO to find out he was jumping his rig without one.

To my mind, I doubt he would have been processing such thoughts in the middle of dealing with a mal...

Not sure if there is too much more we can glean from this incident. It might be another thing for the "let everyone jump a camera despite their experience" mob to rethink though.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Dec 3, 2012, 9:23 AM
Post #44 of 58 (1169 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rover] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
AAD was mandatory,

How can anyone require the instulation of a non-certified piece of equipment into a FAA Certified piece of equipment which might fail the FAA Certified equipment.
The first rule of AAD instulation: "Must not interfear with the normal function of". Until we get AAD's which won't interfear the function of the reserve, if it fails, then AADs can not be mandatory.
Cutters are the problem they have and can fail as they have failed in the past and might again in the future.
I would love to see AAD on all rigs but we are a long way from ready.
Get rid of the cutter, do it a different way. Todays cutters look very good but should not be trusted.
I have a waiver on my tandem for instulation approval. The FAA agrees with this position.


Rover  (D 241)

Dec 3, 2012, 9:55 AM
Post #45 of 58 (1130 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

Whats the FAA got to do with NZ?


airtwardo  (D License)

Dec 3, 2012, 10:40 AM
Post #46 of 58 (1093 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rover] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Whats the FAA got to do with NZ?

Interesting question~

Does the CAA automatically accept the FAA airworthiness certs for aircraft and things like TSO regs?

Or does skydiving equipment have to go through separate testing in order to be deemed acceptable for use?


robinheid  (D 5533)

Dec 3, 2012, 11:13 AM
Post #47 of 58 (1064 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
AAD was mandatory, I understand the gear in question did not have an AAD.

Thanks for the info -- and it's something I forgot in general -- that some DZs ground rigs because they don't have AADs and for no other reason.

My Old School brain just can't remember that silliness sometimes. 44 Frown

I've come to no longer share that attitude. Even if I don't necessarily agree with a certain safety rule at a particular DZ, it's not me that has to deal with the fallout of a fatality, it's the DZO.

I'm on record throughout this site as supporting whatever rules DZOs choose to impose or not impose; it's their business to run as they see fit. As you say, they're the ones who have to deal with the fallout therefrom.

Unless I missed it, though, no one has yet said clearly whether or not the "AADs required" was a DZO rule or regulatory requirement. Could someone provide that info or steer me to the relevant post?

44
Frown


robinheid  (D 5533)

Dec 3, 2012, 11:26 AM
Post #48 of 58 (1049 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Thanks for the info -- and it's something I forgot in general -- that some DZs ground rigs because they don't have AADs and for no other reason.

My Old School brain just can't remember that silliness sometimes.

A lot of tandem only DZ's do that as a matter of policy, most likely the case here.

I'm not sure actually writing into an approved operations manual is a good idea however, because it gives some know nothing pen pusher a stick to beat you with if there is an incident.
In reply to:

Excellent point. I work often in a highly regulated industry, and part of how you design your processes and documentation is to leave as few sticks as possible lying around for auditors to beat you with.

In this case, if the DZO created the "AAD required" rule, then he did in fact create a "paper crime" that is easy to prove and that's what investigators get paid to do -- find provable crimes. (If the "AAD required" rule is a regulatory requirement, then it's the state creating the paper crime trap, which is a different subject.)

If the DZO does have discretion, though, your suggestion makes a lot of sense, because then no paper crime can be committed, and any informal code is just that -- informal, and thus very hard for investigators and their ilk to get a handle on in terms of finding evidence to support charges of some kind.

Of course, you have to balance out limiting your legal exposure on that score with what Andy 908 referenced; given today's training, a DZO has no guarantee that the 500-jump wonder showing up at the DZ does in fact have the knowledge and skills necessary to reasonably survive a jump without an AAD.

Kinda reinforces the notion that these days you have to be half-crazy to want to be a DZO or run any business that caters to risk-takers.

Condolences to the family and friends of this DZ for the way he ended up.

44
Frown


airtwardo  (D License)

Dec 3, 2012, 11:53 AM
Post #49 of 58 (1024 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.caa.govt.nz/...05_Consolidation.pdf

Looks to me like AAD fed requirements pertain to students & tandems only. Obviously any DZO can extend that scope as they see fit.


TangBu  (C 102574)

Dec 3, 2012, 12:42 PM
Post #50 of 58 (981 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] New Zealand Fatality [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Not sure if there is too much more we can glean from this incident. It might be another thing for the "let everyone jump a camera despite their experience" mob to rethink though.

Are you saying he didn't have enough experience to jump a camera? I thought he had 3000 jumps?


First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)