Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread

 


base283  (D 15343)

Mar 26, 2013, 11:12 PM
Post #1 of 157 (9665 views)
Shortcut
The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread Can't Post

What if the Student grabbed the instructor say, at the bottom end of the dive......? It could easily answer most of the points brought up and the nearness of the pair.
Take care,
space


(This post was edited by base283 on Mar 27, 2013, 1:01 AM)


phreeloader  (Student)

Mar 27, 2013, 1:02 AM
Post #2 of 157 (9541 views)
Shortcut
Re: [base283] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

with the the Investigators/press calling the instructor a hero based on the video footage, I'd say that's unlikely
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/...structor-died-a-hero
Quote:
instructor who was killed during a jump in Zephyrhills over the weekend died trying to save a studend


(This post was edited by phreeloader on Mar 27, 2013, 1:03 AM)


jclalor  (B 33202)

Mar 27, 2013, 2:08 AM
Post #3 of 157 (9495 views)
Shortcut
Re: [base283] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Perhaps it was already mentioned and I missed it, but would the most likely scenario involve that both AED's were never turned on ? The gear description given earlier made no mention if they were on. The odds of both of them not working is huge.


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 27, 2013, 3:09 AM
Post #4 of 157 (9463 views)
Shortcut
Re: [base283] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Since the original thread is locked.

Was this the first jump in the US and could it have been a conversion jump from ripcord to BOC? Just a thought based on the TV picture.

It sounds from what TK has commented that all equipment worked as it should. I would take that to imply the Cypres units both cut their loops, and it is simply a reminder that an AAD is a last resort. 750ft doesn't leave much room for error and there are no guarantees you will live through an AAD fire.

It seems the focus is on why they both went low, rather than equipment.


jclalor  (B 33202)

Mar 27, 2013, 3:21 AM
Post #5 of 157 (9443 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Since the original thread is locked.

Quote:
Was this the first jump in the US and could it have been a conversion jump from ripcord to BOC? Just a thought based on the TV picture.

It sounds from what TK has commented that all equipment worked as it should. I would take that to imply the Cypres units both cut their loops, and it is simply a reminder that an AAD is a last resort. 750ft doesn't leave much room for error and there are no guarantees you will live through an AAD fire.

It seems the focus is on why they both went low, rather than equipment.

Call me a cynic, but an AAD is not designed to fire when turned off, hence it worked as designed. The apparent fact that not one reserve PC launched shows that they most likely were never turned on.


(This post was edited by jclalor on Mar 27, 2013, 3:47 AM)


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 27, 2013, 4:33 AM
Post #6 of 157 (9372 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jclalor] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Since the original thread is locked.

Quote:
Was this the first jump in the US and could it have been a conversion jump from ripcord to BOC? Just a thought based on the TV picture.

It sounds from what TK has commented that all equipment worked as it should. I would take that to imply the Cypres units both cut their loops, and it is simply a reminder that an AAD is a last resort. 750ft doesn't leave much room for error and there are no guarantees you will live through an AAD fire.

It seems the focus is on why they both went low, rather than equipment.

Call me a cynic, but an AAD is not designed to fire when turned off, hence it worked as designed. The apparent fact that not one reserve PC launched shows that they most likely were never turned on.

Our problem is that we don't know if the reserve PCs were launched, we have each interpreted it differently. It would be nice to know, we do know the instructor pulled hos reserve.


jclalor  (B 33202)

Mar 27, 2013, 5:10 AM
Post #7 of 157 (9319 views)
Shortcut
Re: [base283] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

The video evidently shows the student loosing consciousness and the instructor catching up to him but too low. Unimpressed


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 27, 2013, 5:42 AM
Post #8 of 157 (9277 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jclalor] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Since the original thread is locked.

Quote:
Was this the first jump in the US and could it have been a conversion jump from ripcord to BOC? Just a thought based on the TV picture.

It sounds from what TK has commented that all equipment worked as it should. I would take that to imply the Cypres units both cut their loops, and it is simply a reminder that an AAD is a last resort. 750ft doesn't leave much room for error and there are no guarantees you will live through an AAD fire.

It seems the focus is on why they both went low, rather than equipment.

Call me a cynic, but an AAD is not designed to fire when turned off, hence it worked as designed. The apparent fact that not one reserve PC launched shows that they most likely were never turned on.

In the thread in Incidents it is mentioned that both reserves are beginning to open at impact.


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 27, 2013, 5:54 AM
Post #9 of 157 (9252 views)
Shortcut
Re: [base283] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What if the Student grabbed the instructor say, at the bottom end of the dive......? It could easily answer most of the points brought up and the nearness of the pair.
Take care,
space

I was just thinking that this morning. Panic driven student grabs anything he can possibly?


degeneration  (C 106811)

Mar 27, 2013, 6:57 AM
Post #10 of 157 (9152 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Was going to ask this in the other thread, but as it is locked I'll ask here.

Info said
Quote:
Instructor jumping a newer Icon harness, with Smart 120 reserve, and 170ish Aerodyne main. Cypres Expert II. All compatible gear with no size or compatibility issues. His cutaway and reserve handles were pulled and cutaway handle was found close by.

Looking at all Aerodyne container sizes, I'm not aware of any that are set up for that sort of size difference. If it is one that comfortably houses a 120 reserve, then a 170 ish main would be very tight. Could this tightness of the main, with it not being deployed from the container, have caused reserve hesitation due to the added pressure on the bottom of the reserve tray?

On the flip side, if it was a container that was sized appropriately for a 170 ish main, then wouldn't a 120 reserve have been really quite loose, also potentially causing some sort of problem with deployment?


Divalent  (C 40494)

Mar 27, 2013, 7:02 AM
Post #11 of 157 (9141 views)
Shortcut
Re: [base283] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

There are two general mysteries in this incident. The first is what caused them to not deploy at a normal safe altitude. I don't think we will learn any lesson we didn't already know when that cause is identified. (Likely it will be one or more of: be altitude aware, be healthy when you jump, avoid collisions in the air, fly stable, don't bump your head on the way out the door, don't chase a student below 2K, etc.)

But a second issue is why both impacted at a fatal speed, despite both having AAD's that apparently did fire. A solo instance can easily be understood as due to some known weakness (container with unusually high reserve extraction forces, misprogramed AAD, poor gear maintanence, PC hesitation due to non-optimum body position, etc) But the two together suggests a common cause that may be unique to this incident.


jonstark  (D 8298)

Mar 27, 2013, 9:56 AM
Post #12 of 157 (8887 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jclalor] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The video evidently shows the student loosing consciousness and the instructor catching up to him but too low. Unimpressed

Can you tell us where you read that?


jonstark  (D 8298)

Mar 27, 2013, 9:59 AM
Post #13 of 157 (8880 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jclalor] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Call me a cynic, but an AAD is not designed to fire when turned off, hence it worked as designed. The apparent fact that not one reserve PC launched shows that they most likely were never turned on.

How is it apparent to you that neither pilot chute launched and how can you call your assumption a "fact"?


jclalor  (B 33202)

Mar 27, 2013, 10:18 AM
Post #14 of 157 (8835 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jonstark] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
In reply to:
In reply to:
The video evidently shows the student loosing consciousness and the instructor catching up to him but too low. Unimpressed

Can you tell us where you read that?

Quote:
The conclusion is based, in part, on the instructor's helmet camera video.
The student, 25-year-old student Andrimar Pordarson, apparently lost consciousness during his descent. The instructor, 41-year-old instructor Orvar Arnarson, managed to reach him. But, it was too late.



http://www.abcactionnews.com/...ills-skydiver-deaths


jclalor  (B 33202)

Mar 27, 2013, 10:24 AM
Post #15 of 157 (8813 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jonstark] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Call me a cynic, but an AAD is not designed to fire when turned off, hence it worked as designed. The apparent fact that not one reserve PC launched shows that they most likely were never turned on.

How is it apparent to you that neither pilot chute launched and how can you call your assumption a "fact"?

Of course I cant' prove any of the apparent facts, I was just speculating from what I understood, If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 27, 2013, 10:32 AM
Post #16 of 157 (8795 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jclalor] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
25-year-old student Andrimar Pordarson, apparently lost consciousness during his descent.

That's according to a Sheriff's detective. Even if he saw the video, people may have different opinions on whether to fully trust such a source's description of events. I don't know either way.


PalmSky

Mar 27, 2013, 10:34 AM
Post #17 of 157 (8782 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Divalent] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There are two general mysteries in this incident. The first is what caused them to not deploy at a normal safe altitude. I don't think we will learn any lesson we didn't already know when that cause is identified. (Likely it will be one or more of: be altitude aware, be healthy when you jump, avoid collisions in the air, fly stable, don't bump your head on the way out the door, don't chase a student below 2K, etc.)

But a second issue is why both impacted at a fatal speed, despite both having AAD's that apparently did fire. A solo instance can easily be understood as due to some known weakness (container with unusually high reserve extraction forces, misprogramed AAD, poor gear maintanence, PC hesitation due to non-optimum body position, etc) But the two together suggests a common cause that may be unique to this incident.

From the gear the student was wearing he appeared to be a big guy. A big guy going unstable has the free-fall speed of someone going head-down. Two jumpers together may skew the cypress data due to the burble they are both creating.

I would really like to see the cypress data, they must have been extremely close when the parameters for cutter activation where achieved. It's extremely unwise to for an Instructor to chase a student that low but they do get drawn into it.

Over the past couple years there has been an acceptable general train of thought given to increasing the activation height of an AAD. Some of the old farts on here know what I mean about dirty low pullers.

With pattern traffic & canopy collisions I think a general trend of increasing deployment altitude overall is a wise move forward that has been taking place. I prefer to have my cypress2 set at 1200 in expert mode, however I never ever want to see it.


wasatchrider

Mar 27, 2013, 10:43 AM
Post #18 of 157 (8755 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PalmSky] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't use an aad but it seems like it would be safer for those things to fire at 1000 ft. I guess it could cause more two outs but I would rather have two out than one at line stretch.


BillyVance  (D 18895)

Mar 27, 2013, 10:46 AM
Post #19 of 157 (8745 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wasatchrider] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't use an aad but it seems like it would be safer for those things to fire at 1000 ft. I guess it could cause more two outs but I would rather have two out than one at line stretch.

I don't have an aad at the moment as my cypres passed its service life a while back, but I have been pulling higher than I used to, now in the 3000 ft range.

Back in the day I would pitch right at 2000 ft. Crazy


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 27, 2013, 11:16 AM
Post #20 of 157 (8692 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BillyVance] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

If they were tumbling their speed was alot higher than normal. Regardless of speed it takes a certain amount of time for a canopy to open.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Mar 27, 2013, 11:37 AM
Post #21 of 157 (8636 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wasatchrider] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I don't use an aad but it seems like it would be safer for those things to fire at 1000 ft. I guess it could cause more two outs but I would rather have two out than one at line stretch.

Your post gives me an excuse to follow up on a post in the original thread.
On that thread I Posted on post #130:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about raising activation heights to 1500 feet for students and 1000 feet for expert .. add extra margin of safety. why 750 feet ? hang on I think mr Booth has already raised this !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I replied:

"When you understand the problem you will understand that raising the altitude will not help. Those reserves wouldn't open in 2000 feet.
If you can't get the bag out of the container you can't get the canopy out of the bag."
------------------------------------

From that post I recieved several PM's asking why I thought that way. I answered with references to the balance of evidence. However I failed to refer to the best proof, "the eye in the sky". for that I make amens here by reposting the fololowing link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaYQ6iP8zlg


PalmSky

Mar 27, 2013, 1:00 PM
Post #22 of 157 (8555 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I don't use an aad but it seems like it would be safer for those things to fire at 1000 ft. I guess it could cause more two outs but I would rather have two out than one at line stretch.

Your post gives me an excuse to follow up on a post in the original thread.
On that thread I Posted on post #130:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about raising activation heights to 1500 feet for students and 1000 feet for expert .. add extra margin of safety. why 750 feet ? hang on I think mr Booth has already raised this !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I replied:

"When you understand the problem you will understand that raising the altitude will not help. Those reserves wouldn't open in 2000 feet.
If you can't get the bag out of the container you can't get the canopy out of the bag."
------------------------------------

From that post I recieved several PM's asking why I thought that way. I answered with references to the balance of evidence. However I failed to refer to the best proof, "the eye in the sky". for that I make amens here by reposting the fololowing link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaYQ6iP8zlg

I've wondered about your cryptic commentary for a couple days now. I'm tired of the guessing game. Is it the container? The reserve pilot chute? The construction of the reserve pack tray, the size of the reserve in the container or none of the above. I'll not send you a PM but what exactly are you saying?

Does anything you've commented on have anything to do whatsoever with this incident? ....and if so, how and why?

The video I'd classify as an isolated incident, with two jumpers, jumping different gear it's even more of an anomaly.

Factually the distance of the two jumpers in relation to where they landed leads me to believe they were both very close, almost hands on. For student and instructor to travel from iceland I'd think the instructor thought he wasn't going to lose a student at zhills.


(This post was edited by PalmSky on Mar 27, 2013, 1:10 PM)


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Mar 27, 2013, 1:34 PM
Post #23 of 157 (8498 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PalmSky] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I've wondered about your cryptic commentary for a couple days now. I'm tired of the guessing game. Is it the container? The reserve pilot chute? The construction of the reserve pack tray, the size of the reserve in the container or none of the above.

It's all of the above. I can't tell you exactly what is wrong with each rig on each failure because I haven't had the opporitunity to examine and test it. In sone cases it is mostly one just one weak component like the pilot chute and in some cases it is on rigs with the maine closed, maybe extraction force and in some a little of both. I do know it is happening and I believe it is pervasive. See my post #3 here: http://www.dropzone.com/...;;page=unread#unread
It offers additional insite to my position.
BTW: The BPS is studing the adoption of a procedure to screen for the problem.


tkhayes  (D 18764)

Mar 27, 2013, 5:56 PM
Post #24 of 157 (8281 views)
Shortcut
Re: [base283] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Knock it off, everyone. tired of the same rhetoric as in the incident thread. Have asked the moderator to lock this one too, due to unknowledgeable and ridiculous assumptions.

The press release and the gear post already explained it. this is far simpler that everyone thinks and any speculation beyond that is simply ignorance on the part of the poster. You were not here, you are not part of the investigation and stomping all over it does not actually change any facts.


The_Don  (B License)

Mar 27, 2013, 6:28 PM
Post #25 of 157 (8227 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tkhayes] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you.

I never saw the point of this thread.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 27, 2013, 6:28 PM
Post #26 of 157 (2669 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tkhayes] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

You can't stop speculation. The speculation has been pretty wild indeed and sometime silly, so ignore it if you like.

If people aren't part of the investigation and don't have the video to watch, what are they supposed to do? Of course they will speculate, including about body positions, freefall speeds, rigging, gear standards, and statements from police.

The fact still remains that AAD's did not save two people with very different rigs. Yet everyone in the industry has some expectation that AAD's should usually be able to save people. So yes it is a big deal when the AAD & reserve system don't work in the distance people expect them to.


tkhayes  (D 18764)

Mar 27, 2013, 6:29 PM
Post #27 of 157 (2662 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

you can speculate without typing.....STFU - really - sometimes.....


evan85  (C 41367)

Mar 27, 2013, 9:57 PM
Post #28 of 157 (2570 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tkhayes] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

TK, I know I don't know you, and I know I'm fairly new in the sport. But here are my observations of what we actually know, which I feel still leaves a hole in my understanding of what happened. I'm not trying to speculate or make guesses, but rather to understand what happened to I can ensure my own safety on future jumps. Specifically, once my Cypres2 is updated, I understand that I'll be able to manually adjust my activation altitude, and wonder if this incident is one indication that I should do exactly that.

1. Neither jumper's main was deployed -- main PCs were found stowed.

2. Instructor had pulled both cutaway and reserve handles; student had pulled neither.

3. Your press release states that "Both skydivers had their reserve parachutes activated by a computerized Automatic Activation Device (AAD)"

4. Your other post in the other thread states that "all the gear worked exactly as it should." You state that this is "a far simpler situation," but don't explain what that situation is.

So my question is this: if both jumpers had their AADs fire, why did neither reserve fully inflate prior to impact? My understanding is that a correctly-functioning AAD that fires at the correct altitude (that is, works "exactly as it should") should cause the reserve canopy to fully inflate prior to impact.

I won't speculate in this post, not least because I do not have nearly the amount of knowledge or experience as someone like you. But I want to know that, should I pass out, or completely lose altitude awareness, or for whatever reason find myself with no canopies out by the time my AAD fires, my reserve will open in time to save my life, if not prevent me from suffering any injury at all. Any information I can glean from incidents such as this and from much more experienced jumpers like yourself could help save my life.


(This post was edited by evan85 on Mar 27, 2013, 9:58 PM)


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 27, 2013, 10:07 PM
Post #29 of 157 (2559 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You can't stop speculation. The speculation has been pretty wild indeed and sometime silly, so ignore it if you like.

If people aren't part of the investigation and don't have the video to watch, what are they supposed to do? Of course they will speculate, including about body positions, freefall speeds, rigging, gear standards, and statements from police.

The fact still remains that AAD's did not save two people with very different rigs. Yet everyone in the industry has some expectation that AAD's should usually be able to save people. So yes it is a big deal when the AAD & reserve system don't work in the distance people expect them to.

The other thing speculation does is flush out misunderstandings. We've already seen people 'learn' about Aad activation limitations, reserve deployment limitations etc.

Obviously for some of the experienced people, especially those directly involved must find it frustrating. Interestingly the APF statements of fact really help prevent the wild speculation, perhaps there is a lesson for the USPA in that.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 27, 2013, 10:33 PM
Post #30 of 157 (2545 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tkhayes] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Knock it off, everyone. tired of the same rhetoric as in the incident thread. Have asked the moderator to lock this one too, due to unknowledgeable and ridiculous assumptions.

The press release and the gear post already explained it. this is far simpler that everyone thinks and any speculation beyond that is simply ignorance on the part of the poster. You were not here, you are not part of the investigation and stomping all over it does not actually change any facts.

Bullshit.
Only those there and part of the investigation should talk?

Bullshit.

Yeah, some of the posts are unthinking idiocy yakking but so what? This is an opportunity for questions and discussions and learning about possible answers.

STFU?????
Really????
Your arrogance is showing when you tell people not to discuss any fucking thing at all.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Mar 27, 2013, 10:37 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 27, 2013, 10:35 PM
Post #31 of 157 (2543 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The_Don] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Thank you.

I never saw the point of this thread.

The point is to discuss, exchange ideas and learn.
'Nuff said.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 27, 2013, 10:42 PM
Post #32 of 157 (2535 views)
Shortcut
Re: [evan85] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

 
In reply to:
4. Your other post in the other thread states that "all the gear worked exactly as it should." You state that this is "a far simpler situation," but don't explain what that situation is.
And he tells us to STFU?????????



In reply to:
But I want to know that, should I pass out, or completely lose altitude awareness, or for whatever reason find myself with no canopies out by the time my AAD fires, my reserve will open in time to save my life, if not prevent me from suffering any injury at all.
Sorry, there are no guarantees so you can't know with certainty.


In reply to:
Any information I can glean from incidents such as this and from much more experienced jumpers like yourself could help save my life.
You unlikely to learn anything from TK. He's already told us to STFU and refused to explain his "simplicity' statements.

Look to others for help.


cube  (D License)

Mar 28, 2013, 12:22 AM
Post #33 of 157 (2503 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tkhayes] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Knock it off, everyone. tired of the same rhetoric as in the incident thread. Have asked the moderator to lock this one too, due to unknowledgeable and ridiculous assumptions.

What gives you the right to tell people what they can discuss and what not? This is a pretty significant accident considering there were 2 aad's present. Speculation doesn't harm anyone, people can only learn from it.

Of course it's ignorance, if we weren't ignorant we wouldn't need to speculate as we would know what happened. I don't get your attitude.


base283  (D 15343)

Mar 28, 2013, 1:02 AM
Post #34 of 157 (2486 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tkhayes] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Knock it off, everyone. tired of the same rhetoric as in the incident thread. Have asked the moderator to lock this one too, due to unknowledgeable and ridiculous assumptions.

The press release and the gear post already explained it. this is far simpler that everyone thinks and any speculation beyond that is simply ignorance on the part of the poster. You were not here, you are not part of the investigation and stomping all over it does not actually change any facts.

tk, this is a speculation thread, maybe next time i will make it more clearer with the thread title. Speculation happens. I thought I was being helpful by creating it and keeping it away from the incidents thread. If this thread bothers you, then dont click on it. Rather simple. AFAIK, this website or even the internet was not created to satisfy your [tkhayes] idea of what should or should not be discussed.
Having investigated fatalities also, i understand the emotional turmoil you may be going thru though this is speculation. I forgive you and emotional posts on this incidence. I wish you some quick healing, We need the old tkhayes back.
Take care,
space


RMURRAY

Mar 28, 2013, 2:33 AM
Post #35 of 157 (2445 views)
Shortcut
Re: [base283] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

"all the gear worked exactly as it should." will be interesting to see how this can be true...


Premier cpoxon  (D 11665)
Moderator
Mar 28, 2013, 3:04 AM
Post #36 of 157 (2421 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
BTW: The BPS is studing the adoption of a procedure to screen for the problem.

BPA :-)

http://www.bpa.org.uk/...4-April-2013-web.pdf


jonstark  (D 8298)

Mar 28, 2013, 7:59 AM
Post #37 of 157 (2302 views)
Shortcut
Re: [evan85] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I won't speculate in this post, not least because I do not have nearly the amount of knowledge or experience as someone like you. But I want to know that, should I pass out, or completely lose altitude awareness, or for whatever reason find myself with no canopies out by the time my AAD fires, my reserve will open in time to save my life, if not prevent me from suffering any injury at all. Any information I can glean from incidents such as this and from much more experienced jumpers like yourself could help save my life.

In the distant past AADs were referred to as AODs or Automatic Opening Devices. Recognizing the misnomer the industry changed the name to what the device actually does. It merely Activates the reserve deployment sequence. That's all it can do.

jon


normiss  (D 28356)

Mar 28, 2013, 8:31 AM
Post #38 of 157 (2273 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jonstark] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Which is EXACTLY why both AAD's in this incident fired within their parameters.

AADs should never be expected to save your sorry ass.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 28, 2013, 8:44 AM
Post #39 of 157 (2259 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RMURRAY] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
"all the gear worked exactly as it should." will be interesting to see how this can be true...

Since it's a speculation thread I'll toss in my .02~

Unconscious student probably falling back to earth with no arch...Diving instructor trying to catch him ~

IF they're doing 160 mph that's 234 FPS or 3 seconds from impact at 700'.

180mph = 264fps or 2.6 seconds from impact.

200mph = 293fps or 2.3 seconds from impact.

It doesn't take much imagination to believe that the gear all worked pretty much within it's design parameters yet the resulting incident still occurred.



Personally ~ I have NO FRIENDS below 2000'.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Mar 28, 2013, 8:47 AM)


mirage62  (C 15580)

Mar 28, 2013, 8:52 AM
Post #40 of 157 (2247 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

While I'm not in the business of defending TK I'm betting that a lot of his flustration is that after viewing the video (IF HE HAS) he knows what happen and at this time can't comment.

It may be a while.

On the other side of the fence, there has been some learning from this thread and perhaps that's the best we can get.


Southern_Man  (C License)

Mar 28, 2013, 9:13 AM
Post #41 of 157 (2221 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In theory if the student is on his back then the AAD should fire higher, as it would be out of his burble.

Nonetheless, you are right ot note that 700 +/- feet is not much time, less than 3 second, and there is no guarantee you are going to get an open parachute from there.

Between the activation altitude, higher speeds, too tight reserves, and any number of other factors, both known and unknown, the margins on an AAD fire are very, very small.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 28, 2013, 9:29 AM
Post #42 of 157 (2193 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mirage62] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

On the other side of the fence, there has been some learning from this thread and perhaps that's the best we can get.

In reply to:

Anything that gets one thinking about & discussing the possibilities is a good thing IMO.


normiss  (D 28356)

Mar 28, 2013, 9:35 AM
Post #43 of 157 (2180 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Well on that note...

We just ordered 2 brand spankin' new AAD's.
I'm pretty sure I'm also converting my RSL to a Skyhook.

Cool


Divalent  (C 40494)

Mar 28, 2013, 10:42 AM
Post #44 of 157 (2116 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RMURRAY] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
"all the gear worked exactly as it should."

will be interesting to see how this can be true...

Exactly. If "all the gear worked exactly as it should", then:

1. the AADs activated at ~700 ft if in belly-to-earth orientation, or ~200+ ft higher if on back or head-down, and

2. Container opened within 3 sec or 300 ft, (as a TSO's container is supposed to do).

So, if "all the gear worked exactly as it should" why did *both* individuals impact at a fatal speed in this case?


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 28, 2013, 10:45 AM
Post #45 of 157 (2112 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Divalent] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

It's been said ad nauseum that an AAD only cuts the reserve closing loop. After that all bets are off. Tumbling? Trapped PC? PC hesitation? Any number of things can turn that three seconds into forever.


hangdiver  (D License)

Mar 28, 2013, 10:49 AM
Post #46 of 157 (2109 views)
Shortcut
The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

 
I do know one thing...if you are unstable when your AAD fires all bets are off.

A number of years ago I investigated a fatality for a personal injury attorney. The family wanted to know why the AAD didn't save the jumpers life.

The deceased was wearing a camera and new camera suit with wings(2nd or 3rd jump on it) but I insisted on looking at the gear before viewing the jump. The lines had been cut, main lift webs and jump suit so no telling how the gear looked post accident undisturbed.

There were major line burns on the back of the arms and legs of the jump suit but no visible burns on the lines or canopy fabric. I did not look at them with magnification.

The video shows the jumper going unstable at pull time...most likely sticking his hand through the wing attach strap to grab the PC, realizing what he did and not pulling the PC but then flipping on his back, spinning until the AAD fired.

There was a good 3 seconds before impact in which the canopy breathed in and out like it was trying to open but didn't.

I took the video home and watched it 20 times in stop motion to finally see the one frame that showed the flip through on the reserve below the slider.
I'm 99.99% sure the flip through wasn't a packing error but occurred during the unstable deployment.

Would the reserve had ever opened with more altitude...who knows?

hangdiver


Divalent  (C 40494)

Mar 28, 2013, 11:05 AM
Post #47 of 157 (2083 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's been said ad nauseum that an AAD only cuts the reserve closing loop. After that all bets are off. Tumbling? Trapped PC? PC hesitation? Any number of things can turn that three seconds into forever.

I understand. So what was that "simple" thing that apparently was the factor in this double incident?

[Just say it. Lots of people want to know. If it's simple, then a one line post will probably satisfy everyone. What's the problem with doing that?]


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 28, 2013, 11:09 AM
Post #48 of 157 (2077 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Divalent] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
"all the gear worked exactly as it should."

will be interesting to see how this can be true...

Exactly. If "all the gear worked exactly as it should", then:

1. the AADs activated at ~700 ft if in belly-to-earth orientation, or ~200+ ft higher if on back or head-down, and

2. Container opened within 3 sec or 300 ft, (as a TSO's container is supposed to do).

So, if "all the gear worked exactly as it should" why did *both* individuals impact at a fatal speed in this case?

Without data regarding that activation altitudes I wonder if you're not taking the 'exactly' comment a bit too literally.

I think what's being expressed is the cutters fired and opened the containers.

IIRC the 3second 300' doesn't mean from when an AAD fires, it's taken from when deployment starts.

I'm not saying it's relevant to this indecent but I think it's important to be aware that just because a loop is cut at 'X' altitude, it noes not necessarily meant the container is open and deployment has been initiated.

One should also be aware that your AAD isn't TSO'd and that the testing that's done is in the 'best case scenario', and that every rig & reserve combination are NOT tested for compliance compatibility.

An AAD is a last ditch' maybe', to bet your life on one is a fools gamble.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 28, 2013, 11:14 AM
Post #49 of 157 (2068 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Divalent] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It's been said ad nauseum that an AAD only cuts the reserve closing loop. After that all bets are off. Tumbling? Trapped PC? PC hesitation? Any number of things can turn that three seconds into forever.

I understand. So what was that "simple" thing that apparently was the factor in this double incident?

[Just say it. Lots of people want to know. If it's simple, then a one line post will probably satisfy everyone. What's the problem with doing that?]




The reserve activation was initiated at too low of an altitude for full deployment.
Cause of death: Impact.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Mar 28, 2013, 11:14 AM)


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 28, 2013, 11:15 AM
Post #50 of 157 (2065 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Divalent] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It's been said ad nauseum that an AAD only cuts the reserve closing loop. After that all bets are off. Tumbling? Trapped PC? PC hesitation? Any number of things can turn that three seconds into forever.

I understand. So what was that "simple" thing that apparently was the factor in this double incident?

[Just say it. Lots of people want to know. If it's simple, then a one line post will probably satisfy everyone. What's the problem with doing that?]

The purpose of this thread was to speculate. If you're thinking you'll get a definitive answer here you are mistaken. Think AFF JM trying to deploy a student deep in the beeps. What could possibly go wrong? Unsure


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Mar 28, 2013, 12:47 PM
Post #51 of 157 (2541 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
IIRC the 3second 300' doesn't mean from when an AAD fires, it's taken from when deployment starts.

Clairification:
Actually the 3 seconds is from "Pack Opening" per TS-135
TS-112 looks at the potential delay between AAD fire and pack opening. All the test I have seen show this as only miliseconds apart. Not an issue today while it may have been on some rigs in time past. I believe it has been cleaned up.


evan85  (C 41367)

Mar 28, 2013, 1:07 PM
Post #52 of 157 (2524 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sorry, there are no guarantees so you can't know with certainty.

Pops, you make a fair point here. I acknowledge that there is inherent risk and uncertainty in everything, let alone hucking yourself out of a plane with some metal and fabric strapped to your back Wink. That being said, I suppose what I meant to express is that I want to know those risks and weaknesses of the system I may have to rely on for my own safety to the fullest extent possible. For me, one aspect of this is gaining a better understanding of the AAD -- what it does, what it doesn't do, etc. Of course, I hope never to have to use it and I would never knowingly "rely" on it. But in at least one way, there is something I can do -- change the activation altitude on my Cypres 2. To the extent I can learn more here that helps me make that decision, I think that's very important.


faulk04  (D 32457)

Mar 28, 2013, 1:18 PM
Post #53 of 157 (2505 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Divalent] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
"all the gear worked exactly as it should."

will be interesting to see how this can be true...

Exactly. If "all the gear worked exactly as it should", then:

1. the AADs activated at ~700 ft if in belly-to-earth orientation, or ~200+ ft higher if on back or head-down, and

Does Cypres have the +2xx ft offset built in?

For example the vigil will fire at 1100 AGL in in any positions besides belly and a min of 840 on belly to earth (but it thinks it fired at 1100) due the decompression zone


(This post was edited by faulk04 on Mar 28, 2013, 1:37 PM)


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 28, 2013, 1:29 PM
Post #54 of 157 (2490 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
IIRC the 3second 300' doesn't mean from when an AAD fires, it's taken from when deployment starts.

Clairification:
Actually the 3 seconds is from "Pack Opening" per TS-135
TS-112 looks at the potential delay between AAD fire and pack opening. All the test I have seen show this as only miliseconds apart. Not an issue today while it may have been on some rigs in time past. I believe it has been cleaned up.

Thanks for the clarification John.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 28, 2013, 2:50 PM
Post #55 of 157 (2435 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Which is EXACTLY why both AAD's in this incident fired within their parameters.

AADs should never be expected to save your sorry ass.

Mark,
Have the units been checked? Nope, not unless you have info from the AAD download that we don't have yet.

If you have it, please share the report.

If not checked, there is NO WAY to know if they operated within parameters nor even what those parameters were. Offset? Yes? No? Delayed activation? What?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 28, 2013, 2:55 PM
Post #56 of 157 (2429 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
"all the gear worked exactly as it should." will be interesting to see how this can be true...

Since it's a speculation thread I'll toss in my .02~

Unconscious student probably falling back to earth with no arch...Diving instructor trying to catch him ~

IF they're doing 160 mph that's 234 FPS or 3 seconds from impact at 700'.

180mph = 264fps or 2.6 seconds from impact.

200mph = 293fps or 2.3 seconds from impact.

It doesn't take much imagination to believe that the gear all worked pretty much within it's design parameters yet the resulting incident still occurred.



Personally ~ I have NO FRIENDS below 2000'.

Call me stoopid but, ........

All that assumes a constant time extraction-to-inflation regardless if airspeed. Can that be true? Vertical speed has no impact on time to inflation after extraction?

I'll answer...nope, not true. If it were, we'd rarely, if ever, have hard openings.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 28, 2013, 2:57 PM
Post #57 of 157 (2426 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Anything that gets one thinking about & discussing the possibilities is a good thing IMO.

Yep...the point of it all.
Kudos to the OP for opening the thread.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 28, 2013, 3:13 PM
Post #58 of 157 (2403 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The reserve activation was initiated at too low of an altitude for full deployment.
Cause of death: Impact.

How do you know that?
How do you know it didn't activate at 2K, say?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 28, 2013, 3:28 PM
Post #59 of 157 (2384 views)
Shortcut
Re: [evan85] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I want to know those risks and weaknesses of the system I may have to rely on for my own safety to the fullest extent possible. For me, one aspect of this is gaining a better understanding of the AAD -- what it does, what it doesn't do, etc.

FWIW, I'm highly impressed with your desire and willingness to learn. Knowledge is Power. Embrace it.
Spread that great attitude to others....especially the new jumpers...the experienced ones weren't listening then and they're not listening now.
Unsure

Here's a place to start:

- Cypres 2
http://www.cypres.cc/...temid=92&lang=en

There's a link on the page for the User's Guide (UG).
You can likewise get the UG for the Cypres 1.

Likewise do a google for:

-Argus

-Vigil

-For grins, FXC or Astra.

Bottom line:
RFM
Read the Manuals.

Disgusting as it sounds, it's a mistake to take the word of other people. If you look around DZ.com for AAD threads, you'll find waaaaayyyyyyy too many jumpers, both new and long-time highly experienced, that have no clue as to how they operate.

Best Bet?
Educate yourself.


In reply to:
But in at least one way, there is something I can do -- change the activation altitude on my Cypres 2.
Not a good idea for the most part. Do a search on DZ.com and you'll see both pros and cons about that idea. It'll give you food for thought for making intelligent decisions for yourself.


In reply to:
To the extent I can learn more here that helps me make that decision, I think that's very important.
It is...glad you have a grasp on that concept. Many don't.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 28, 2013, 3:30 PM
Post #60 of 157 (2382 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulk04] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
"all the gear worked exactly as it should."

will be interesting to see how this can be true...

Exactly. If "all the gear worked exactly as it should", then:

1. the AADs activated at ~700 ft if in belly-to-earth orientation, or ~200+ ft higher if on back or head-down, and

Does Cypres have the +2xx ft offset built in?

For example the vigil will fire at 1100 AGL in in any positions besides belly and a min of 840 on belly to earth (but it thinks it fired at 1100) due the decompression zone

RTFM
UnsureCrazy


jumpinjackflsh  (B 27757)

Mar 28, 2013, 3:35 PM
Post #61 of 157 (2383 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks airtwardo, as is typical you manage to cut to the chase. I think it goes without saying every last one of us in the skydiving community is saddened by the loss of our fellow skydivers. To Tx who is obviously upset, I am also sorry for all of you at ZHills for the loss.

In reference to this post and the incident I gotta say. I don't ever want to be opening at 750 ft, period. However, some years back when I took my static line course, on my third freefall off static line (was supposed to count to five) I lost altitude awareness and was tumbling. All I could think was, get stable get stable, and this was from 5500 feet. Finally I came out of the tumble and got flat, and threw out. I was under canopy at about a grand. The student rig I was jumping had an FXC. I either beat it to the punch, or it didn't fire, period. Either way, had I not thrown, chances are I'd be a dead man.

Years later I came back to the sport, took AFF and got licensed. I jumped with a Vector II with a Cypres. Learned all I could about it and even knowing the "basics" every time I turned the thing on all I could think was "I don't ever want to see this damn thing go off".

Given all the good input here, lessons learned, speculation kicked about, I think it's still goddamn apparent we need to get a canopy out at an acceptable altitude period. If we don't make that happen the odds are in favor we won't live past that.

Given the fact that most people that have a cypress fire are going to have shitty body position, be unconscious, or any number of things I would think, even last ditch, there is a damn good chance you won't live to see another day.

I came back to the sport in October of 2012 with my rig. The Cypress was out of date so I had it pulled. I know I'm likely to get beat up for saying it but I didn't feel any less safe or different than I did every time I jumped with it in place.

For those that have been saved by AAD's, kudos. I'm sure you are thankful everything went the way it was supposed to when the loop was cut. I also believe the devices are necessary and can save someones butt.

However, I think in so many cases where we haven't activated a canopy ourselves, by 750ft, we are throat deep in it and there's a very low chance for survival.

Lastly, I've never seen a jumpers Cypres fire, and a canopy appear at 750ish and I would prefer never to do so. However, is there anyone here that has done so? Either your own or witness another and did they/you survive? I can't imagine it, makes my palms sweat thinking about it.

My heart goes out to the friends and family and ZHills people surrounding this tragic loss.

Jack


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 28, 2013, 3:45 PM
Post #62 of 157 (2374 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The reserve activation was initiated at too low of an altitude for full deployment.
Cause of death: Impact.

How do you know that?
How do you know it didn't activate at 2K, say?


Because it didn't open...Doesn't matter if it activated @ 10k, it was to low for it to open.

Not tryin to explain why it happen, just what happened.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 28, 2013, 3:54 PM
Post #63 of 157 (2369 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
"all the gear worked exactly as it should." will be interesting to see how this can be true...

Since it's a speculation thread I'll toss in my .02~

Unconscious student probably falling back to earth with no arch...Diving instructor trying to catch him ~

IF they're doing 160 mph that's 234 FPS or 3 seconds from impact at 700'.

180mph = 264fps or 2.6 seconds from impact.

200mph = 293fps or 2.3 seconds from impact.

It doesn't take much imagination to believe that the gear all worked pretty much within it's design parameters yet the resulting incident still occurred.



Personally ~ I have NO FRIENDS below 2000'.

Call me stoopid but, ........

All that assumes a constant time extraction-to-inflation regardless if airspeed. Can that be true? Vertical speed has no impact on time to inflation after extraction?

I'll answer...nope, not true. If it were, we'd rarely, if ever, have hard openings.

No...all that illustrates is that when you're hauling ass @ 700', it goes by a lot faster than many people realize. That's all I was trying to point out.

Again...not necessarily pertinent to this incident, but losing a second or two because of any number of possibilities from burble hesitation to...heck name it, and you are out of altitude.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 28, 2013, 5:10 PM
Post #64 of 157 (2314 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
The reserve activation was initiated at too low of an altitude for full deployment.
Cause of death: Impact.

How do you know that?
How do you know it didn't activate at 2K, say?


Because it didn't open...Doesn't matter if it activated @ 10k, it was to low for it to open.

Not tryin to explain why it happen, just what happened.

Jim, you said "The reserve activation was initiated at too low ". Whether or not the canopy opened, or even came out of the tray has nothing to do with activation.

Again, do you have info that the AAD activated at any specific, or even ballpark altitude?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 28, 2013, 5:12 PM
Post #65 of 157 (2311 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No...all that illustrates is that when you're hauling ass @ 700', it goes by a lot faster than many people realize. That's all I was trying to point out.

Again...not necessarily pertinent to this incident, but losing a second or two because of any number of possibilities from burble hesitation to...heck name it, and you are out of altitude.

OK...I'll buy that.
You're off the hook on that one.
WinkTongue


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 28, 2013, 5:29 PM
Post #66 of 157 (2303 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
The reserve activation was initiated at too low of an altitude for full deployment.
Cause of death: Impact.

How do you know that?
How do you know it didn't activate at 2K, say?


Because it didn't open...Doesn't matter if it activated @ 10k, it was to low for it to open.

Not tryin to explain why it happen, just what happened.

Jim, you said "The reserve activation was initiated at too low ". Whether or not the canopy opened, or even came out of the tray has nothing to do with activation.

Again, do you have info that the AAD activated at any specific, or even ballpark altitude?


Correct...

Forget about the AAD...IF there wasn't one, if the ripcord were pulled @ 10k...doesn't matter, from the available reported facts -- it was too low.


D00d asked for a simple one line answer to what happened, I gave the USPA Incidents Report 'standard' from 30 years ago...ya want one 'simple' line - - - ya got it.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Mar 28, 2013, 5:38 PM)


jammindave  (F 666666)

Mar 28, 2013, 8:13 PM
Post #67 of 157 (2180 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

"when you're hauling ass @ 700', it goes by a lot faster than many people realize."
"losing a second or two because of any number of possibilities from burble hesitation to...heck name it, and you are out of altitude."

Exactly right!


DaVincisEnvy  (C License)

Mar 29, 2013, 5:57 AM
Post #68 of 157 (2005 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpinjackflsh] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Lastly, I've never seen a jumpers Cypres fire, and a canopy appear at 750ish and I would prefer never to do so. However, is there anyone here that has done so? Either your own or witness another and did they/you survive?

Once. I was at a boogie and talking to some friends when, in my peripheral vision, I saw a body falling fast and low. About a second after I first noticed the jumper and when he was no more than a few seconds from impact, his reserved popped, followed an instant later by his main. He was in a stable belly-to-earth orientation and ended up with two out. Thankfully, the canopies played nicely together, and he landed a biplane a few seconds after deployment.

After he landed, the jumper (an experienced older jumper) said he had trouble pulling his main and that he was "just about to go for his reserve" when he finally got it out right as the Cypres fired. It was scary low, but the jumper was in a good body position and the AAD worked as advertised. He was lucky, and he walked away.


Premier SkymonkeyONE  (D 12501)

Mar 29, 2013, 12:48 PM
Post #69 of 157 (1811 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Well on that note...

We just ordered 2 brand spankin' new AAD's.
I'm pretty sure I'm also converting my RSL to a Skyhook.

Cool

I jumped without an AAD for 18 years, but I have had them in all my rigs for 14 years. My life is worth $1000 bucks.


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 29, 2013, 1:34 PM
Post #70 of 157 (1771 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SkymonkeyONE] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Well on that note...

We just ordered 2 brand spankin' new AAD's.
I'm pretty sure I'm also converting my RSL to a Skyhook.

Cool

I jumped without an AAD for 18 years, but I have had them in all my rigs for 14 years. My life is worth $1000 bucks.

Yes but I'll bet you wouldn't hesitate to jump without one if the need ever arose. Lots of device dependent folks now.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 29, 2013, 5:14 PM
Post #71 of 157 (1653 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

"
In reply to:
... Yes but I'll bet you wouldn't hesitate to jump without one if the need ever arose. Lots of device dependent folks now.
"

...................................................................................

That attitude changed before the turn of the century. hardly any experienced skydivers wore AADs before Tom Piras "went in" during the early 1990s. By 1994, dealers could not keep Cypri on the shelves.
The pivotal moment occurred in the late 1990s when a California rigger called a customer to explain: "I have all the parts for your new rig except the AAD, so how about if I pack it for you to jump this weekend, then I will install the AAD for next weekend."
The customer replied: "No, I can wait until next weekend."


PalmSky

Mar 29, 2013, 6:02 PM
Post #72 of 157 (1629 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Well on that note...

We just ordered 2 brand spankin' new AAD's.
I'm pretty sure I'm also converting my RSL to a Skyhook.

Cool

I jumped without an AAD for 18 years, but I have had them in all my rigs for 14 years. My life is worth $1000 bucks.

Yes but I'll bet you wouldn't hesitate to jump without one if the need ever arose. Lots of device dependent folks now.

device dependent? the cost of my life is much more important than the cost of a brand new rig and all of it's associated components.

Do you pay for auto insurance? and if so what are your premiums for the year? do you pay it willing or complain about being insurance dependent?

Lot's of smarter people now. I'd give up any yearly income figure in exchange for my life as a cost well worth it.

I don't think cars had seat-belts 32 years ago, maybe lap belts, not 3 point seatbelts. I'm seatbelt dependent.... simply because it's a wiser decision.


normiss  (D 28356)

Mar 29, 2013, 6:47 PM
Post #73 of 157 (1603 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I have for the past 8 years or so.
I'm still not convinced of their success.

But we can afford them, and having any additional tools that could help are worth it.

If I had an AFF rating though, I would not jump without one.

I personally think student AAD's should fire higher.

Those are my AAD thoughts.


fencebuster  (D 29918)

Mar 29, 2013, 6:51 PM
Post #74 of 157 (1600 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I personally think student AAD's should fire higher.


+1


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 30, 2013, 6:01 AM
Post #75 of 157 (1422 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PalmSky] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Well on that note...

We just ordered 2 brand spankin' new AAD's.
I'm pretty sure I'm also converting my RSL to a Skyhook.

Cool

I jumped without an AAD for 18 years, but I have had them in all my rigs for 14 years. My life is worth $1000 bucks.

Yes but I'll bet you wouldn't hesitate to jump without one if the need ever arose. Lots of device dependent folks now.

device dependent? the cost of my life is much more important than the cost of a brand new rig and all of it's associated components.

Do you pay for auto insurance? and if so what are your premiums for the year? do you pay it willing or complain about being insurance dependent?

Lot's of smarter people now. I'd give up any yearly income figure in exchange for my life as a cost well worth it.

I don't think cars had seat-belts 32 years ago, maybe lap belts, not 3 point seatbelts. I'm seatbelt dependent.... simply because it's a wiser decision.

Do you have an RSL? Do you have a reserve pilot chute with enough drag to yank your reserve out of your pretty container? Those are the devices you should be concerned about. There have been a few people go in wearing AADs lately. I don't recall anyone going in lately with an RSL.


Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Mar 30, 2013, 8:36 AM
Post #76 of 157 (1968 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

An RSL wot help you if you are unconscious.

I was on a jump with a buddy that was knocked out from a collision. He was jumping 2 rigs back to back. One had an AAD and one didn't. As luck would have it he had the AAD rig and woke up on a golf course. Since then I became a believer.

I think it's fine to jump without an AAD but I don't think it's an opinion that should be rammed down people's throats.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 30, 2013, 9:24 AM
Post #77 of 157 (1938 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulk04] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

My apologies. RTFM was not the correct thing to say.

I did send an email to AirTec asking about official documentation regarding the activation altitudes with respect to body orientation being put on their web page.

Andy


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 30, 2013, 9:34 AM
Post #78 of 157 (1934 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PalmSky] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Well on that note...

We just ordered 2 brand spankin' new AAD's.
I'm pretty sure I'm also converting my RSL to a Skyhook.

Cool

I jumped without an AAD for 18 years, but I have had them in all my rigs for 14 years. My life is worth $1000 bucks.

Yes but I'll bet you wouldn't hesitate to jump without one if the need ever arose. Lots of device dependent folks now.

device dependent? the cost of my life is much more important than the cost of a brand new rig and all of it's associated components.

Do you pay for auto insurance? and if so what are your premiums for the year? do you pay it willing or complain about being insurance dependent?

Lot's of smarter people now. I'd give up any yearly income figure in exchange for my life as a cost well worth it.

I don't think cars had seat-belts 32 years ago, maybe lap belts, not 3 point seatbelts. I'm seatbelt dependent.... simply because it's a wiser decision.

All that is fine and dandy for you...except you don't speak for everyone. IMO, there's lots MORE stupid people now. It's a more-than-full-time-job trying to overcome the amazing incidence of stupidity in this sport. If you get out and get around more, you just may come to agree with me on that.

Yeah, yeah, many people talk smart, more often than not, they act stoopid.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 9:47 AM
Post #79 of 157 (1926 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Well on that note...

We just ordered 2 brand spankin' new AAD's.
I'm pretty sure I'm also converting my RSL to a Skyhook.

Cool

I jumped without an AAD for 18 years, but I have had them in all my rigs for 14 years. My life is worth $1000 bucks.

Yes but I'll bet you wouldn't hesitate to jump without one if the need ever arose. Lots of device dependent folks now.

With all due respect - I've come to observe that "device dependent" is a loaded, judgmental term. Dependency on the device is always there; it's just a question of degree, and that's just a question of personal preference. If reserves weren't required, some people who wanna be hard-core and skydive only BASE rigs (from aircraft) would call people jumping reserves "device dependent".

I'm old enough and have been around the sport long enough to get away with being openly intolerant with old-timers (including some well-respected, pioneering "legends") who scoff derisively at safety technology, or procedures, that didn't exist yet back when they started jumping. Seriously, guys, who cares? - that was then, this is now.


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 30, 2013, 9:50 AM
Post #80 of 157 (1922 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed. But this incident has less to do with AADs and more to do with the insanity of chasing an AFF student deep in the beeps. But everyone is focused on the AAD as if the mistake was the AADs doing. Amazing to me. They are appalled that someone could go in wearing an AAD.


(This post was edited by airdvr on Mar 30, 2013, 9:51 AM)


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:13 AM
Post #81 of 157 (1903 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Agreed. But this incident has less to do with AADs and more to do with the insanity of chasing an AFF student deep in the beeps. But everyone is focused on the AAD as if the mistake was the AADs doing. Amazing to me. They are appalled that someone could go in wearing an AAD.

Excellent point!


In fact since it is a speculation thread - I wonder if the instructor would have been so prone to continuing the chase had there not been some device dependency in the back of his mind.


It 'could' be perceived that the AAD was in part the cause of one fatality...not because of the firing but because it was there. Just some food for thought.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Mar 30, 2013, 10:17 AM)


wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:18 AM
Post #82 of 157 (1894 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PalmSky] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I don't think cars had seat-belts 32 years ago, maybe lap belts, not 3 point seatbelts. I'm seatbelt dependent.... simply because it's a wiser decision.
Just to quibble, my 1972 Subaru definitely had 3-point seat belts.

To me, device dependence isn't as much refusing to jump without an AAD. There can be valid reasons for it, like the insurance analogy. However, changing how you jump because you have an AAD is. And that's stupid. It's like driving like a moron because you have collision insurance.

Wendy P.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:29 AM
Post #83 of 157 (1888 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Agreed. But this incident has less to do with AADs and more to do with the insanity of chasing an AFF student deep in the beeps. But everyone is focused on the AAD as if the mistake was the AADs doing. Amazing to me. They are appalled that someone could go in wearing an AAD.

Excellent point!

In fact since it is a speculation thread - I wonder if the instructor would have been so prone to continuing the chase had there not been some device dependency in the back of his mind.

It 'could' be perceived that the AAD was in part the cause of one fatality...not because of the firing but because it was there. Just some food for thought.

I don't disagree with you. When "device dependency" is used to mean "only willing to jump if using the device", it's being used as a misnomer, and that's what I was complaining about.

To me, imprudent device dependency is an adjunct of risk homeostasis. That's the sense in which you're using it here, too.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:35 AM
Post #84 of 157 (1884 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I don't think cars had seat-belts 32 years ago, maybe lap belts, not 3 point seatbelts. I'm seatbelt dependent.... simply because it's a wiser decision.
Just to quibble, my 1972 Subaru definitely had 3-point seat belts.

To me, device dependence isn't as much refusing to jump without an AAD. There can be valid reasons for it, like the insurance analogy. However, changing how you jump because you have an AAD is. And that's stupid. It's like driving like a moron because you have collision insurance.

Wendy P.


Ya always hear the 'in case of getting knocked out' justification for an AAD..which is valid.

However, what's the percentage of AAD fires because of unconsciousness vs. going low because of inattention?

IF every AAD fire = a fatality the incidents thread would be longer than the DB Cooper one!

Nothing wrong with using an AAD...there's definitely something wrong with viewing it as 'insurance'.

Insurance always pays off...an AAD is a last ditch 'maybe'...it may increase your odds of survival in a certain set of defined circumstances. But to 'depend' on it saving your life is ludacris. You are FAR better off never putting yourself in a position it may-be needed. IF you wouldn't jump without one you may want to reconsider your perception of the hazards of the sport.

....nothing 'wrong' with not jumping without one, any increase regarding odds of survival is a good thing. Just be aware that it doesn't make this a Disneyland ride...shit can still happen that will get ya dead quick.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Mar 30, 2013, 10:41 AM)


wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:47 AM
Post #85 of 157 (1869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Insurance always pays off
Dunno about that -- I've never used my car insurance for anything of mine, and it's been nearly 30 years since there was a house claim.

I have one now; obviously I have a ton of jumps without them. One thing to think about is that not every AAD fire would be a fatality, some would be stupid low pulls. But if you're jumping in a way that the AAD fires, you're screwing up if there wasn't unconsciousness or other disability involved.

If you're using an AAD to make this a Disneyland ride, then you're definitely letting the AAD change your behavior Unsure

Wendy P.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:55 AM
Post #86 of 157 (1862 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Insurance always pays off
Dunno about that -- I've never used my car insurance for anything of mine, and it's been nearly 30 years since there was a house claim.

I have one now; obviously I have a ton of jumps without them. One thing to think about is that not every AAD fire would be a fatality, some would be stupid low pulls. But if you're jumping in a way that the AAD fires, you're screwing up if there wasn't unconsciousness or other disability involved.

If you're using an AAD to make this a Disneyland ride, then you're definitely letting the AAD change your behavior Unsure

Wendy P.

In my case when I 'needed' it, it ALWAYS paid off, and I'd bet if you NEEDED it your insurance would too.

Case in point here, 'so called insurance' was in place but did not 'pay off' as expected or advertised...that's the only point I was making. Wink


wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 11:20 AM
Post #87 of 157 (1855 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Ah -- missed that. Yup, there are no guarantees. The safest (if I can use that word Tongue) assumption is that you're dead when you jump out of an airplane, unless you do something positive to save your life.

Like pull.

Because your life really is on the line here.

Wendy P.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 30, 2013, 1:54 PM
Post #88 of 157 (1791 views)
Shortcut
Re: [everyone] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I never did get any input on my question from two days ago....

" Can that be true? Vertical speed has no impact on time to inflation after extraction? "

Anybody?


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:05 PM
Post #89 of 157 (1775 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I never did get any input on my question from two days ago....

" Can that be true? Vertical speed has no impact on time to inflation after extraction? "

Anybody?


How about we say~ does it have any influence instead of 'impact'? Tongue

And IMO of course it does. . .isn't that the reason for the slider?


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:21 PM
Post #90 of 157 (1758 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I would even think the chances of getting knocked out have decreased. Everyone wears a helmet now.


Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:31 PM
Post #91 of 157 (1750 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

A skydive helmet really doesn't provide much protection from impact, not when compared to real protective helmets. You shouldn't rely on that device....Wink


(This post was edited by WickedWingsuits on Mar 30, 2013, 2:33 PM)


wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:37 PM
Post #92 of 157 (1730 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm pretty sure he's talking about getting knocked out in freefall, by an errant foot, doorway, etc.

Wendy P.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:38 PM
Post #93 of 157 (1725 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I would even think the chances of getting knocked out have decreased. Everyone wears a helmet now.

Probably increased in truth...larger formations, faster free-fall speed disciplines...and more pinheads skydiving. Wink


Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:58 PM
Post #94 of 157 (1715 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I meant head impacting something. Impact doesn't have to mean head to ground at 120mph. Maybe the word collision would clear it up.

I switched to a full face over the winter after a gnarly head to foot collision. Looked like I had been in a bar fight. A full face will protect against a flesh wound but still nothing compared to a serious helmet.

I tend to think many people wear helmets as a camera mount not for safety. If it were for safety you would see a lot more protecs. I sometimes jump my ski helmet and people make fun of me.

At the end of the day it's your head, I just wish people understood that there isn't really that much protection.

I am probably a bit sensitive to this topic because I have had a couple of serious snowboard and bike accidents where good helmets saved my life but still left me with conclusions that lasted over a year. It's not pretty.

Anyways, getting a bit off topic.


(This post was edited by WickedWingsuits on Mar 30, 2013, 3:06 PM)


wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 4:32 PM
Post #95 of 157 (1660 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I broke a helmet on an airplane door once. It was a cheap hockey helmet, but I'm sure it would have hurt a whole lot more without the helmet.

Wendy P.


wolfriverjoe  (A 50013)

Mar 30, 2013, 4:33 PM
Post #96 of 157 (1658 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I don't think cars had seat-belts 32 years ago, maybe lap belts, not 3 point seatbelts. I'm seatbelt dependent.... simply because it's a wiser decision.
Just to quibble, my 1972 Subaru definitely had 3-point seat belts.

To me, device dependence isn't as much refusing to jump without an AAD. There can be valid reasons for it, like the insurance analogy. However, changing how you jump because you have an AAD is. And that's stupid. It's like driving like a moron because you have collision insurance.

Wendy P.

And just to quibble a little bit more - 1972 was 41 years ago. In 1981, 3 point was mandatory for the front seats.


wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 4:35 PM
Post #97 of 157 (1652 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wolfriverjoe] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

My quibble was with the statement that cars didn't have 3-point restraints 32 years ago. If they did 41 years ago, they probably did 32 years ago as well.

Wendy P.


IanHarrop  (C 1152)

Mar 30, 2013, 4:41 PM
Post #98 of 157 (1648 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Helmets are making the news these days for offering only limited protection

http://www.voxxi.com/...ards-brain-injuries/


Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Mar 30, 2013, 4:54 PM
Post #99 of 157 (1635 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Helmets are making the news these days for offering only limited protection

http://www.voxxi.com/...ards-brain-injuries/

I certainly got brain injuries....ask my friends...but I didn't get dead.


ChaoP  (A 65048)

Mar 30, 2013, 6:40 PM
Post #100 of 157 (1586 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
A skydive helmet really doesn't provide much protection from impact, not when compared to real protective helmets. You shouldn't rely on that device....Wink

I jump a full face now, but my benny has a warning inside that says "You are participating in a dangerous sport. This helmet serves no protective purpose and is not intended to provide any protection from any head, brain, neck, or facial injures..."

Got a laugh from that the first time I noticed it.


grimmie  (D 18890)

Mar 30, 2013, 7:20 PM
Post #101 of 157 (2455 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChaoP] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

We had an AAD "save" at my DZ in February. The jumper was knocked unconscious on a tracking dive. A full face helmet probably saved her life on the landing into a chain link fence.

Just my 2 cents worth. Carry on...


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 30, 2013, 8:45 PM
Post #102 of 157 (2413 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Ya always hear the 'in case of getting knocked out' justification for an AAD..which is valid.

However, what's the percentage of AAD fires because of unconsciousness vs. going low because of inattention?

Just want to point out that people aren't looking at their rigs as a 'system'. They are happy to have an AAD incase they are knocked out, but they are on a reserve that they are pushing the max limits on and would probably not survive the landing unconscious anyway, due their wingloading.

The biggest question on my mind is that it was stated that the instructor had pulled his reserve handle. Was the loop cut? I think that has substantial bearing on his fatality, because if the loop was not cut, he pulled above the AAD firing altitude and yet still did not have a functional reserve.


ChrisHoward  (D 28490)

Mar 31, 2013, 6:38 AM
Post #103 of 157 (2288 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
The biggest question on my mind is that it was stated that the instructor had pulled his reserve handle. Was the loop cut? I think that has substantial bearing on his fatality, because if the loop was not cut, he pulled above the AAD firing altitude and yet still did not have a functional reserve.

My guess would be that he pulled his reserve after seeing the students AAD fire. So most likely he pulled his reserve very close to or simultaneously to his own AAD firing.


Skydivesg  (D 10938)

Mar 31, 2013, 6:42 AM
Post #104 of 157 (2286 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fencebuster] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I personally think student AAD's should fire higher.


+1

More and more people agree with this. The AADs today can be set for what ever hard deck the user/owner wants. I do know of some schools who set them 300 feet higher.

It may or many not have helped these two people but unless you're John Sherman, it's becomig more and more difficult to come up with a sensible argument against the increased firing altitude. My guess is: after this incident more people will give greater consideration to doing the same thing.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be. .


(This post was edited by Skydivesg on Mar 31, 2013, 6:44 AM)


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Mar 31, 2013, 10:56 AM
Post #105 of 157 (2194 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skydivesg] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It may or many not have helped these two people but unless you're John Sherman, it's becomig more and more difficult to come up with a sensible argument against the increased firing altitude.

I am all for raising the altitude "if it will help".
I see no proof that it will help. To the contrary my read is that it will not help. If we raise the altitude we will sit back and relax and it will be another 5 years and 10 more dead before we realize it did not work.
Show me one iota of proof that these failures would not have been failures if they had had more altitude.
So far the reasons and solutions for these incidents are based on video of on the ground performance all of which indicate complete failure without more dynamic pressure, which can only be increased with more speed. When you are at 750 feet and you AAD fires you are already going as fast as you are going to go. The same would be true at 1000 feet.


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 31, 2013, 12:22 PM
Post #106 of 157 (2143 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed. Seems like things have to work perfectly from 750 feet. We already know they don't sometimes.


jonstark  (D 8298)

Mar 31, 2013, 12:28 PM
Post #107 of 157 (2142 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I know John that you are capable of making rigs that would work well outside either side of the TSO certification regimen's envelope. One that works well at high speeds and another that works well at low speeds. You must build one rig though for the market at large and, as a manufacturer of sport gear, you have the constraints that we, the consumers, have put you under. We want it clean, good looking, tight, small, on and on. Some of our wish list items impinge on the performance of the system as a whole.

The FAA and PIA have striven by the evolution of the TSO standards to make our equipment as safe as possible knowing full well that we will operate it outside it's published limitations. You've placarded it and warned us. You've worked with AAD manufacturers to interface. You've developed new and innovative systems to broaden the performance envelope.

No matter what you do you will always be hard pressed to make that perfect piece of equipment. The one that is "fool proof".

We, the consumers, must realize that you, the manufacturers, have limitations and we must be willing to compromise our desires to have the safety you do offer. If you tell me I can't have a 65 sq ft reserve that packs up like a pack of cigarettes and won't blow up at 250 MPH sobeit. If I insist on jumping one the onus is on me.

There will always be the exception to any rule. The unwitting student who, no fault of his own, will exceed the equipment limitations. These are the tragic losses. They are the real drivers of your evolutionary efforts though aren't they.

We applaud your efforts.


normiss  (D 28356)

Mar 31, 2013, 12:52 PM
Post #108 of 157 (2126 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Like you said, you had a few conclusions.
Laugh


Scrumpot  (D License)

Mar 31, 2013, 4:57 PM
Post #109 of 157 (2016 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Show me one iota of proof that these failures would not have been failures if they had had more altitude.

Do we know that the reserves were still contained ("locked") within their freebags upon impact in these incidents? If they were not, and the freebags had been "cleared", but full reserve inflation not yet attained - then it could be argued that some measure additional altitude might have mattered.

In reply to:
I see no proof that it will help. To the contrary my read is that it will not help. If we raise the altitude we will sit back and relax and it will be another 5 years and 10 more dead before we realize it did not work.

I hear what you are saying with this statement, and I do not necessarily disagree with this (as a concern) at all, either. However, just as I did here, I think the 2 points can (and perhaps should be) separated - and considered on their own separate, individual merits. In other words - even if full reserve-deployment hesitation (regardless method of activation) can be completely and successfully addressed (as I hear you are calling for) - might not still, in any case ALSO - activation altitude settings for (perhaps maybe even student-only, or specific in particular) AAD's be worthwhile considering?

I don't see as the one, even if you can almost nearly 100% assure full reserve deployment, inflation and deceleration "within parameters" (being resolved) - completely cancelling-out, or being mutually exclusive either, to the other. I guess that's what you mean by "if it will help", though? I agree - we should not just look at one perspective, without fully considering and addressing ALSO, the other.


chuteshack

Mar 31, 2013, 6:03 PM
Post #110 of 157 (1972 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

i have it on good authority that the canopies were out of the freebags and almost fully inflated, but not enough time


BMFin

Mar 31, 2013, 7:06 PM
Post #111 of 157 (1929 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fencebuster] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I personally think student AAD's should fire higher.


+1

May I ask why is that? Is it because then you could chase the student untill his/hers AAD fires and you would still have some time to deploy your own reserve slightly lower?


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Mar 31, 2013, 7:53 PM
Post #112 of 157 (1902 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jonstark] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You must build one rig though for the market at large and, as a manufacturer of sport gear, you have the constraints that we, the consumers, have put you under. We want it clean, good looking, tight, small, on and on. Some of our wish list items impinge on the performance of the system as a whole.

You have got that right and I have been bitchin about it from the begining. I have refused to give those people the thing they wanted because I new they comprimised safety. As a result of other manufacturers caving to those demands we find our selves in the situation we have today. This is a life saving business and no one should comprimise safety for any reason, especially just to make a rig look good.
I don't agree about limitations. There shouldn't be any and if you get into the science you will find that the ones being violated don't really matter.
This is a science. These thing can be calculated. That is designs which have been tested can be calculated. PIA didn't and hasn't accounted for reserve pilot chute performance in their standards. This must be done. In the mean time there may be pilot chutes out there which are sub-standard in drag capability. That could be part of the problem. I ask you how do we verify that the pilot chut on our rig will do the job?
No one needs to die in this sport because of equipment failure. That must be our goal. Give no quarter and ask no quarter in this goal.


Skydivesg  (D 10938)

Mar 31, 2013, 8:17 PM
Post #113 of 157 (1880 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:

I am all for raising the altitude "if it will help".
I see no proof that it will help........ Show me one iota of proof that these failures would not have been failures if they had had more altitude.

From: Chuteshack....

In reply to:
i have it on good authority that the canopies were out of the freebags and almost fully inflated, but not enough time

In this particular incident an extra couple hundred feet may have made a difference. I really don't understand those who argue against increasing the firing altitude for AADs. Assuming the information from Chuteshack is valid, in my view this is (at minimum) an "iota".

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.
.


nigel99  (D 1)

Mar 31, 2013, 8:33 PM
Post #114 of 157 (1870 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skydivesg] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:

I am all for raising the altitude "if it will help".
I see no proof that it will help........ Show me one iota of proof that these failures would not have been failures if they had had more altitude.

From: Chuteshack....

In reply to:
i have it on good authority that the canopies were out of the freebags and almost fully inflated, but not enough time

In this particular incident an extra couple hundred feet may have made a difference. I really don't understand those who argue against increasing the firing altitude for AADs. Assuming the information from Chuteshack is valid, in my view this is (at minimum) an "iota".

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.
.

More of a question than anything else. If AAD altitudes were raised 500ft. What would be the practical impact on the sport? What height would normal main deployment be, and normal breakoff from RW/FF etc?

Currently our Australian regulations say that you must have deployed by 1800ft. I doubt many people do this, but on some bigger way jumps I was recently deploying at 2.5k and under canopy at 2/2.1 and with one jump logged at 1900ft canopy open.

We can't safely raise exit altitudes due to hypoxia, and we probably already push the limits on top altitudes, anyway as sports skydivers.


Skydivesg  (D 10938)

Mar 31, 2013, 8:43 PM
Post #115 of 157 (1864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
More of a question than anything else. If AAD altitudes were raised 500ft. What would be the practical impact on the sport?

I don't advocate raisng them 500 feet but I see no reason not to up them to 1100 feet.

If you're that far into the basement, you need help.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be..


Ruffles  (A 42288)

Mar 31, 2013, 11:53 PM
Post #116 of 157 (1807 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skydivesg] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Does the APA have an official position they preach in Instructor Training regarding chasing students to low altitudes & if so, what specifically do they teach? Im aware the chase is a big part of the curriculum, but have they set limits?


Andy9o8  (D License)

Apr 1, 2013, 8:28 AM
Post #117 of 157 (1679 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

John, suppose the evidence (in this incident) eventually develops that both jumpers' reserve bags extracted from their containers essentially immediately upon PC launch, and both canopies extracted from their bags essentially immediately upon line stretch?


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Apr 1, 2013, 8:59 AM
Post #118 of 157 (1643 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
John, suppose the evidence (in this incident) eventually develops that both jumpers' reserve bags extracted from their containers essentially immediately upon PC launch, and both canopies extracted from their bags essentially immediately upon line stretch?

That would be a wonderful thing. We would not be here talking. The jumpers would be enjoying a 30 second canopy ride.
If you are intimating that scenerio with the same outcome, I doubt it. However, if it did happen that way then the inflation speed of the canopy should be investigated as it would still be a TSO violation. This would be an easy thing to determine. Just jump them as a main to test.


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 1, 2013, 9:37 AM
Post #119 of 157 (1616 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
John, suppose the evidence (in this incident) eventually develops that both jumpers' reserve bags extracted from their containers essentially immediately upon PC launch, and both canopies extracted from their bags essentially immediately upon line stretch?

That would be a wonderful thing. We would not be here talking. The jumpers would be enjoying a 30 second canopy ride.
If you are intimating that scenerio with the same outcome, I doubt it. However, if it did happen that way then the inflation speed of the canopy should be investigated as it would still be a TSO violation. This would be an easy thing to determine. Just jump them as a main to test.

John since you're more into the science of it....


There is some discussion on one of these threads regarding the opening time & altitude for varying freefall speeds.

Could that have been a significant factor?

Would (for example) the odds of getting an open reserve be lower going through 750' @ terminal plus 100 that they would @ terminal?


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Apr 1, 2013, 11:34 AM
Post #120 of 157 (1564 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
John since you're more into the science of it....


There is some discussion on one of these threads regarding the opening time & altitude for varying freefall speeds.

Could that have been a significant factor?

Would (for example) the odds of getting an open reserve be lower going through 750' @ terminal plus 100 that they would @ terminal?

You last paragraph is difficult to understand but, here is what I know: Canopies generally take the same amount of time to open at all speeds. Say they take 3 seconds after a cutaway they will generally take about 3 seconds at terminal. This is not exact just an observation. Speed does seem to speed up the opening a bit but not much. Perspective: At 20Fps after a cutaway you are accelerating away from the main. It takes about 1 second for the bridle to string out. Then the bag takes a load fop extraction. The bridle has used 1/3 of the allowed time for deployment. At 174FPS (terminal) that 16 feet deployes in a little over 10 feet using only a fraction of a second. Remember 3 seconds is the maximinum amount of time allowed for TSO testing. In reality that deployment is between 1 and 2 seconds. At 750 feet if things work as planed you will get about a 30 second canopy ride.


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 1, 2013, 12:26 PM
Post #121 of 157 (1545 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
John since you're more into the science of it....


There is some discussion on one of these threads regarding the opening time & altitude for varying freefall speeds.

Could that have been a significant factor?

Would (for example) the odds of getting an open reserve be lower going through 750' @ terminal plus 100 that they would @ terminal?

You last paragraph is difficult to understand but, here is what I know: Canopies generally take the same amount of time to open at all speeds. Say they take 3 seconds after a cutaway they will generally take about 3 seconds at terminal. This is not exact just an observation. Speed does seem to speed up the opening a bit but not much. Perspective: At 20Fps after a cutaway you are accelerating away from the main. It takes about 1 second for the bridle to string out. Then the bag takes a load fop extraction. The bridle has used 1/3 of the allowed time for deployment. At 174FPS (terminal) that 16 feet deployes in a little over 10 feet using only a fraction of a second. Remember 3 seconds is the maximinum amount of time allowed for TSO testing. In reality that deployment is between 1 and 2 seconds. At 750 feet if things work as planed you will get about a 30 second canopy ride.

Sorry for not being clear...

My question was does it take essentially the same time & altitude to get an open canopy at 200mph as it does at 100 mph...all other factors being equal.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Apr 1, 2013, 12:31 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Apr 1, 2013, 1:46 PM
Post #122 of 157 (1490 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah...that was asked ages ago ...it'll be interesting to see if JS has anything additional to say after the clarification.


SethInMI  (A 47765)

Apr 3, 2013, 5:21 AM
Post #123 of 157 (1190 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
My question was does it take essentially the same time & altitude to get an open canopy at 200mph as it does at 100 mph...all other factors being equal.

It was probably mentioned up-thread, but one obvious non-equality for HD AAD activations is the AAD won't be in a burble, so it will fire higher, IIRC 250+ ft.


BMFin

Apr 3, 2013, 6:26 AM
Post #124 of 157 (1155 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
My question was does it take essentially the same time & altitude to get an open canopy at 200mph as it does at 100 mph...all other factors being equal.

I dont understand how time & altitude could both be the same.

If the altitude is the same, then the time must be shorter since the speed is higher.

On the other hand if the time is same, then the altitude must be more, since the speed is higher.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Apr 3, 2013, 8:15 AM
Post #125 of 157 (1083 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Same time longer distance/altitude due to speed.


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 3, 2013, 8:35 AM
Post #126 of 157 (2324 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Same time longer distance/altitude due to speed.

Thanks John, that confirms what I was trying to point out in one of these threads where I listed distance covered at various freefall speeds.

Via PM ~ I got some comments 'correcting' my assertion...it's seems there are those who believe that double the freefall speed = 1/2 the opening distance.

"...the parachute opens faster because you're going faster" is somewhat flawed logic regarding this type of scenario- IMO.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Apr 3, 2013, 11:32 AM
Post #127 of 157 (2230 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

You know, some things do happen faster,but the overall result is more distance due to more speed.
I find that to deploy a canopy in 300 feet at terminal you had better be able to do it in 200 feet at cutaway speeds. Apply that to what we are seeing. Unsure

John


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 3, 2013, 12:26 PM
Post #128 of 157 (2187 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You know, some things do happen faster,but the overall result is more distance due to more speed.
I find that to deploy a canopy in 300 feet at terminal you had better be able to do it in 200 feet at cutaway speeds. Apply that to what we are seeing. Unsure

John


Understood.

I get the feeling some believe it's a more exact science in regard to the 'twice the speed = 1/2 the time & distance' that just isn't something to bet your life on.


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 8, 2013, 1:54 PM
Post #129 of 157 (1583 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
You know, some things do happen faster,but the overall result is more distance due to more speed.
I find that to deploy a canopy in 300 feet at terminal you had better be able to do it in 200 feet at cutaway speeds. Apply that to what we are seeing. Unsure

John


Not directed at you Twardo just a question.... I have read a lot of why "SOS set ups are bad". I just wonder if what I hae heard holds any water. Unless you are doing CRW, or possibly camera.... why not an SOS. I know some are going to slam this but I know many very experienced skydivers that believe it is the only way to go. After all.... if you are jumping a skyhook or an rsl aren;t you really just trying to replicate what an SOS accomplishes except in a more complicated manner? I would love to hear some thoughts on this... perhaps it should go in to gear and rigging.....

Rob

Understood.

I get the feeling some believe it's a more exact science in regard to the 'twice the speed = 1/2 the time & distance' that just isn't something to bet your life on.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 8, 2013, 1:56 PM
Post #130 of 157 (1580 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

>why not an SOS.

There are definitely pros and cons. The one negative that bothers me is that riser twist that traps the cutaway cables, or causes even a hard pull, means you can't open your reserve without using a backup means (i.e. pulling directly on the RSL shackle or something.) However that's a very unusual problem, especially with hard riser channels.


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 8, 2013, 2:10 PM
Post #131 of 157 (1570 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>why not an SOS.

There are definitely pros and cons. The one negative that bothers me is that riser twist that traps the cutaway cables, or causes even a hard pull, means you can't open your reserve without using a backup means (i.e. pulling directly on the RSL shackle or something.) However that's a very unusual problem, especially with hard riser channels.

That is what I was going to ask... with hard riser channels do you think that is still possible? That would take a lot of force but in our sport a lot of force does happen.


Scrumpot  (D License)

Apr 9, 2013, 8:35 AM
Post #132 of 157 (1395 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That is what I was going to ask... with hard riser channels do you think that is still possible? That would take a lot of force but in our sport a lot of force does happen.

Yes, that is still possible. But much more likely and prevalent from poorly maintained cutaway cables and systems over-all, actually. Not just specifically pertaining to hard-housings preventing cable-pinch from linetwists, which is here - what you are referring to. I've unfortunately seen many more hard (cutaway) pulls, occur caused by something as simple as dirty, poorly maintained cables and systems actually. - Regardless of which system they happen to be.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Apr 9, 2013, 9:00 AM
Post #133 of 157 (1376 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The one negative that bothers me is that riser twist that traps the cutaway cables, or causes even a hard pull,

This is a fallacy: Twisted risers donít trap the cables in the cloth riser channels if the yellow cable is properly lubricated or if you have a red cable. Hard housing donít help.

Proof: In a suspended harness lubricate your yellow cable and route it as normal but by pass the riser locking loops. Use a temporary cable for the riser loops. Load the harness with an extra person hanging on each side (3 bloke test) and twist it upto the 3 rings. Have the person in the harness pull the release cable. Now pull each of the individual riser cables and compare the difference. You may repeat the test with hard housings but you will not need to.


(This post was edited by JohnSherman on Apr 9, 2013, 9:04 AM)


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 9, 2013, 9:37 AM
Post #134 of 157 (1359 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
The one negative that bothers me is that riser twist that traps the cutaway cables, or causes even a hard pull,

This is a fallacy: Twisted risers donít trap the cables in the cloth riser channels if the yellow cable is properly lubricated or if you have a red cable. Hard housing donít help.

Proof: In a suspended harness lubricate your yellow cable and route it as normal but by pass the riser locking loops. Use a temporary cable for the riser loops. Load the harness with an extra person hanging on each side (3 bloke test) and twist it upto the 3 rings. Have the person in the harness pull the release cable. Now pull each of the individual riser cables and compare the difference. You may repeat the test with hard housings but you will not need to.

Okay.... with all of that said.... why not an SOS system?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 9, 2013, 9:46 AM
Post #135 of 157 (1348 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

>That is what I was going to ask... with hard riser channels do you think that is still possible?

Sure; you can get a kink in the cable (i.e. "cable suck") or a pebble in the harness housing. Odds of them are low which is why I don't think it's a big deal.


topdocker  (D 12018)

Apr 9, 2013, 9:50 AM
Post #136 of 157 (1345 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
The one negative that bothers me is that riser twist that traps the cutaway cables, or causes even a hard pull,

This is a fallacy: Twisted risers donít trap the cables in the cloth riser channels if the yellow cable is properly lubricated or if you have a red cable. Hard housing donít help.

Proof: In a suspended harness lubricate your yellow cable and route it as normal but by pass the riser locking loops. Use a temporary cable for the riser loops. Load the harness with an extra person hanging on each side (3 bloke test) and twist it upto the 3 rings. Have the person in the harness pull the release cable. Now pull each of the individual riser cables and compare the difference. You may repeat the test with hard housings but you will not need to.

Okay.... with all of that said.... why not an SOS system?

Does suck to have an SOS in winds. Can't chop the canopy if you are getting drug around the landing area....

It has its merits, but it just seems safer to be able to activate the reserve independently.

top


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 9, 2013, 9:52 AM
Post #137 of 157 (1343 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Okay.... with all of that said.... why not an SOS system?

In reply to:

One example- in the popular video going around in which a jumpers cutaway pud is inadvertently pulled on exit and handed back to him...

'what if' that happened during a squirrely exit and the reserve somehow horseshoed or otherwise malfunctioned? Like a late diver going through the unexpected reserve and shredding it...

You would have a packed up main that is of absolutely no good to you.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Apr 9, 2013, 9:56 AM)


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 9, 2013, 10:07 AM
Post #138 of 157 (1316 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Okay.... with all of that said.... why not an SOS system?

In reply to:

One example- in the popular video going around in which a jumpers cutaway pud is inadvertently pulled on exit and handed back to him...

'what if' that happened during a squirrely exit and the reserve somehow horseshoed or otherwise malfunctioned? Like a late diver going through the unexpected reserve and shredding it...

You would have a packed up main that is of absolutely no good to you.

That is a valid point but there is a very small chance of that happening. I do see your point though.


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 9, 2013, 10:08 AM
Post #139 of 157 (1311 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
The one negative that bothers me is that riser twist that traps the cutaway cables, or causes even a hard pull,

This is a fallacy: Twisted risers donít trap the cables in the cloth riser channels if the yellow cable is properly lubricated or if you have a red cable. Hard housing donít help.

Proof: In a suspended harness lubricate your yellow cable and route it as normal but by pass the riser locking loops. Use a temporary cable for the riser loops. Load the harness with an extra person hanging on each side (3 bloke test) and twist it upto the 3 rings. Have the person in the harness pull the release cable. Now pull each of the individual riser cables and compare the difference. You may repeat the test with hard housings but you will not need to.

Okay.... with all of that said.... why not an SOS system?

Does suck to have an SOS in winds. Can't chop the canopy if you are getting drug around the landing area....

It has its merits, but it just seems safer to be able to activate the reserve independently.

top

I am not sure if it does seem safer. Easy fix to your situation.... do not jump in those high of winds. I personally do not right now even with my two handle system.


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 9, 2013, 12:26 PM
Post #140 of 157 (1223 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Okay.... with all of that said.... why not an SOS system?

In reply to:

One example- in the popular video going around in which a jumpers cutaway pud is inadvertently pulled on exit and handed back to him...

'what if' that happened during a squirrely exit and the reserve somehow horseshoed or otherwise malfunctioned? Like a late diver going through the unexpected reserve and shredding it...

You would have a packed up main that is of absolutely no good to you.

That is a valid point but there is a very small chance of that happening. I do see your point though.

Small chance maybe...IF it did though, there would be zero chance of it ever happening to ya AGAIN!


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Apr 9, 2013, 12:29 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Apr 9, 2013, 12:43 PM
Post #141 of 157 (1205 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Easy fix to your situation.... do not jump in those high of winds. I personally do not right now even with my two handle system.

Never had wind speed or direction or both change on ya', eh? Hang in there...it'll happen.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 9, 2013, 12:59 PM
Post #142 of 157 (1191 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

>Can't chop the canopy if you are getting drug around the landing area....

Sure you can; the reserve will then open and you'll need a repack, but you won't get dragged. (Same problem with an RSL.)


BMFin

Apr 9, 2013, 2:21 PM
Post #143 of 157 (1143 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

http://iloveskydiving.org/...nction-cant-cutaway/

If im not mistaken this guy would have been in much more trouble if he had SOS system.


normiss  (D 28356)

Apr 9, 2013, 8:49 PM
Post #144 of 157 (1062 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BMFin] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Or wearing the Death Suit model of wingsuit like the recent fatality.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Apr 9, 2013, 10:28 PM
Post #145 of 157 (1037 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Can't chop the canopy if you are getting drug around the landing area....

Sure you can; the reserve will then open and you'll need a repack, but you won't get dragged. (Same problem with an RSL.)


Sorry, no... not the same problem.

You can disconnect an RSL when you see that the winds might require a cutaway when you land, but unless they've changed the design since I last saw one, you can't disconnect the cutaway and reserve pull functions on an SOS.

Cool
44


(This post was edited by robinheid on Apr 9, 2013, 10:31 PM)


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 10, 2013, 6:27 AM
Post #146 of 157 (979 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Easy fix to your situation.... do not jump in those high of winds. I personally do not right now even with my two handle system.

Never had wind speed or direction or both change on ya', eh? Hang in there...it'll happen.

Pops... ya I have but not to the speeds that it drags me around. Maybe a little pull but nothing really that bad. I'm sure it will happen eventually. I have really een thinking about this because of some very experienced jumpers that use an SOS system still. Everything that I have ever heard negative about them is either a rare circumstance which lets be honest.... those can occur on any piece of equipment or when it gets down to it... the jumper does not look cool with an SOS Tongue


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 10, 2013, 6:31 AM
Post #147 of 157 (973 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Okay.... with all of that said.... why not an SOS system?

In reply to:

One example- in the popular video going around in which a jumpers cutaway pud is inadvertently pulled on exit and handed back to him...

'what if' that happened during a squirrely exit and the reserve somehow horseshoed or otherwise malfunctioned? Like a late diver going through the unexpected reserve and shredding it...

You would have a packed up main that is of absolutely no good to you.

That is a valid point but there is a very small chance of that happening. I do see your point though.

Small chance maybe...IF it did though, there would be zero chance of it ever happening to ya AGAIN!

Twardo..... once again VERY valid point. Same thing could be said of many pieces of equipment though... right? AAD for insance.... door opens, pressure change, you are by the door.... reserve comes out and you hit the tail. Very rare occurance but it has happened. Very likely if it happened to you it woud never happen again. I am not for or against an SOS I am just thinking through it all and getting opinions. I appreciate yours and everyone else's.


FB1609  (C 1409)

Apr 10, 2013, 8:06 AM
Post #148 of 157 (919 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

if your on the gound getting dragged you can pull an SOS just a bit for cutaway only with most systems and a couple of practices


(This post was edited by FB1609 on Apr 10, 2013, 8:06 AM)


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 10, 2013, 8:13 AM
Post #149 of 157 (912 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FB1609] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
if your on the gound getting dragged you can pull an SOS just a bit for cutaway only with most systems and a couple of practices

I was told the same thing.... you can stage your pull.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Apr 10, 2013, 8:30 AM
Post #150 of 157 (893 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Okay.... with all of that said.... why not an SOS system?

The only problem, other than those already mentioned, with the SOS (SINGLE Handle Operating System), is that is takes 2 hands to operate it.
One for the initial pull and the other to grab the cable half way from the handle and finish the pull. The stroke is too long for your arm. This is inherrent in the design because of the required cable lengths.
The configuration must allow for the release of the risers before the reserve is released. Some long armed folks can reach, in one stroke, on some rigs, but not all.


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 10, 2013, 8:34 AM
Post #151 of 157 (898 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I am not for or against an SOS I am just thinking through it all and getting opinions.

In reply to:

Which is of course the smart thing to do...

IMO the SOS was/is a band-aid for a complete understanding of what to do when - or 'poor training'

The 'one solution fits all problems' may be an aid during initial training, but think about it from the other angle.

What are the circumstance you DO want the choice of chopping and deploying your reserve at a 'later date'

Juming camera, CReW, landing in high winds, water landings...20,000' updrafts in a thunderstorm Wink

Again, the SOS 'may' have a small place of 'advantage' during initial training - but it handcuffs the options during things an experienced jumper could quite possibly come across.

I can't recall seeing any experienced jumper using one...hummm


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 10, 2013, 8:46 AM
Post #152 of 157 (891 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Okay.... with all of that said.... why not an SOS system?

The only problem, other than those already mentioned, with the SOS (SINGLE Handle Operating System), is that is takes 2 hands to operate it.
One for the initial pull and the other to grab the cable half way from the handle and finish the pull. The stroke is too long for your arm. This is inherrent in the design because of the required cable lengths.
The configuration must allow for the release of the risers before the reserve is released. Some long armed folks can reach, in one stroke, on some rigs, but not all.

Interesting.... My first chop was on an SOS... I guess I have long arms. I am 6'3... I cleared the cables in one pull with both hands on the D ring. I have never heard that before John.


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 10, 2013, 8:50 AM
Post #153 of 157 (886 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I am not for or against an SOS I am just thinking through it all and getting opinions.

In reply to:

Which is of course the smart thing to do...

IMO the SOS was/is a band-aid for a complete understanding of what to do when - or 'poor training'



The 'one solution fits all problems' may be an aid during initial training, but think about it from the other angle.

What are the circumstance you DO want the choice of chopping and deploying your reserve at a 'later date'

Juming camera, CReW, landing in high winds, water landings...20,000' updrafts in a thunderstorm Wink

Again, the SOS 'may' have a small place of 'advantage' during initial training - but it handcuffs the options during things an experienced jumper could quite possibly come across.

I can't recall seeing any experienced jumper using one...hummm

I actually think they are a good idea for intial training (students). Thanks for the perspective Twardo and everyone else.

P.S. I know two jumpers with over 5000 jumps each that have AFF & Tandem ratings that jump an SOS. Steve Stewart started SSK with Cliff and created the Sweet Hog is still a big fan of them as well.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Apr 10, 2013, 9:51 AM
Post #154 of 157 (851 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I actually think they are a good idea for intial training (students).
I'm in disagreement here.
- Two handles is the norm nowadays..for several reasons.
- KISS is not a good thing to teach
- Having to re-train to other mechanisms is problematic
- Other...

In reply to:
I know two jumpers with over 5000 jumps each that have AFF & Tandem ratings that jump an SOS.
I agree it's experienced jumpers ay elect any option they choose.

Quote:
What are the circumstance you DO want the choice of chopping and deploying your reserve at a 'later date'

Jumping camera, CReW, landing in high winds, water landings...20,000' updrafts in a thunderstorm

...buildings, power lines, trees, entanglements, wraps(?), (horses, cows, goats...oh, the stories here...Laugh)


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 10, 2013, 11:04 AM
Post #155 of 157 (830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I actually think they are a good idea for intial training (students).
I'm in disagreement here.
- Two handles is the norm nowadays..for several reasons.
- KISS is not a good thing to teach
- Having to re-train to other mechanisms is problematic
- Other...

In reply to:
I know two jumpers with over 5000 jumps each that have AFF & Tandem ratings that jump an SOS.
I agree it's experienced jumpers ay elect any option they choose.

Quote:
What are the circumstance you DO want the choice of chopping and deploying your reserve at a 'later date'

Jumping camera, CReW, landing in high winds, water landings...20,000' updrafts in a thunderstorm

...buildings, power lines, trees, entanglements, wraps(?), (horses, cows, goats...oh, the stories here...Laugh)

Agree to disagree about the students. I did not find a huge problem moving from SOS to a two handle system at all. Then again your experience trumps mine 100x over so I may change the way I think about this in the future Wink I am not a DZO and never will be so it really does not matter what I think anyway.

On the other comment..... cows... yup been there. Laugh


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Apr 10, 2013, 12:07 PM
Post #156 of 157 (798 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rstanley0312] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Of course your opinion matters!

Please put your "cow" story in the Trivia forum...unless it was a "Yo Mama" story....too many of those already.
LaughLaugh


Rstanley0312  (D 31900)

Apr 10, 2013, 1:47 PM
Post #157 of 157 (761 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Of course your opinion matters!

Please put your "cow" story in the Trivia forum...unless it was a "Yo Mama" story....too many of those already.
LaughLaugh

LaughLaugh



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)