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

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 27, 2013, 6:28 PM
Post #26 of 157 (2618 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 (2611 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 (2519 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 (2508 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 (2494 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 (2492 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 (2484 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 (2452 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 (2435 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 (2394 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 (2370 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 (2251 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 (2222 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 (2208 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 (2196 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 (2170 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 (2142 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 (2129 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 (2065 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 (2061 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 (2058 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 (2032 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 (2026 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 (2017 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 (2014 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


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)