Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
Re: [mjosparky] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005

 

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

raymod2  (D 25630)

Oct 5, 2005, 11:30 AM
Post #1 of 68 (2195 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 Can't Post

In reply to:
In a perfect world there would be a device that would cover all possible scenarios. But this is not a perfect world...

I really don't understand why people like you are trying to downplay this incident. A device intended to save lives caused a fatality. For all the rhetoric in this thread that fact remains irrefutable. People are demanding a solution and they should.

Tell me this: how would you react if one of your family members died in a car accident because they braked too hard and their air bag fired which caused them to run off the road? Would you say "the air bag was designed to fire at a certain rate of deceleration and it was functioning correctly"? Would you say "he should have read the owners manual and avoided hard braking maneuvers"?


jlmiracle  (D License)

Oct 5, 2005, 11:41 AM
Post #2 of 68 (2179 views)
Shortcut
Re: [raymod2] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I really don't understand why people like you are trying to downplay this incident. A device intended to save lives caused a fatality. For all the rhetoric in this thread that fact remains irrefutable. People are demanding a solution and they should.

I guess I'm one of those people too. I'm sorry for the loss, but I don't swoop, have not interest in it, and I will never be peforming a landing that would create that much speed. If I have enough speed close to the ground for my cypres to fire, it means I don't have a properly functioning canopy above my head.

Quote:
family members died in a car accident because they braked too hard and their air bag fired which caused them to run off the road?

Apples and oranges.

Judy


(This post was edited by jlmiracle on Oct 5, 2005, 12:01 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Oct 5, 2005, 11:54 AM
Post #3 of 68 (2169 views)
Shortcut
Re: [raymod2] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I really don't understand why people like you are trying to downplay this incident. A device intended to save lives caused a fatality.

I am not trying to down play anything.

A device did not cause a fatality, using the device outside of its design limits caused a fatality.

If you pull your reserve at 200 feet and it fails to deploy before impact, did the reserve cause the fatality? No, the fatality was caused by using the reserve outside of its design limits. You pulled too low.

In this case the jumper went too fast too low and the device did just what it was designed to do.

Air bags are intended to save lives, but we don't use them on skydive. Why is that? They were not designed for skydiving.

Sparky


(This post was edited by mjosparky on Oct 5, 2005, 3:55 PM)


dorbie

Oct 5, 2005, 12:49 PM
Post #4 of 68 (2136 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

Well said. People going around saying the AAD caused a fatality are in perilous territory.

The device worked exactly as designed and advertised and I'd be very concerned if it didn't. That AAD did exactly what I hope and demand my AAD will do given similar sensor input, that's how it offers me a last chance of life in a situation where I've otherwise killed myself. If I accidentally drive my car off a cliff the car didn't cause a fatality if it was functioning perfectly immediately beforehand.

Everybody knows that jumping with an AAD has inherent risks but if used correctly they contribute greatly to safety. I know under some circumstances it could mean a two out, a downplane and death even for non swoopers, my first jump course covered this in detail, in fact since I was jumping a student cypres my first jump course and subsequent AFF instruction covered the additional dangers of any steep turns under 2k (cypres 1) causing a 2 out long after main deployment. It's something I accepted every jump and I still accept this now that I have a choice because the benefits outweigh the risks.

The AAD maker even conducted test jumps in light of changing technology and issued instructions warning skydivers to avoid exactly what happened on this jump. You just can't make a device be all things to all people.

We don't ignore the lessons of this incident by acknowledging this IMHO.


masterrig  (D License)

Oct 5, 2005, 1:05 PM
Post #5 of 68 (2121 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I really don't understand why people like you are trying to downplay this incident. A device intended to save lives caused a fatality.

I am not trying to down play anything.

A device did not cause a fatality, using the device outside of its design limits caused a fatality.

If you pull your reserve at 200 feet and it fails to deploy before impact, did the reserve cause the fatality? No, the fatality was caused by using the reserve outside of its design limits. You pulled too low.

In this case the jumper went too fast too low and the devise did just what it was designed to do.

Air bags are intended to save lives, but we don't use them on skydive. Why is that? They were not designed for skydiving.

Sparky
__________________________________

AMEN!!!


Chuck


Anvilbrother  (C 39168)

Oct 5, 2005, 1:27 PM
Post #6 of 68 (2102 views)
Shortcut
Re: [raymod2] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

You have got to stop pasting this everywhere stick to one thread that is in one forum.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Oct 5, 2005, 1:53 PM
Post #7 of 68 (2086 views)
Shortcut
Re: [raymod2] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Tell me this: how would you react if one of your family members died in a car accident because they braked too hard and their air bag fired which caused them to run off the road? Would you say "the air bag was designed to fire at a certain rate of deceleration and it was functioning correctly"? Would you say "he should have read the owners manual and avoided hard braking maneuvers"?

Umm...emergency braking in a car is a predictable requirement for the manufacturer. Canopies descending at 78mph was not foreseeable until rather recently and is still an unusual event.

BTW, if someone braked so hard their airbag went off, how did they end up going off the road? Or die? Speed has to be low by point of impact.


raymod2  (D 25630)

Oct 5, 2005, 5:39 PM
Post #8 of 68 (2015 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

> If you pull your reserve at 200 feet and it fails to deploy before
> impact, did the reserve cause the fatality?

No. In that case there is an emergency and your gear failed to
save you. Take the reserve out of the equation and the outcome is
the same. In Adrian's case there was no emergency. His gear
created the emergency that killed him. Take the CYPRES out of the
equation and the outcome is reversed.

> Umm...emergency braking in a car is a predictable requirement for
> the manufacturer. Canopies descending at 78mph was not foreseeable
> until rather recently and is still an unusual event.

I disagree that canopies descending at 78mph was not foreseeable.
But I think we will both agree it is foreseeable now! I'm not
saying Airtec should be sued for negligence. What I am saying is
that they should admit to a problem with their product and work
quickly to come up with a solution.

I think a solution can be found despite the fact that everyone here
is an engineer and has declared the problem unsolvable.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 5, 2005, 7:38 PM
Post #9 of 68 (1991 views)
Shortcut
Re: [raymod2] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
> If you pull your reserve at 200 feet and it fails to deploy before
> impact, did the reserve cause the fatality?

No. In that case there is an emergency and your gear failed to
save you. Take the reserve out of the equation and the outcome is
the same. In Adrian's case there was no emergency. His gear
created the emergency that killed him. Take the CYPRES out of the
equation and the outcome is reversed.

> Umm...emergency braking in a car is a predictable requirement for
> the manufacturer. Canopies descending at 78mph was not foreseeable
> until rather recently and is still an unusual event.

I disagree that canopies descending at 78mph was not foreseeable.
But I think we will both agree it is foreseeable now! I'm not
saying Airtec should be sued for negligence. What I am saying is
that they should admit to a problem with their product and work
quickly to come up with a solution.

I think a solution can be found despite the fact that everyone here
is an engineer and has declared the problem unsolvable.

Your analogy is faulty (as is so often the case with analogies).

This situation is more like a car owner who modifies his car by adding braking rockets, to cause it to slow down much quicker than originally designed.

The design parameters of the AAD are there for all to see who choose to read the manual. Those who put tiny canopies in their rigs and then aim them at the ground are likely going to exceed those parameters.

As one who chooses not to do this, I would prefer the design to stay as it is rather than become more complex.


MB38  (A 48618)

Oct 5, 2005, 7:46 PM
Post #10 of 68 (1985 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

The CYPRES was introduced in 11/92, correct? What was the status of the swooping discipline at that time?


ZigZagMarquis  (D License)

Oct 5, 2005, 8:06 PM
Post #11 of 68 (1979 views)
Shortcut
Re: [raymod2] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm not
saying Airtec should be sued for negligence. What I am saying is
that they should admit to a problem with their product and work
quickly to come up with a solution.

I think a solution can be found despite the fact that everyone here
is an engineer and has declared the problem unsolvable.

Raymond2,

Airtec has recognized this as a problem. Please go see:

http://cypres.cc/...g_Small_Canopies.htm

Having said that, let me also say that I am not in anyway saying what happened to Adrian Nicolas should be dismissed and my sympathy and well wishes go out to his family, friends and loved ones. However, I also don't think anyone here is saying that what happened to him should be dismissed nor do I think anyone is saying his life should be devalued. Please hear that. The subject is salted through with emotion which makes this a difficult subject to debate.

You commented that, "... everyone here
is an engineer and has declared the problem unsolvable..". Well, sir, I am an engineer and I do not think the problem is unsolvable. Reading the article referenced above; they're working on the problem. I don't know enough details though to speculate as to their solution.


(This post was edited by ZigZagMarquis on Oct 5, 2005, 8:09 PM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Oct 5, 2005, 10:46 PM
Post #12 of 68 (1935 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The design parameters of the AAD are there for all to see who choose to read the manual.

What is the fastest you have decended under canopy?

Do you realize the manual says you cannot fire the Cypres while under canopy?

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Oct 5, 2005, 10:57 PM)


tso-d_chris

Oct 5, 2005, 11:05 PM
Post #13 of 68 (1927 views)
Shortcut
Re: [raymod2] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
A device intended to save lives caused a fatality.

Improperly matched gear caused a fatality. Each jumper is responsible to choos for himself/herself compatible equipment. This means each jumper should know how their gear works, and the operating parameters.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Oct 5, 2005, 11:42 PM
Post #14 of 68 (1916 views)
Shortcut
Re: [raymod2] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No. In that case there is an emergency and your gear failed to
save you. Take the reserve out of the equation and the outcome is
the same.

No, in that case your gear did not fail to save you; you failed to save yourself by pulling to low. You gear is not there to save you; it is there so you can save yourself.In Adrian's case there was no emergency. His gear
created the emergency that killed him.
In reply to:

His gear did not create an emergency, his actions told the gear there was an emergency. The cypres did exactly what it was designed to do.

Why do you think the cypres should do something it was not designed to do? No I am not an engineer but I do know that devices work better when they are used as designed.

This and similar incidents may lead to an AAD the will work safely in the different swooping scenarios, but in the mean time choosing components carefully would be the smart thing to do.

Sparky


(This post was edited by mjosparky on Oct 6, 2005, 12:46 AM)


riggermick  (D 17071)

Oct 6, 2005, 4:01 AM
Post #15 of 68 (1864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MB38] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The CYPRES was introduced in 11/92, correct? What was the status of the swooping discipline at that time?



There wasn't a swooping disipline back then. a few people liked to "hookit in" but that was about it. Nothing formal.

Mick.


mr2mk1g  (C 103449)

Oct 6, 2005, 4:21 AM
Post #16 of 68 (1860 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MB38] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The CYPRES was introduced in 11/92, correct? What was the status of the swooping discipline at that time?

The Cypres II however was only released a couple of years ago and marketed at swoopers right from the start.

(not suggesting anything by this other than the fact that no argument can be made or defeated by looking at swooping relative to the original cypres).


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Oct 6, 2005, 6:02 AM
Post #17 of 68 (1821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
His gear did not create an emergency, his actions told the gear there was an emergency. The cypres did exactly what it was designed to do.

Not according to the manual. It is designed to not fire under canopy, regardless of what you do.

Derek


ZigZagMarquis  (D License)

Oct 6, 2005, 7:03 AM
Post #18 of 68 (1800 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

Et all... in all the shouts here regarding Airtec should have "foreseen" this potential issue none of y'all raising your voices puts any of that on those high end swoopers out there. If Airtec should have foreseen it... which in my opinion it is not reasonable that they should have at the time of Cypres' intorduciton, but recently, yes... HOWEVER... y'all are missing the point that if Airtec should have have put on their thinking cap and thought of this ahead of time, then the same should be said for those in this community whom CHOOSE to fly their canopies in a manner that can fire a Cypres which is now obvious that it can happen.

Look people. None of us HAS TO skydive. None of us HAS A RIGHT to skydive. None of us HAS A RIGHT to be kept safe from harm by some bit of technology regarless of our own actions while skydiving.

Remember, the equipment we use to skydive has no warranty of functionality other then it has worked in the past; this does not gaurantee that it will work in the future. Deal with it. Be as informed as possible. Look out for each other, but think too for yourself and don't expect someone or something else to keep you alive. If you don't ever want to be seriously injured or killed skydiving, swooping, BASE jumping, etc.; sell your gear now and never jump again, that will keep you from ever being seriously hurt of killed skydiving, nothing else is guaranteed.


(This post was edited by ZigZagMarquis on Oct 6, 2005, 7:04 AM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Oct 6, 2005, 8:01 AM
Post #19 of 68 (1786 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ZigZagMarquis] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Et all... in all the shouts here regarding Airtec should have "foreseen" this potential issue none of y'all raising your voices puts any of that on those high end swoopers out there. If Airtec should have foreseen it... which in my opinion it is not reasonable that they should have at the time of Cypres' intorduciton, but recently, yes... HOWEVER... y'all are missing the point that if Airtec should have have put on their thinking cap and thought of this ahead of time, then the same should be said for those in this community whom CHOOSE to fly their canopies in a manner that can fire a Cypres which is now obvious that it can happen.

They did foresee it.

Quote:
Remember, the equipment we use to skydive has no warranty of functionality other then it has worked in the past; this does not gaurantee that it will work in the future.

It didn't malfunction.

Derek


ZigZagMarquis  (D License)

Oct 6, 2005, 8:15 AM
Post #20 of 68 (1782 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Et all... in all the shouts here regarding Airtec should have "foreseen" this potential issue none of y'all raising your voices puts any of that on those high end swoopers out there. If Airtec should have foreseen it... which in my opinion it is not reasonable that they should have at the time of Cypres' intorduciton, but recently, yes... HOWEVER... y'all are missing the point that if Airtec should have have put on their thinking cap and thought of this ahead of time, then the same should be said for those in this community whom CHOOSE to fly their canopies in a manner that can fire a Cypres which is now obvious that it can happen.

They did foresee it.

Quote:
Remember, the equipment we use to skydive has no warranty of functionality other then it has worked in the past; this does not gaurantee that it will work in the future.

It didn't malfunction.

Derek

So what you're saying is swoopers did foresee the problem and then "what" would you say to one that continued to jump and swoop with a Cypres installed?

"It didn't malfunciton"... so you're saying it performed as designed? Sensed a descent rate within its parametes to fire, and did.


(This post was edited by ZigZagMarquis on Oct 6, 2005, 8:15 AM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Oct 6, 2005, 9:58 AM
Post #21 of 68 (1751 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ZigZagMarquis] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So what you're saying is swoopers did foresee the problem

No, Airtec foresaw the issue back in 2000.

Quote:
"It didn't malfunciton"... so you're saying it performed as designed? Sensed a descent rate within its parametes to fire, and did.

No, it didn't perform as designed, or at least as the advertising said it was designed. It was advertised as not being able to fire while under canopy. It did exactly that. It can't be blamed on a malfunctioning unit either.

Reading the manual does not tell a jumper if they are in danger of firing the unit under canopy. Reading the manual tells the jumper that they have nothing to worry about once they are under canopy, the unit will not fire. That is false and it sets the jumper up for failure. The Cypres2 manual is recent enough that not updating the manual isn't an excuse either.

Derek


(This post was edited by Hooknswoop on Oct 6, 2005, 10:43 AM)


dorbie

Oct 6, 2005, 10:54 AM
Post #22 of 68 (1738 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
His gear did not create an emergency, his actions told the gear there was an emergency. The cypres did exactly what it was designed to do.

Not according to the manual. It is designed to not fire under canopy, regardless of what you do.

Derek

That used to be true. It is important as the pilot in command of your canopy that you stay current on the correct operation of your equipment:

http://cypres.cc/...g_Small_Canopies.htm

As Airtec and numerous posters have explained very clearly, higher swoop speeds have moved the flight envelope for some canopies and jumpers into the activation envelope for the AADs. The AAD in this case operated exactly as designed, predicted and published.


ZigZagMarquis  (D License)

Oct 6, 2005, 11:01 AM
Post #23 of 68 (1734 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

HnS,

Yeah... all of that... but what you're missing in what I'm saying is that no matter what, each and everyone of us that decides to skydive is responsible for the outcome. It was our decission to step off the airplane in the first place. We should maximize our chances by using good gear from good sources and practicing good habbits, but in the end, the responsibility is our and ours alone... regardless of what the manual said. You disagree, that's okay with me.

However, given the attitude of many out there that there is alwasys a nebulous "they" that is in some way responsible for any and every thing with total dismissal of an individuals own actions having had any input into anything... If I were Airtec... I'd be placarding it all over the place in big red letters that if you're going to do radical, multiple 360s under canopy at low altitudes setting for a swoop, that you could fire a Cypres if installed in your rig and doing so is AT YOUR OWN RISK.


(This post was edited by ZigZagMarquis on Oct 6, 2005, 11:03 AM)


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Oct 6, 2005, 11:10 AM
Post #24 of 68 (1727 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
That used to be true.

Right, the date on that is Sep 20th, 2005. Lot of good that did Adrian.

Quote:
The AAD in this case operated exactly as designed, predicted and published.

Again, check the date and read the Cypres2 manual Adrian had available to him.

Derek


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Oct 6, 2005, 11:14 AM
Post #25 of 68 (1723 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ZigZagMarquis] Fatality: Texel - Adrian Nicolas - 17 September 2005 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Yeah... all of that... but what you're missing in what I'm saying is that no matter what, each and everyone of us that decides to skydive is responsible for the outcome.

Well sure, anything can happen and I agree. In this case, Adrian was set up for failure and he didn't have to be. People say "read the manual" OK, the manual says you can't fire it under canopy. Of course, you can. If I pack a reserve and instead of a reserve, I put laundry in it and the person dies because their main mals, do I share some responsibility because I led themt o believe they had a good reserve, or is all their fault because they accept the responsibility for everything that can happen.

Skydivers must rely on others to give good information to make good choices with. When given poor information, can the jumper be totally to blame for a poor choice based on that information?

Derek


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

Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)