Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
In this month's Parachutist

 

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

JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Nov 4, 2005, 8:02 AM
Post #1 of 110 (2883 views)
Shortcut
In this month's Parachutist Can't Post

There were 2 incident reports of fatalities due to low cutaways and late reserve pulls. RSL's would have probably prevented both of those fatalities. For those of you that disconnect your RSL, please give it a second thought. And please note that your Cypress will probably not save you during a low cutaway.

We really want you to be around next year.


tbrown  (D 6533)

Nov 4, 2005, 9:08 AM
Post #2 of 110 (2806 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

Aside from camera jumpers and CRW Dogs, most excuses for not using a RSL sound like the same excuses people use for not wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Or getting flu shots.


Premier Remster  (C License)

Nov 4, 2005, 9:42 AM
Post #3 of 110 (2768 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
RSL's would have probably prevented both of those fatalities

So would have properly performed emergency procedures.


mattjw916  (D License)

Nov 4, 2005, 9:45 AM
Post #4 of 110 (2766 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tbrown] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

I wear a seatbelt religiously...
I wear a helmet religiously (skydiving and motorcycling)...
I don't get flu shots...
I don't use an RSL...

Why no flu shot?
Because they only protect you from a few common strains which are usually picked out as an educated guess by vacine proveders.

Why no RSL?
They add complication to a relatively straight forward process.

Does this mean I am "not safe". Nope, it means I educated myself to the pros and cons of each item and made an informed decision. People should be free to make these decisions according to their own priorities. While I support and endorse the use of seat belts and helmet, they also do have drawbacks beyond the scope of this thread and I would not presume to label someone as "unsafe" because their decision process led them to another conclusion than mine.


AFFI  (D 25538)

Nov 4, 2005, 10:02 AM
Post #5 of 110 (2748 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

Personally I teach that skydivers should utilize an RSL device unless they are very experienced and have a compelling reason to not utilize one. My philosophy is against a skydiver with 30 jumps utilizing a reserve deployment pillow in lieu of a metal D-ring or jumping a high performance canopy before they are ready.

Unfortunately when I advise skydivers new to the sport someone else with a rating or position at the DZ advises them to the contrary. I have been witness to AFFIís suggesting that a new jumper (-100jumps) use a reserve pillow or not learn how to pack a pilot chute or not use an RSL or improperly train students how to properly perform EPís or take students out in unsafe conditions ALL THE TIME! And have been witness to an S&TA tell someone with -90 jumps it was ok to fly a Stiletto (loaded at over 1:1).

Itís easy to fall into the complacency trap even though the fact remains - it is very easy to get killed skydiving. Just because we donít see it very often we donít have regular reminders how violent skydive accidents can be. The ones I have witnessed were very violent and placed into my mind a deeper respect for the potential ramifications of this sport when we make mistakes.

So what can I do?
All I can by constantly planting seeds into the minds of these inexperienced skydivers, and I have learned it does not do any good to try and graft ideas into the closed minds of the ďexpertsĒ because they know it allÖ


flyangel2

Nov 4, 2005, 10:04 AM
Post #6 of 110 (2744 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
RSL's would have probably prevented both of those fatalities

So would have properly performed emergency procedures.

At the proper alt.


goose491  (A 7123)

Nov 4, 2005, 10:16 AM
Post #7 of 110 (2731 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tbrown] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Aside from camera jumpers and CRW Dogs, most excuses for not using a RSL sound like the same excuses people use for not wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Or getting flu shots.

I'm surprised to hear this from you tbrown. I'm not arguing against using one if you do, but comparing them to helmets, seatbelts and airbags is not very accurate.

I had a CYPRES for most of my jumps (haven't used one for this season), and I considered it to be like an airbag or a seatbelt. That is, set it correctly and forget it. Do not do things differently because you have it.

With the RSL however, there are some very real, very good considerations to be made. Right off the top of my head:

-Canopy wrap or entanglement
-High Altitude premature deployment

Are two scenarios where a connected RSL must be disconnected before chopping. I think they weigh in much heavier then the few cases you can find of a seatbelt or a helmet causing more harm then good too.

For me, there was a choice, a tradeoff. A few extra things to consider if I need to chop vs. a little piece of mind for if I'm wishy washy on my harddeck. I opted not to complicate things and re-allocate that extra brain power towards remembering my harddeck.


Premier Remster  (C License)

Nov 4, 2005, 10:21 AM
Post #8 of 110 (2724 views)
Shortcut
Re: [flyangel2] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
RSL's would have probably prevented both of those fatalities

So would have properly performed emergency procedures.

At the proper alt.

Agreed... Thats part of the proper procedures.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Nov 4, 2005, 10:25 AM
Post #9 of 110 (2717 views)
Shortcut
Re: [goose491] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

Are you suggesting cutting away a good canopy since it openned premature at a high altitude?

Or am I just missing some info on why that wouldn't be a good scene for an RSL?


Andy9o8  (D License)

Nov 4, 2005, 10:27 AM
Post #10 of 110 (2713 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
RSL's would have probably prevented both of those fatalities

So would have properly performed emergency procedures.
Thatís like saying a person might as well just go in if he doesn't properly perform his EPís, even if he has no good excuse for not doing so. Sorry, I donít buy it.
The 2 jumpers lost at WFFC were pretty experienced, and apparently just screwed up their EP's. It happens, and not just to newbies. They paid for it with their lives when RSLís might (in fact probably would) have saved them. That's not device dependence, it's just keeping it in your back pocket as one last chance.


Premier Remster  (C License)

Nov 4, 2005, 10:30 AM
Post #11 of 110 (2710 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The 2 jumpers lost at WFFC were pretty experienced, and apparently just screwed up their EP's. It happens, and not just to newbies. They paid for it with their lives when RSLís might (in fact probably would) have saved them. That's not device dependence, it's just keeping it in your back pocket as one last chance.

I guess our definitions of device dependency differ.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Nov 4, 2005, 10:53 AM
Post #12 of 110 (2692 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
The 2 jumpers lost at WFFC were pretty experienced, and apparently just screwed up their EP's. It happens, and not just to newbies. They paid for it with their lives when RSLís might (in fact probably would) have saved them. That's not device dependence, it's just keeping it in your back pocket as one last chance.

I guess our definitions of device dependency differ.

Apparently they do. To me, merely having an RSL on your rig is not, in and of itself, dependency on it. To me, dependency is what might make you hesitate after you chop, and delay pulling silver, because you expect the RSL to do it for you. That's a bad thing, but the solution to that is training, not removal of it from the rig. But if you have an RSL, but train yourself to ignore it when you have to chop and pull silver as if you don't have one, you're not "dependent" on it.

We all hope we never brain fart and fight a spinner down to 500' before chopping, or do something foolish to induce spinning line twists at 500', or have a mal and for whatever reason have such a hard pull on our cutaway handle we canít pop it until 500'. But if we do, an RSL may make the difference between whether we skydive The Farm, or buy it.


(This post was edited by Andy9o8 on Nov 4, 2005, 11:06 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 4, 2005, 12:48 PM
Post #13 of 110 (2625 views)
Shortcut
Re: [goose491] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

>but comparing them to helmets, seatbelts and airbags is not very accurate.

I think it's quite accurate. Some drivers claim they don't use seatbelts so they "can be thrown clear of the accident instead of burning to death." And indeed that has happened a few times. Similarly, some people claim to not want RSL's because they want to get stable before they open their reserve. And a few people _have_ been killed by not getting stable under small reserves.

The question is - is that a wise decision in either case? Up to each person.

>-Canopy wrap or entanglement

An extremely rare incident on non-CRW loads

>-High Altitude premature deployment

You don't need to cut away from such a happening. We've even had people who had premature reserve openings at 25,000 feet - they landed just fine without cutting anything away.


Premier Remster  (C License)

Nov 4, 2005, 1:05 PM
Post #14 of 110 (2618 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
To me, dependency is what might make you hesitate after you chop, and delay pulling silver, because you expect the RSL to do it for you.

To me depending on a piece of equipment to do the job that could be taken care of by proper procedure is device dependency. Its needing a AAD, or RSL, or any other non-essential peice of equipment to feel and be safe.

What you described is what I would call fucking up in a big way.


goose491  (A 7123)

Nov 4, 2005, 1:34 PM
Post #15 of 110 (2590 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Are you suggesting cutting away a good canopy since it openned premature at a high altitude?


I am. Given the right (read: wrong) circumstances.

One must consider that given a certain sized canopy, if he/she was to have a premature out the door on a high enough altitude pass, then he/she could not even spiral down fast enough to avoid passing out from lack of oxygen... and staying out long enough to cause brain injury. Again, that being under a big enough canopy.

The cold is another issue or course.


Jeff.Donohue  (C 36419)

Nov 4, 2005, 1:34 PM
Post #16 of 110 (2590 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tbrown] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Aside from camera jumpers and CRW Dogs....

I'm curious about this statement. I could understand the logic as to why CRW jumpers might not want a RSL, but why would the same be true of camera jumpers?

Keeping in mind my low jump numbers (and my expectation to keep jumping a RSL -- or Skyhook RSL -- long after I'm off student status), can someone explain why a camera-flier wouldn't want one?


(This post was edited by Jeff.Donohue on Nov 4, 2005, 1:35 PM)


tr027  (D License)

Nov 4, 2005, 1:36 PM
Post #17 of 110 (2580 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
To me depending on a piece of equipment to do the job that could be taken care of by proper procedure is device dependency. Its needing a AAD, or RSL, or any other non-essential peice of equipment to feel and be safe.

What you described is what I would call fucking up in a big way.

Well, if Mr. Booth at RWS admittedly uses each and every nonessential piece of safety equipment (he mentioned he needs all the help he can get in regards to safety) and is therefore 'device dependent', I think it's okay for us less experienced folks too. For me, I don't feel any more or less safe when I jump without them for short term, but over the long run I do prefer to have them.


AndyMan  (D 25698)

Nov 4, 2005, 1:38 PM
Post #18 of 110 (2569 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So would have properly performed emergency procedures.

So what?

When somebody crashes their car, gets ejected through the front window and run over by a dump truck, we don't say "Avoiding the accident would have saved his life".

We call him a dumbass and a redneck for not wearing his seatbelt.

No difference.

_Am


goose491  (A 7123)

Nov 4, 2005, 1:50 PM
Post #19 of 110 (2556 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>but comparing them to helmets, seatbelts and airbags is not very accurate.

I think it's quite accurate. Some drivers claim they don't use seatbelts so they "can be thrown clear of the accident instead of burning to death." And indeed that has happened a few times.

I know this has happened before. I also know of a freak case where because a driver was not buckled up, he ended up sliding into the small area meant for his legs when his car rolled. The roof of the vehicle was smashed down all the way to the seat! Surely, if he was buckled up, he would have been crushed. As it was, he waited curled up in a ball until the fire dept could cut him free.

So?

So this is why I added: "I think they (cons of RSL use) weigh in much heavier then the few cases you can find of a seatbelt or a helmet causing more harm then good too. ".

A canopy wrap is something that can and does occure. When it does, it is not nearly as "freak" an occurance as someone being thrown from a car wreck and living. Premature deployments can and do occur, and when they do they are not nearly as "freak" an occurance as my car wreck example above.

Just "getting away from the main before deploying my reserve" would be as silly a reason for not jumping one as "wanting to be thrown from a car wreck so as not to burn alive".....

But not wanting to have to take the time to disconnect an RSL during a wrap, or a premature deployment at high altitude are not. Nor is the desire to deploy the reserve stable.

1) pull
2) pull at correct altitude
3) pull stable at correct altitude

Nick


goose491  (A 7123)

Nov 4, 2005, 1:54 PM
Post #20 of 110 (2553 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>-Canopy wrap or entanglement

An extremely rare incident on non-CRW loads


Still a bigger fear of mine then say, the loss of altitude awarness during an emergency.

1)pull
2)pull at correct altitude
3)pull at correct altitude, stable


Reginald  (D 28162)

Nov 4, 2005, 2:12 PM
Post #21 of 110 (2543 views)
Shortcut
Re: [goose491] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
For me, there was a choice, a tradeoff.
In reply to:

It is a choice we all have to make and I applaud you for making one. Personally, I think you miscalculated the risks and rewards of both and came to the wrong conclusion. The drawbacks of an RSL are very, very minor compared to the benefits for everyone but camera guys, CRW dogs and people flying tiny HP canopies (Iím an advocate of skyhooks for HP canopies, however I am not an advocate of RSL for them)

An RSL is not there for when things go right and a person does what they are supposed to when they are supposed to do it. It is there for when things have gone horribly wrong, which can happen to smart, experienced, properly trained skydivers. It can happen to anyone. If it ever happens to me Iíd like the extra security of a skyhook or an AAD (both of which I own). I never plan on using them, they wontí change my behavior but the benefits of both far outweigh the drawbacks of them.


Premier Remster  (C License)

Nov 4, 2005, 2:13 PM
Post #22 of 110 (2541 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AndyMan] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So what?

Fine. RSL are great subsitutes for proper emergency procedures... Crazy

Happy?


Ron

Nov 4, 2005, 2:32 PM
Post #23 of 110 (2525 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There were 2 incident reports of fatalities due to low cutaways and late reserve pulls. RSL's would have probably prevented both of those fatalities.

And proper emergency procedures would have saved them also.


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Nov 4, 2005, 2:33 PM
Post #24 of 110 (2524 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
To me depending on a piece of equipment to do the job that could be taken care of by proper procedure is device dependency. It's needing a AAD, or RSL, or any other non-essential peice of equipment to feel and be safe.

And using that piece of equipment as insurance for the time that you didn't execute the procedure properly -- where does that fit? The gentleman who died a couple of years ago at WFFC had a number of cutaways and had done fine with them. He's the main reason I put the RSL back on my rig; I'm not immune from mistakes, either.

And if I ever cut away low enough for the RSL to be the reason I'm OK, well, then I fucked up.

In computer terms, device dependence is when the normal (defined however you want it) operation requires a particular device. I'm device dependent on a parachute. Using the tetrahedron or windsock at the airport means you're device dependent on that. If one slacks off on EP practice because of the RSL or Cypres, one is device dependent.

We've defined some things as being better to be dependent on (windsocks, parachutes) than others (Cypri, RSL). And we're wrangling about whether device dependence on some of these mechanical aids is a good thing or a bad thing. Methinks that we can keep wrangling about it; the key is to making sure that students and up-jumpers are educated as to the pros and cons, and make their own decisions.

Of course, they won't all, and lots of us are proud enough to figure that if we thought of something, we must have considered all of the alternatives.

Damn that's a lot of pontificating. I guess the upshot is that it's best to consider most people's situations individually, and hope that they have considered their own individually.

Students don't count.

Wendy W.


Premier Remster  (C License)

Nov 4, 2005, 2:41 PM
Post #25 of 110 (2520 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I'm not immune from mistakes, either.

Nor am I.

But I would rather people concentrate on making sure their EP are revised, rehersed, practiced, and understood, rather then slapping a RSL on.

RSL are not evil. But they are another layer of gear complexity that as an experienced skydiver, you (general you, noy you directly Wendy) should evaluate as such, and make a personal decision on wether or not to wear one.


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

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)