Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules

 

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

2fat2fly  (A License)

Nov 8, 2006, 4:56 AM
Post #1 of 41 (2940 views)
Shortcut
Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules Can't Post

I hate to see "FAA" and "Skydive" in the same article

http://www.aero-news.net/...8a-a67b9a8db5a0&


Mostly_Harmless  (C 35480)

Nov 8, 2006, 5:05 AM
Post #2 of 41 (2919 views)
Shortcut
Re: [2fat2fly] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

It says Kramers chute wasn't deployed. Didn't she cutaway from her main?


Peej  (B 2456)

Nov 8, 2006, 5:17 AM
Post #3 of 41 (2901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [2fat2fly] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Agreed.

But this statement kinda bothers me: "For some reason, she did not deploy her main parachute." She was in a swooping competition, i'm pretty sure she would have had to at least try to deploy her main in order to compete (?) *shaking head*


BIGUN  (D 23385)

Nov 8, 2006, 5:29 AM
Post #4 of 41 (2884 views)
Shortcut
Re: [2fat2fly] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

The ramblings of an anonymous author that can't even get the facts straight and then references another article as the source doesn't lend much credence with me.


2fat2fly  (A License)

Nov 8, 2006, 5:33 AM
Post #5 of 41 (2872 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BIGUN] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

What bothered me is that it's an aviation news site and the line about the "FAA considering". I used to have a friend there that would at least give me a call and ask if the info sounded right but he's gone.


ntacfreefly

Nov 8, 2006, 6:57 AM
Post #6 of 41 (2740 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It says Kramers chute wasn't deployed. Didn't she cutaway from her main?

Yes, she had a malfunction on the main (a spinner I believe but I dont know if it was attributed to tension knots or a line over, or simple linetwists) and deployed her reserve.

That article only really got one thing right (that she passed away), the rest about not deploying the main or unusually small reserve is utter BS.

Blues,
Ian


(This post was edited by ntacfreefly on Nov 8, 2006, 6:57 AM)


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Nov 8, 2006, 7:01 AM
Post #7 of 41 (2719 views)
Shortcut
Re: [2fat2fly] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

That is not a primary source of information. To Be Ignored.


Spizzzarko

Nov 8, 2006, 7:23 AM
Post #8 of 41 (2672 views)
Shortcut
Re: [2fat2fly] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

All of you should provide feedback to the editor of the article telling him or her to get their facts straight before printing dis-information such as this.


BIGUN  (D 23385)

Nov 8, 2006, 7:24 AM
Post #9 of 41 (2666 views)
Shortcut
Re: [2fat2fly] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
What bothered me is that it's an aviation news site and the line about the "FAA considering".

If you have genuine concerns about the "FAA considering" or as the article reads; placing regulations on swoopers, our best resource for information regarding the FAA has been the USPA. They do a great job of interfacing with the FAA. In fact, it was their efforts that got us the TSA letter regarding parachutes on aircraft.

My suggestion would be to fire off an email with the link to the article and let them determine if there's any validity to the statements.


Airgump  (D 29909)

Nov 8, 2006, 11:36 AM
Post #10 of 41 (2361 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BIGUN] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

below is a response from the editor of the AV rag that posted the article. The editor didn't even have the couth to sign his or her name. i really like how the press can work off these 'imperfect' wire reports and pass along the disinformation that they know nothing about.

editor's e-mail is editor@aero-news.net
------------------------------------------------------------

Dave.

We're working off wire reports, as imperfect as they may be. but before you get REALLY insulting and truly create a negative issue rather than a conduit
for info, why don't you give me a call. if you can be polite about it. I've gotten three notes about this story. a fairly low number for any story, all
from jumpers and they've been nasty, threatening and insulting - one was threatening. hardly a proper endorsement for rationality and sensibility for
the skydiving community.
-----------------------------------------------------------


Spizzzarko

Nov 8, 2006, 12:00 PM
Post #11 of 41 (2326 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Airgump] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

To whom it may concern,

I am writing you to inform you that your article on the death of Marianne Kramer is grossly mis-informative. You have several facts of the matter blatantly wrong. The main parachute was deployed and malfunctioned. The reserve parachute was subsequently deployed and there was a malfunction of it causing her death. Please get your facts straight before speculating on issues such as this.


//Signed//
Grant S. Adams


Above is what I sent the editor. I do not think this is nasty threatening or insulting.


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Nov 8, 2006, 12:00 PM
Post #12 of 41 (2324 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Airgump] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

See, this is EXACTLY why you should step away from your keyboard before sending an email to the press for anything. This is a very small article and they only had a small portion of the story wrong but people still went off the deep end over it.

If you ever need to send a letter to the press its a good idea to have it reviewed first and go for the most calm tone possible.


2fat2fly  (A License)

Nov 8, 2006, 12:06 PM
Post #13 of 41 (2311 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Play nice, this is the same group who's articles on Gold Coast Skydiving's issues with the airport were fair and unbiased. We don't get much support from the GA community-try not to alienate those that are willing to hear our side.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 8, 2006, 12:29 PM
Post #14 of 41 (2279 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Spizzzarko] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

>I do not think this is nasty threatening or insulting.

It was pretty insulting; if you received a similar email I suspect you would think it was as well.


Samurai136  (D 26609)

Nov 8, 2006, 2:04 PM
Post #15 of 41 (2173 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Half-Cocked is fun though...

Interesting that the original link to the Aviation Mag article has a tiny clicky link on the bottom to canopypiloting dot com.Unimpressed

Click on that link and see November first article "Wet parachute blamed in death" ,on CP dot com, which is a copy of a separate article. The aviation magazine appears to be using as a source.

Quote:
FAA Investigator Bob Hoffer said Kramer had splashed into the water during her previous landings, soaking her equipment a possible catalyst for equipment malfunction.

Parachute manufacturers go nuts when they hear wet chute, Hoffer said.

Swoopers intentionally use smaller chutes for competitiveness, Hoffer said, but Kramers reserve was woefully inadequate for her weight. He has recommended that competitive events establish standards to prevent a similar mishap, something a FAA panel in Washington is considering.

Maybe we should give a shout out to USPA BOD and see if they know anything about this?Angelic


ryoder  (D 6663)

Nov 8, 2006, 7:36 PM
Post #16 of 41 (1932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

I have had the misfortune of having had personal experience with the editor of that site. He formerly ran a hardcopy aviation rag. Rather than elaborate, I will point you to the websites about him authored by two others who have also had encounters with him:

http://www.wanttaja.com/zguide.htm

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html

Edited to add: You can also pull up Usenet articles about him by searching the group rec.aviation.homebuilt for any article with a string of Z's in the Subject line. (e.g "ZZZ"). That is their way of flagging a thread so people only interested in homebuilt aircraft can filter it out.


(This post was edited by ryoder on Nov 8, 2006, 7:41 PM)


sundevil777  (D License)

Nov 8, 2006, 8:33 PM
Post #17 of 41 (1893 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ryoder] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

He's the editor of that whole site?

That sucks!


Vectracide  (D License)

Nov 8, 2006, 11:37 PM
Post #18 of 41 (1830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It was pretty insulting; if you received a similar email I suspect you would think it was as well.

Are you friggin serious? If you are, that would be taking political correctness to a WHOLE new level, considering the inaccuracies at hand.


Vectracide  (D License)

Nov 8, 2006, 11:42 PM
Post #19 of 41 (1827 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Airgump] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

What absolutely blows me away, is that if you are a jumper yourself, and had ANY idea on the fact surrounding her death (IE THIS SITE), and you ALLOWED this misinformation to be published..........you are not a skydiver in my logbook any day of the week.

Yeah, working off wire reports.....great resource that is huh. Why don't you just start a rumor at one end of the trailer park and publish what comes out the end.Crazy


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 9, 2006, 8:52 AM
Post #20 of 41 (1680 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Vectracide] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

>Are you friggin serious? If you are, that would be taking political
> correctness to a WHOLE new level, considering the inaccuracies at
> hand.

Geez, I didn't say it should be illegal, just that it was insulting. You can say exactly the same thing in a more civilized manner - and thus increase the odds of it being listened to.

If you accidentally spray your hose over your neighbor's fence, and get his wife wet, and he comes over and says "Hey, fuckhead, why the fuck don't you take some lessons in how to aim a hose before you hurt yourself with a watergun?" I suspect you'd be less likely to listen to him than if he said "hey, you got us wet, please try to avoid that."


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Nov 10, 2006, 8:18 AM
Post #21 of 41 (1401 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Samurai136] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe we should give a shout out to USPA BOD and see if they know anything about this?Angelic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

At least one USPA Director knows about this accident.

Three months ago, USPA Director DJan asked me what I thought of jumping wet reserves.
I just stroked my grey beard and said something about riggers knowing that it was a bad habit 30 years ago.


llkenziell  (A License)

Nov 10, 2006, 3:10 PM
Post #22 of 41 (1292 views)
Shortcut
Re: [2fat2fly] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Thats so frustrating that they're turning this whole ordeal into an issue with the reserve and canopy when it clearly stated that the just didn't open her main. I can understand if something occured because she deployed and the canopy messed up... but by going into this whole regulation thing just because she simply did not pull.... that's not a good thing to base this argument on.


Spizzzarko

Nov 10, 2006, 3:18 PM
Post #23 of 41 (1289 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Allright there Bill. You need to ask yourself if you actually wanted to read my response to teh editor as being negative or not. If you had any thoughts that my response was going to be insulting or threatening before you read the thing then I'm sure you could have construed what I wrote to be so. What i wrote was very simple and to the point, and not meant to be insulting threatening, or any of that other jibberish. This post is not insulting threatening either, so don't look at it as such. Would you suggest I use more smileys from now on?SmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmile

I hope you are not insulted...

Kisses


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 10, 2006, 11:59 PM
Post #24 of 41 (1218 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Spizzzarko] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

OK, let's look at this from a different angle. Let's say you personally witnessed someone have a heart attack under canopy, and watched them die during the resulting uncontrolled landing. You then sent USPA what you considered to be an accurate account of what happened. Then USPA replied with:

------------------
I am writing you to inform you that your report on the incident of Oct 10th is grossly mis-informative. You have several facts of the matter blatantly wrong. The jumper had paroxysmal atrial tachycardia, not a "heart attack.". There was no ischemia or infarction as there would be during a true MI. Please get your facts straight before speculating on issues such as this.
--------------

How would you take that?

If you would take that as a friendly constructive note, then my bad - ignore my reply.


brettski74  (C 3197)

Nov 11, 2006, 3:42 AM
Post #25 of 41 (1196 views)
Shortcut
Re: [llkenziell] Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Thats so frustrating that they're turning this whole ordeal into an issue with the reserve and canopy when it clearly stated that the just didn't open her main. I can understand if something occured because she deployed and the canopy messed up... but by going into this whole regulation thing just because she simply did not pull.... that's not a good thing to base this argument on.

The statement that she didn't deploy anything is false. Witnesses reported watching her main canopy fall away, so clearly she did deploy her main. I haven't seen the actual FAA report, but there have been media reports which refer to it which talk about the following points:

  • Kramer was conscious just after impact and spoke of tension knots in her reserve

  • The FAA report mentions a number of entangled lines on the reserve

  • They were unable to determine the cause of malfunction of her main

  • At least one FAA official has been quoted in the media as saying that her "reserve also was inadequate for her weight. "

    Before you go commenting further, you may wish to read about the incident in the incident thread. It includes a number of comments from people who were actually there, as well as information from the FAA report. Your statement contains exactly the kind of confusion resulting from misinformation that earlier posters were worried about.


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

    Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

     


    Search for (options)