dragon2 0 #26 July 22, 2003 QuoteI didn't see any that were not either: a) Gear malfunction, death on horizontal surface or b) Off heading opening, death on vertical surface I suggest you read better... #8 ,#9 and #28 for instance were freefall object strikes... ciel bleu, Saskia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #27 July 22, 2003 Other things to consider are landing area or lack of one, winds (so much more important then in skydiving), guide wires on A's, security on B's, probible river currents on S's, object strikes on all of them, the list goes on and on.... Remember most BASE is in the middle of the night and things look different then. Interesting is to hear how many jumpers take wire rides or break legs on rough terrian, take a swim with their rigs or have to freefall extra low to avoid being blown back into an object.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #28 July 22, 2003 You're right about the other dangers, but in my mind, and based on the portion of the BASE deaths page I read (I didn't read the whole list), it doesn't seem like they significantly overshadow the risk of gear failure. I still noticed MANY incidents due to gear failure at a few hundred feet. Had that been 3000 feet with a reserve canopy, the jumper would have presumably been fine. The ONLY point I'm trying to make is that low altitude is a significant risk, and much more unforgiving of rigging errors. You could then blame those deaths on "rigging error", but the rigging error is so much more dangerous at low altitudes! Someone made a statement that low altitude was not significant compared to the other risks, but in the portion of the list I read it accounted for 30-40%. If normal skydivers had no reserves, packed BASE rigs, and always opened low, the fatality rate would go up exponentially, regardless of how much care is put into packing mains, because malfunctions are bound to happen, and a double canopy system can increase your chances of survival exponentially (excluding entanglement issues, etc).www.WingsuitPhotos.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DexterBase 0 #29 July 22, 2003 Sounds to me like you're comfort level lies closer to the skydiving arena. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm still not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #30 July 22, 2003 I'm trying to accomplish understanding. I stumbled across a BASE msg board this morning, read a post saying that risk of gear failing was "completely overshadowed" by other dangers in BASE jumping. I found that hard to believe, so I asked why. After finding a fatalities page in which a huge portion of the incidents are due to gear failure, I feel I can slightly more informedly maintain my opinion that gear failure is a significant risk that is not completely overshadowed by anything, though there may very well be many more risks in parallel.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DexterBase 0 #31 July 22, 2003 I think it's becoming obvious that I'm feeding a troll, so I'll stop posting to this thread. The111, I think the explanation I offered was sufficient and you misread that statement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #32 July 22, 2003 Maybe I misread it a little, and maybe you misworded it a little. I'm honestly not trying to troll, and maybe it is due to my skydiving background as you pointed out, but I really did feel like you put too little importance on the danger of gear failure in any freefall activity, specifically at low altitudes or with no reserve. Let's just agree to agree that gear failure may not be the most dangerous part of BASE jumping, but compared to normal skydiving, BASE jumping is significantly more dangerous even if you consider ONLY gear issues (and being a skydiver, these are the issues I would think of first). The other non-gear issues stacked on top of that only make it doubly more dangerous.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dd0g 0 #33 July 22, 2003 Quote Personally, I'd be willing to freefall a 200' building on proper gear long before I'd take any skydiving rig off any object, under any conditions. Admit it, you'd freefall that building in any case! I seem to remember a 210 foot building in A'dam and lots of tram wires in all directions. . . Peace, D-d0g+~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #34 July 22, 2003 Quoteit doesn't seem like they significantly overshadow the risk of gear failure Define what "gear failure" is in your mind. What you may consider to be a gear failure may not be in the eyes of others. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dd0g 0 #35 July 22, 2003 Hmm, not many fatalities in the past 5 years due to canopy "gear failure." A few PC problems (one a packing issue, one potentially a gear choice issue), and several instances of over-delaying while camera flying on one's back. Lots and lots of object strike under canopy. The statistics speak for themselves, really. Peace, D-d0g+~+~+~+~ But this, surely, was the glory that no spirits, canine or human, had ever clearly seen, the light that never was on land or sea, and yet is glimpsed by the quickened mind everywhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
QuickDraw 0 #36 July 22, 2003 Quotebut in my mind, and based on the portion of the BASE deaths page I read (I didn't read the whole list), it doesn't seem like they significantly overshadow the risk of gear failure. Are you a jounalist ? Quotebut in the portion of the list I read it accounted for 30-40%. If you had read some more would that figure have changed ? Quote and a double canopy system can increase your chances of survival exponentially It would double them. -- Hope you don't die. -- I'm fucking winning Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #37 July 22, 2003 QuoteIt would double them. Sorry, but this is one area where I can respond confidently. I'm not a journalist but I do understand basic probability. If one canopy has a 1/500 chance of failing (this is a dummy value, we could spend forever arguing what the real values of real canopies are), two canopies have a 1/250000 chance of both failing in the same jump. 1/500 * 1/500 OR (1/500)^2. NOT 1/500 + 1/500. QuoteQuotebut in the portion of the list I read it accounted for 30-40%. If you had read some more would that figure have changed ? QuoteThe statistics speak for themselves, really. I read the whole list. There are 72 numbered fatalities. As far as I can tell, 23 of them had nothing to do with the "BASE-nature" of the jump (i.e. cliffs, winds, wires, rivers, etc). These 23 incidents would have turned out exactly the same had the jumper exited an airplane over an open field at the altitude of his base jump. Their cause is primarily his low altitude and lack of reserve (and lack of time to open one!). They are listed on the page as 2, 10, 15, 17, 21, 22, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 67, 69, 71. Some of these may be open for debate, but it is my opinion based on my limited skydiving knowledge that had these jumpers been placed 3000 feet higher with a reserve canopy when their incident occured, they would have been able to escape alive with proper emergency procedures. I'm ready and waiting to be accused again of trolling, but all I've done is attempted to back up my previous opinions (that altitude, or lack thereof, is a significant BASE risk) with numbers.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
QuickDraw 0 #38 July 22, 2003 From my point of view, ie a low jump skydiver with no BASE jumps or experience, and the only technical knowledge being what i've read or asked, i see BASE as a discipline that is almost a form of art, the dynamics involved are obviously more critical, and the gear to some extent is low tech, and is kept that way because it means less can go wrong. The whole point (from my perspective) is about assessing an object, working out the maths, the approach, the landing, access, the equipment and the excitement of getting away with it, the fact that its low altitude is not really a valid parameter, as you work out your delay to your object and your abilities, and the jump itself is the middle of a complicated series of events. As for gear failure i think BASE jumpers are far more anal about their gear than skydivers, but as you rightly say its a one shot affair and to that extent skydiving maybe a safer option, but even so, it still has its own unique risks. At the top right of the BASE forum page Tom has put a link called "Getting into BASE" read it a few times. Btw.. why did you start skydiving ? because it was totally safe ? -- Hope you don't die. -- I'm fucking winning Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #39 July 22, 2003 QuoteBtw.. why did you start skydiving ? because it was totally safe ? Obviously not. I think skydiving and BASE jumping both have attractive elements, probably for the same reasons you or anyone else on this board do. I haven't tried BASE jumping yet and don't plan on it anytime soon, but it certainly does look attractive and maybe one day I will. I'm *not* trying to say "BASE jumpers are teh suck becuz they risk their lives", I'm just saying that the low altitude is a significant risk in the sport, or as you put it (maybe more accurately), it's a "one shot affair", where as with skydiving you get a second shot sometimes. Probably that's actually much more significant, as the 23 events I listed would have been prevented by a reserve AND higher altitude, not just higher altitude.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
QuickDraw 0 #40 July 22, 2003 QuoteI've done is attempted to back up my previous opinions (that altitude, or lack thereof, is a significant BASE risk) with numbers. So what is your suggestion ? this ? Quotebut it is my opinion based on my limited skydiving knowledge that had these jumpers been placed 3000 feet higher with a reserve canopy when their incident occured, they would have been able to escape alive with proper emergency procedures. I guess people should stop BASE jumping then. Although i'm sure the families of #'s 2, 10, 15, 17, 21, 22, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 67, 69, 71, are probebly talking to their solicitors right now after reading this bombshell. -- Hope you don't die. -- I'm fucking winning Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #41 July 22, 2003 2 - Rigging error 10 - Inexperience/Poor Equipment Choice 15 - Poor equipment choice 17 - Excessive Delay 21 - Equipment problem 22 - Equipment problem/Poor Equipment Choice 30 - Inexperience/Poor Equipment Choice 31 - Rigging error 33 - Excessive Delay 36 - Excessive Delay/Inexperience 37 - Excessive Delay/Inexperience 48 - Excessive Delay 49 - Unknown (note parachute was deployed) 51 - Inexperience/Poor Equipment Choice 52 - Poor Equipment Choice 53 - Pilot Error 56 - Excessive Delay 57 - Equipment Problem (possibly) 60 - Excessive Delay 61 - Equipment Problem (possible rigging error) 67 - Equipment Problem 69 - Equipment Problem 71 - Rigging Error I only count 6 that could arguably be due strictly to a malfunction of some sort (i.e. no rigging errors and proper gear selection). That's 1/12 of the incidents. Of the ones you listed, 7 were excessive delays, which have nothing to do with equipment failure. Another 6 were caused by inexperience or selection of equipment totally inappropriate for the jump. I wouldn't classify those as malfuctions or failures. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rfarris 1 #42 July 22, 2003 Rfarris is right about wing loading.Quote If I may step in here for a minute.... I have to say the only thing I am right about pertaining to high wing loading and swooping is how it relates to ME, and my personal opinions or beliefs on the subject of which sport is more dangerous. RIGHT, I believe RFarris would be in more danger swooping a highly loaded canopy with the associated hook turns, carves, corners, plane outs, run outs, etc..., than I am jumping off my tower(s). The original question of "Which is more dangerous" maybe should have been asked, Which sport is most dangerous to you? But please yall continue. I'm learning a thing or two about statistics and probability here Rod FW#1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #43 July 23, 2003 A death caused by rigging error is related to the low altitude single-canopy (one chance only) nature of the BASE jump. Rigging errors are inevitable, no one is perfect. With a chance to pull a second canopy though, you have increased your safety a lot. Poor equipment choice is also related to low altitude... I understand your point that had they chosen better equipment their incident would not have happened... but in that specific case, I see the ultimate killer as low altitude, because with low altitude comes the requirement of more stringent gear selection (hence risk). As far as excessive delay... this is the most obviously related to low altitude... a delay that is 5 seconds too long in a BASE jump can be certain death, a delay that is 5 seconds too long in a skydive is a low deployment probably. I didn't say all my selected cases were definitely malfunctions, I chose them because they were not related to non-altitude variables (cliffs, winds, rivers, etc). All of them would have probably turned out exactly the same from a low plane, but possibly turned out much better from a high plane. Looking at those conditions the deciding factor in my mind is altitude... BUT I can see how it is actually possible to see this issue from two sides. If you take the low altitude as a given, then the gear selection is the deciding factor, which is your perspective. But since I was originally debating whether or not low altitude is a risk, I cannot take that as a given.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #44 July 23, 2003 QuoteI guess people should stop BASE jumping then. I already said the point of my post was NOT to say that BASE jumping = bad...www.WingsuitPhotos.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #45 July 23, 2003 QuoteIf you take the low altitude as a given, then the gear selection is the deciding factor, which is your perspective. But since I was originally debating whether or not low altitude is a risk, I cannot take that as a given. In BASE low altitude is a given. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #46 July 23, 2003 >In BASE low altitude is a given. And in many instances desired...Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #47 July 23, 2003 QuoteIn BASE low altitude is a given. Yeh, but we were comparing BASE to general skydiving, where altitude varies. The original point was whether or not the low altitude of BASE makes it much more dangerous than regular skydiving. I still think it does (not so much the altitude, but the inability to recover from a single malfunction or late pull or slow opening), in addition to the many other things which make it dangerous.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 0 #48 July 23, 2003 High is a relative term. Jump from 1700 feet, then fall for 10 or 11 seconds you're not up high any more. In skydiving 1700 feet is not very high. In BASE it's pretty darn significant. I would never jump a skydiving rig off any fixed object no matter how tall it is, especially knowing what BASE specific gear is available today. Unless you come watch how to set up a BASE rig, it will make no sense. C-yaMy grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #49 July 23, 2003 Quote(And yet, "Parachutist" magazine actively encourages people to swoop, by promoting the swoop competitions around the globe. And they censor BASE!!?? Whatup with that sh-t?) No shit. Ironic how Skydiving magazine covers BASE, but Parachutist won't. Dicks. Skydiving magazine kicks ass. Parachutist suck. Good photos, though."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #50 July 23, 2003 QuoteI'm not a journalist but I do understand basic probability. If one canopy has a 1/500 chance of failing (this is a dummy value, we could spend forever arguing what the real values of real canopies are), two canopies have a 1/250000 chance of both failing in the same jump. 1/500 * 1/500 OR (1/500)^2. NOT 1/500 + 1/500. I do belive that you DONT understand.But if you have knowleged that we dont have,then please tell... so when we freefall 200ft we should cut our main,and pull the reserve?sorry,it wont work... please see my latest video were i freefall 200ft(sorry Blair,i only used the breakcord in 400ft but promice that that S is mine as i get home from my trip to come),there are even a high pull (400ft aprox 2sec delay,im not even sure i would cut a main and pull a reserve there.. ftp://207.189.27.51/public/BASE/Faberlow.mpg When you (the111)has seen it then please tell me were i had the time to cut a main,pull a reserve and get it over my head... USE BASE GEAR FOR BASE,AND SKYDIVE GEAR FOR SKYDIVE,that simple.. ohh to the guy on this board that freefalled a 150ft Cliff.. hmm damn.. respect i dont get my fat ass freefalling under 200ft..haha Stay safe Stefan Faber Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
