Re: [crutch] Fatality - Delphi, IN - 3 - August 2008

[divnswoop 0]

We are missing the big picture here. Every RSL fatality starts with one thing. If we removed this, there would never be another RSL death and I for one don't want to see another.

It is the parachute. ....parachutes have been killing people for years and I am tired of it. These deaths might be an acceptable loss to some, but not me. Some may view it as a safety device used to save your life while falling towards the ground, but as soon as I point out that it has been involved in over 110 fatatities in the past 6 years, Everybody wants to defend it. Well, not me. I personally have lost 21 friends due to these death machines while only loosing one due to an RSL. You may think these deaths are acceptable, but we need to do something NOW to prevent these deaths.

[likearock 1]

Quote

Very few RSL deployments would an RSL have helped the jumper.

How can you possibly know that? When an RSL saves a skydiver's ass, it doesn't necessarily get reported.

Quote

Far more often, the RSL makes things worse by activating the reserve while the jumper is unstable.

DV

Not true. While there's no denying that there are instances when the RSL activating for an unstable jumper has resulted in injury or death, the number of instances where RSLs could have prevented an injury or death after a low cutaway is much greater.

That said, there are definitely instances where RSLs should not be used: CRW and highly loaded HP canopies being two of them.

[billvon 2,384]

>Very few RSL deployments would an RSL have helped the jumper.

I can think of at least one where the jumper would have been dead without it, and at least four cases where a fatality would have been avoided by use of an RSL.

>Far more often, the RSL makes things worse by activating the reserve
>while the jumper is unstable.

99.9% of the time this isn't a problem.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Very few RSL deployments would an RSL have helped the jumper. Far more often, the RSL makes things worse by activating the reserve while the jumper is unstable.

Since I find this statement to be highly inaccurate, I'd like to know what definition of "unstable" you are using.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

How can you possibly know that?

Because most skydivers are able to take proper timely action in response to a malfunction.

Quote

Not true. While there's no denying that there are instances when the RSL activating for an unstable jumper has resulted in injury or death, the number of instances where RSLs could have prevented an injury or death after a low cutaway is much greater.

That does not mean the RSL is a good system.

DV

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I can think of at least one where the jumper would have been dead without it, and at least four cases where a fatality would have been avoided by use of an RSL.

Are you thinking of Van Horn's cutaway? I think that a proper fitted and adjusted harness as well as tension being released once he cutaway would have made finding the reserve handle possible. Also, what if it would have shifted the other direction? He would have been able to find his cutaway handle. Then what?

An airbag system for cars that deployed the bag if the brakes were locked up would save many more people than it killed, but that does not mean it would be a good system. This is because the airbag would deploy even if you did not hit anything. The sensor that detects an impact and deploys the airbag means that airbags don't deploy unless you actually hit something. The RSL deploys the reserve PC immediately after the riser releases, regardless if you need it to or not.

The RSL and a sensor-less airbag system both save [would save] more people than they [would] kill, but simply looking at the numbers is not enough to say if it is a good system or not.

If it was possible and didn't over complicate the gear too much, adding a sensor to detect altitude and then a device that 'armed' the RSL at 750-ish feet AGL, then it would be a much better system. Combined with an AAD, it would be a very safe rig.

DV

[billvon 2,384]

>Are you thinking of Van Horn's cutaway? I think that a proper fitted and
>adjusted harness as well as tension being released once he cutaway would
>have made finding the reserve handle possible.

Yep. And had he not had a mal, it wouldn't have been an issue to begin with. Any accident is the result of several errors - RSL's help break that chain.

>An airbag system for cars that deployed the bag if the brakes were locked
> up would save many more people than it killed, but that does not mean it
>would be a good system. This is because the airbag would deploy even if
>you did not hit anything.

Agreed. But RSL's do not deploy the reserve if you "hit the brakes hard" (i.e. use a control input normally used during parachuting.) They deploy the reserve if you cut away from most mals no matter what the situation. The equivalent would be airbags that fired during any collision.

>If it was possible and didn't over complicate the gear too much, adding a
>sensor to detect altitude and then a device that 'armed' the RSL at 750-ish
>feet AGL, then it would be a much better system. Combined with an AAD, it
>would be a very safe rig.

I can think of two people at Rantoul who would have been saved by an RSL but would have died had they had that system.

One of the best things about the RSL, in my opinion, is simplicity.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Agreed. But RSL's do not deploy the reserve if you "hit the brakes hard" (i.e. use a control input normally used during parachuting.) They deploy the reserve if you cut away from most mals no matter what the situation. The equivalent would be airbags that fired during any collision.

I disagree and think that RSL's are like an airbag firing if you lock up the brakes. All the system knows is that you are in a panic stop situation, not whether or not you are actually going to hit anything or really need the airbags.

This is the problem with RSL's. They are great if you are low or unable to pull your reserve or fail to pull your reserve. But they are bad if you have plenty of altitude and are able and do pull your reserve in plenty of time. All the RSL 'knows' is that you have released the riser it is attached to. The RSL doesn't know the difference and fires either way, even if you do not need or want it to. It cannot differentiate between needing the RSL and not needing it. It just activates the reserve PC, even if will do more harm than good.

Airbags are great if you are in a collision they fire, if you are not, they don't. They only fire if you actually need them, i.e. a hard hit.

If RSL's on worked when you needed them to, they would be great, same as airbags. Airbags have a sensor, RSL's don't. Airbags differentiate between the driver taking a specific action, i.e., locking the brakes and actually hitting something.

If airbags deployed even when you didn't need them to ,i.e. brakes locked up, but not actually hit anything, they wouldn't be in widespread use, even though they would save more people than they would kill. Saving more people than they kill does not necessarily make it a good system.

DV

[billvon 2,384]

>I disagree and think that RSL's are like an airbag firing if you lock up the brakes.

But RSL's don't do anything during normal operation of the rig. They only do something during a failure (and subsequent cutaway) of your main parachute. Hitting the brakes hard is not a failure (or collision.)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

But RSL's don't do anything during normal operation of the rig. They only do something during a failure (and subsequent cutaway) of your main parachute. Hitting the brakes hard is not a failure (or collision.)

The RSL deploys the reserve PC if the main is deployed (regardless if it is malfunctioning or not) and the jumper pulls the cutaway handle and the riser it is attached to releases. If the jumper pulls the cutaway handle the RSL activates the reserve PC. That is the same as firing the airbag if the brakes are locked up by the driver.

If you lock up the brakes, you may or may not need the airbag, no way to tell.

If you need the airbag, then you want them to fire. If you do not need the airbag, then you do not want it to fire. A collision sensor makes that determination for you.

If you cutaway, you may or may not need the RSL to activate your reserve, no way to tell. If you do not need the RSL, then you do not want it to work. If you need your RSL, then you want it to work. There is no sensor to tell the difference.

DV

[billvon 2,384]

>If you lock up the brakes, you may or may not need the airbag, no way to tell.

You don't need the airbag when you lock up the brakes. You MAY need the airbag if you are in a collision, no way to tell. So the comparison would be an airbag that fires during any collision, not just a severe one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You don't need the airbag when you lock up the brakes. You MAY need the airbag if you are in a collision, no way to tell. So the comparison would be an airbag that fires during any collision, not just a severe one.

OK, let's say it is the same as the airbag sensor not being able to tell how severe the collision is. A shopping cart rolling into the bumper will set off the airbags. Not a good system. I would not have that airbag system installed in any of my vehicles. That system could actually kill people instead of saving them. That system would still save far more people than it killed, but that does not mean it is a good system.

DV

[strop45 0]

Quote

If you need the airbag, then you want them to fire. If you do not need the airbag, then you do not want it to fire. A collision sensor makes that determination for you.

If you cutaway, you may or may not need the RSL to activate your reserve, no way to tell.

IMO your analogy isn't a good one. I agree that when you lock the brakes up, you may or may not need the airbags.

When you cut away you NEED to deploy your reserve, no if when or maybe. Your argument is primarily that you can deploy your reserve better/safer than an RSL will. Maybe/maybe not. There appear to incidents and examples to support both points of view, however there appear to be more examples where an RSL would help than where it would hurt.

The same type of arguments can be applied to most safety devices - you can generally find examples where the safety device poses a hazard. This usually isn't an argument for not using the safety device, just one for being aware of its limitations.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein

[ASTKU 1]

Just leave your RSL disconnected and stopping posting moronic analogies....

An airbag is a very precise tool that is used at the perfect moment when needed. I totalled a vehicle and never even remember seeing the airbag deployed. Its that fast. So if your airbag in your car went off when you jammed on the brakes it would probably never be helpful....

The previous poster had it correct. When you cutaway you NEED to get your Reserve out one way or another. An RSL does that automatically!!! For that reason I am keeping mine connected....

[ficus 0]

Quote

That system would still save far more people than it killed, but that does not mean it is a good system.

I disagree with this intensely and am genuinely flustered as to why you would say it. You yourself say that the net effect of RSLs is more lives saved -- yet that doesn't mean it is a good system? Really?

This is a very fatalistic viewpoint. Because the system is not perfect, we should accept a greater number of losses rather than use it?

AADs have saved many lives, and killed a few people too. Do you believe that they are bad?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Just leave your RSL disconnected and stopping posting moronic analogies....

OK

DV

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

The previous poster had it correct. When you cutaway you NEED to get your Reserve out one way or another. An RSL does that automatically!!! For that reason I am keeping mine connected....

Wow - so that's all there is to it, huh? Great to see you've got your sh** so thoroughly all thought out there, and apparenlty squared away. Gee, and thanks for the slap-down perspective put on someone only trying to make people THINK.

But why do that (THINK), where with one sentence (well maybe 2) YOU can apparenlty come in here, and just straighten us ALL right out?

Good for YOU!

Can I come to you now for my next set of advice too? Please? Seems you've got it all down pat.

Like the line from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid:

"You just keep thinking there, Butch - that's what your good at!"

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[mattaman 0]

We will be having another fatality from an unstable rsl deployment. Hope its not me, your, or someone we care about. Thats hard cause most of us do care about the people, if we didn't we probably wouldn't say much about this.
I've seen many times in this sport where I've spoken up softly, only to get quiet by the mass of grandiose resistance, and sure enough, the fatalities started stacking up on something, and I thought for my own conscience, I should just throw it out there cause I hate the regret of not speaking up and then some kid somewhere dies because the industry protects itself, or guards the coffers.
Its been an honor hearing all sides and argueing.
We'll be sure to do it again after the next fatality from this, then the next one.
This responsibility lies with the manufacturers and the drop zone owners. I recommend they move fast on this, but like most, it takes tragedy to create change, and tragedy in the long run sometimes costs more, thats usually what its about.
Good luck all

Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen.

[billvon 2,384]

> We will be having another fatality from an unstable rsl deployment.

And we will have more from people who needed an RSL and didn't have one. There are no perfect solutions out there, not even the coolest new gadget. We all have to make decisions that make sense to us.

[Floflo 0]

Well, an AAD and no RSL configuration doesn't solve most of those issues?

[billvon 2,384]

> Well, an AAD and no RSL configuration doesn't solve most of those issues?

No, as we learned at Rantoul a few years back. AAD's will not fire if you cut away low (below around 1000 feet.)

[gearless_chris 1]

Quote

> Well, an AAD and no RSL configuration doesn't solve most of those issues?

No, as we learned at Rantoul a few years back. AAD's will not fire if you cut away low (below around 1000 feet.)

By the way, since they haven't found the reserve handle (last I heard), we don't know if the RSL deployed the reserve or if he pulled the handles at the same time or maybe even in the wrong order.
I still think we are far better off with RSL's than without, Although I have one rig with a Cypress/Skyhook, the other rig has neither, and I jump with a camera on every jump.

"If it wasn't easy stupid people couldn't do it", Duane.

My momma said I could be anything I wanted when I grew up, so I became an a$$hole.