0
ElectricFetus

'kingsman' skydiving question........

Recommended Posts

hey folks.

in the movie it was clearly stated that one guy pulled at -300 feet- :o. he came in pretty hard as would be expected, but i just can't get the '300 feet' out of my head.

now from reading the forums i've heard that about 800 is the absolute minimum, but then i've heard about different ways of packing for fast openings and BASE folks opening at ridiculously [comparatively] low altitudes.

so i'd love to have some professional help in this matter. and yes, i'm fully aware that it's 'hollywood skydiving', but the actual issue is sort of interesting.

i WANT to call BS on this, but i'm really on the edge. i'm just not sure.

so what say the sky gods on this?B|:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might live if you get really lucky, but you shouldn't bet on it.

Haven't seen the movie...
Ram air or round canopy?
Belly freefall?
How many seconds from pull time to open canopy?
How many seconds canopy ride?

You can work the math backwards with a few facts like that to figure his likely real pull altitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That whole sequence is nonsense, of course, but to try to answer your specific question:

As I recall all the jumpers use main canopies only - those likely would open more slowly than a reserve, and also they would have been packed for terminal velocity openings so the methods that BASE jumpers use become irrelevant.

At 300 feet in a belly-to-earth position, at terminal velocity, you're less than two seconds from impact. So in theory the definition of 'pulled at' becomes significant, although in reality it's probably still academic.

'Pulled at' = 'reached for the handle at' - no chance. You'd barely have time to extract your pilot chute.

'Pulled at' = 'deployment sequence initiated at' - still virtually no chance. You might achieve line stretch, but nothing life-saving. Modern mains packed for terminal openings typically take well over 500 feet to open fully. I'd say these days an opening within 500 feet would be considered 'brisk'. :)
'Pulled at' = 'canopy fully deployed at' - harder to quantify. I don't actually know how much downward energy a jumper still has in the first couple of seconds following full deployment, but presumably there is still some deceleration going on.

Like you said, Hollywood skydiving and nothing more. But entertaining enough. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!. Watch Point Break
2. Time the freefall sequences.
3. Get over it
This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ufk22

!. Watch Point Break
2. Time the freefall sequences.
3. Get over it



I was thinking about Point Break. They had the coolest "super low opening" sequence.

You actually see the canopy opening just before they hit the water.

How they pulled it off is pretty cool too.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having seen the movie, I thought the skydiving scenes were pretty well done. Of course, there is the usual extremely over-long freefall times, but as Hollywood goes it wasn't bad. They did say that the guy "pulled at 300'", which, as has been said, Would put him into the ground. However, the low opening depicted looks to be about that altitude, as does the time between opening and landing. So, I'd say in the story, the guy pulls low and gets open at 300'.

Now that we've settled that, does anyone want to discuss the anal sex in the final scene ?
_____________________________________
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jclalor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twG6dKmxacQ

Deployed main at approx. 300' AGL. Didn't walk away from it but he lived.



Hard to know exactly how high he was, but I made that no more than four seconds from apparent pull to 'landing'. Given that he obviously got some deceleration from the canopy, I'd agree - he couldn't have been more than 300 - 400 feet up when he pulled. Astonishing.

I noticed both jumpers deployed their mains as well, which just goes to show - no matter what you say you'd do in a crisis situation like that, chances are you'll still fall prey to habit.

And if that video really is 20 years old, it's probably the chief reason his canopy deployed fast enough to save his life. I'd class that opening as 'brisk'. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was 300' according to the experienced witnesses, as well as according to the skydiver himself. Even taking into consideration that it's still only an estimate, we can't find anyone who would agree it was closer to 400' than it was to 300'.
The canopy was a Sabre 135 (or 150. I can't remember).

He spent about three days in the hospital and walked out. He was banged up and a little broken. But no where near what we would have expected. He earned a reputation as a dead-man-walking for a while and caused the facetious among us to wonder just what it is you have to do to die if you can deploy a main at 300' and be back jumping before season's end.

For the benefit of anyone who has not already done so or who does not know this video's notoriety, half the story is told in the shadow. Watch the shadow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kimemerson

It was 300' according to the experienced witnesses, as well as according to the skydiver himself. Even taking into consideration that it's still only an estimate, we can't find anyone who would agree it was closer to 400' than it was to 300'.
The canopy was a Sabre 135 (or 150. I can't remember).

He spent about three days in the hospital and walked out. He was banged up and a little broken. But no where near what we would have expected. He earned a reputation as a dead-man-walking for a while and caused the facetious among us to wonder just what it is you have to do to die if you can deploy a main at 300' and be back jumping before season's end.

For the benefit of anyone who has not already done so or who does not know this video's notoriety, half the story is told in the shadow. Watch the shadow.



Hehe - sorry, I meant the movie.
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to be pedantic:
In the movie, after the two trainees hit the ground, we clearly see a cypress installed in the rig. Airtec should really check these units because they clearly failed to fire.

Deploying a reserve on the ground does not generate a fully inflated canopy. Same goes for a spring loaded main pilot chute.
There are no dangerous dives
Only dangerous divers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
decompresion


Deploying a reserve on the ground does not generate a fully inflated canopy. Same goes for a spring loaded main pilot chute.



Ah, but it does according to the laws of Hollywood physics ;) (see also Drop Zone and Cutaway). And I guess it's one of those things that provides more drama and yes, even seems more realistic to non-jumpers.

I've accepted now that a filmmaker's job is to entertain the audience and 'sell' a scene, not to provide authenticity. They've no compunction to pander to the fewer than 1% of their audience who actually jump from aeroplanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skydiverwannabe

Somewhat of topic but still related to the kingsman movie:
Why aren't there any 'heads up display' skydiving helmets available for commercial skydivers? Showing for example altitude and free fall speed. If only I had the technical knowhow I would design one of these and fund it on kickstarter.



I remember the Skully CEO talking about the pros/cons of motorcyle HUD helmets and how much they have had to re-design their concept to not be too distracting and also useful at the same time, theres an interview somewhere, but I would imagine the same ideas would apply to skydiving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skydiverwannabe

Somewhat of topic but still related to the kingsman movie:
Why aren't there any 'heads up display' skydiving helmets available for commercial skydivers? Showing for example altitude and free fall speed. If only I had the technical knowhow I would design one of these and fund it on kickstarter.



First and foremost it's hard to design a good UI. I got a N3 early on when I started skydiving and was quite impressed with what they did. I was even more impressed after I took a look at Recon's Flight HUD offering. It was like Recon didn't actually talk to a skydiver before building something. I've heard they've improved it quite a bit with recent firmware updates, but the initial one was atrocious.

Even if you can manage to stay focused, your device has to be bug-free if lives are going to depend on it. I HAVE seen some situations where my N3 can get confused, especially if the wind kicks up and we have to ride the plane down. It gets even more complicated when you add a wingsuit to the equation. One of the guys with the big wingsuits the other day was looking at his last jump log, which thought his exit was a 8000 feet and his deploy was at 5 or 6 thousand feet. The digital altimeter guys have done a really good job of making sure that quirks like that don't interfere with the primary function of the device. The more features you start adding, the more likely it is that they could.

Battery life is also an issue. I can forget to plug my N3 in for a week and it'll still have a full charge. I've actually done this a couple of times. If you build an app on top of an actual platform, you'll get all the battery-sucking quirks of that platform. Perhaps these could be managed well enough that it wouldn't be an issue -- my android phone can go a couple days without a charge, and it's constantly trying to talk to network. Without networking or many apps running, it should be feasible to get enough out of the device.

Also, it seems like it's hard to design an augmented reality device in the first place. The Recon required you to glance at the display. It wasn't an overlay on the goggle lens. It looks like Microsoft is working on an actual overlay with their Holo lens. Assuming that thing could talk to a mobile phone, someone potentially could develop a decent altimeter app. It'd need very specific sensors, though -- either higher accuracy GPS than most cell phones (At least any of the ones I've tested) have or an actual barometer on the phone. Ideally the app should be able to detect the hardware and adjust accordingly. It'd have to block a lot of shit from popping up on your display, though, and run as a high priority process. From what I've seen, Android really isn't geared toward that sort of thing. I'm guessing the other mobile platforms really aren't, either.
I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeJD

***https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twG6dKmxacQ

Deployed main at approx. 300' AGL. Didn't walk away from it but he lived.




And if that video really is 20 years old, it's probably the chief reason his canopy deployed fast enough to save his life. I'd class that opening as 'brisk'. :)
I actually met the guy when he was jumping at our DZ in WA and he played that video for us. It was 20+ years ago, yes, and some of today's modern canopies would have maybe sniveled you into the ground. Freeflying and AADs were both pretty new back then. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0