Should reserves (2-parachute system) be mandatory in skydiving?

[yoink 321]

The problem wouldn't be the BASE jumpers.

The problem would be the same as it is now - 100 jump wonders who think they know a lot more than they actually do, seeing highly experienced people with a tonne of gear knowledge pulling at 800ft and all of a sudden that's the cool thing to do and they're on a race to be able to do it too...

In a few years it's the new camera situation. People pulling low on BASE rigs without the appropriate skill set to do it safely because they're sure they have the skills to do it, and all you guys who have put hundreds of hours into learning about how it works are just old fuddy-duddies who just want to hold them back. Soon after, BASE canopies start to be replaced with 220 Navigators, then 190PDs then 150s etc etc..


The problem with experts making exceptional rules is that they forget how not to be an expert.

Personally, I wouldn't want the hassle of having to pack my skydiving rig like a BASE canopy for every jump.

I also think reserve saves are a hell of a lot more common than AAD saves. I wouldn't want to see a 1 canopy option in effect just to keep the amount of down time from bounces to a minimum.

[JWest 0]

jumplongisland

Section 105.43 requires a solo parachutist making an intentional
jump wearing a single-harness dual-pack parachute to have at least one main parachute and one
approved reserve parachute.

FAR Section 105.43

"No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:"

No mention of a single harness single parachute system. The parts italicized become irrelevance because the bold conditions are not met. The wording 'single harness dual parachute' is used to separate it from tandem 'dual harness dual parachute systems'.

I am fully aware that the FAA probably created an "if statement" on accident but either way there is no regulation saying someone cannot jump a single harness single parachute system, it states that if a single harness dual parachute system is used it must meet X requirements. It's one of those loopholes lawyers love.

[piisfish 136]

JWest, are you featured on this video ? http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[wolfriverjoe 1,444]

The clear requirement for use of only dual parachute systems was made less clear when the regs were re-written to include tandems.

AC-105 has the requirement in it, but it's only "advisory", not a reg.

But going out the door with a base rig (or an emergency "bailout" rig) would most definitely be frowned upon by the FAA if they found out.

THIS THREAD has a good discussion on it.

Not that it doesn't or hasn't happened.

But if something goes wrong, the pilot will suffer consequences. Search "Dwaine Weston" and the incident at the Royal Gorge Bridge for an example.

"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

[JeffCa 0]

Bluhdow

***I'm not familiar with BASE gear. Will anybody argue that a BASE rig is statistically safer than the (incredibly reliable) standard skydiving configuration?

I'll argue that sh*t all day long.

Unless you have a good understanding of BASE gear, and experience with it, your "ahhhhh I need my reserve!" response is simply a knee-jerk reaction supporting what you're already comfortable with.

The vast majority of BASE fatalities don't result from the gear. Same for sky gear. It's the pilot that usually does themselves in, not the plane.

I don't really feel it's my part here to do the research or prove anything. You're putting forward a very controversial idea, against all conventional wisdom, and the laws of some nations. It should be your job to support it, and I'm placing the burden of proof on you. Can you support your point, or is it just that you "feel" that BASE gear is safer? I guess you could be the hero of the PIA if you show us how we're all doing it wrong.

I want to point out that your original post in the other thread did not qualify that you meant BASE gear only. Your arguments that everything also has to be done exactly right for this to work just supports the idea that the gear is not as safe as skydiving gear. Both seats of gear might work perfectly if everything is done and maintained perfectly, but your qualification of the point pretty much establishes which one is more forgiving of any factor being not perfect. "BASE gear work just as well, if this and if this, and if that". And cars don't need seat belts if you don't hit anything. We're trying to reduce fatalities overall, for the entire industry, not make sure cowboys who want to jump their BASE gear can do so, many of them no doubt getting themselves killed in the process.

Edit: One can ask questions, such as:

1. Which set-up is more likely to let you survive a canopy collision and wrap?

2. Which one will let you survive a hard pull when pilot chute can't be deployed? Pilot chute in tow?

3. Which one is more likely to let you survive broken lines or blowing a hole in the canopy? Or do BASE canopies have unbreakable lines?

4. Do BASE rigs support AADs, for the unconscious scenario, among others?

and so on and so forth.

BASE gear might be as safe in a perfect world where everything is perfect.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[JeffCa 0]

Bluhdow

***Not a problem, if everyone jumps BASE canopies, keeps their gear in tip top shape and leaves the velcro rigs (hey, I still jump one) at home... But we all know that will never happen.

This is about as strong of an endorsement as I can get. A DZO, experienced BASE jumper, and with more sky jumps than the rest of the posters combined.

If you want to cherry-pick opinions, you can also find biologists who don't believe in evolution. Flat Earth society supporters? No problem! We need to look at the consensus of experts, not what lone individuals think.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[grimmie 179]

JeffCa

******I'm not familiar with BASE gear. Will anybody argue that a BASE rig is statistically safer than the (incredibly reliable) standard skydiving configuration?

I'll argue that sh*t all day long.

Unless you have a good understanding of BASE gear, and experience with it, your "ahhhhh I need my reserve!" response is simply a knee-jerk reaction supporting what you're already comfortable with.

The vast majority of BASE fatalities don't result from the gear. Same for sky gear. It's the pilot that usually does themselves in, not the plane.

I don't really feel it's my part here to do the research or prove anything. You're putting forward a very controversial idea, against all conventional wisdom, and the laws of some nations. It should be your job to support it, and I'm placing the burden of proof on you. Can you support your point, or is it just that you "feel" that BASE gear is safer? I guess you could be the hero of the PIA if you show us how we're all doing it wrong.

I want to point out that your original post in the other thread did not qualify that you meant BASE gear only. Your arguments that everything also has to be done exactly right for this to work just supports the idea that the gear is not as safe as skydiving gear. Both seats of gear might work perfectly if everything is done and maintained perfectly, but your qualification of the point pretty much establishes which one is more forgiving of any factor being not perfect. "BASE gear work just as well, if this and if this, and if that". And cars don't need seat belts if you don't hit anything. We're trying to reduce fatalities overall, for the entire industry, not make sure cowboys who want to jump their BASE gear can do so, many of them no doubt getting themselves killed in the process.

Edit: One can ask questions, such as:

1. Which set-up is more likely to let you survive a canopy collision and wrap? That's ugly no matter what type of gear you have.

2. Which one will let you survive a hard pull when pilot chute can't be deployed? Pilot chute in tow? Hard pulls on a BASE rig are rare, due to the way they are packed. Pilot chute in tow is rare on a BASE rig, as they us non collapsing PCs.

3. Which one is more likely to let you survive broken lines or blowing a hole in the canopy? Or do BASE canopies have unbreakable lines?
BASE gear has better built canopies. They survive slider off whacker openings.

4. Do BASE rigs support AADs, for the unconscious scenario, among others? You could make that work on a BASE rig with a spring loaded PC I suppose.

and so on and so forth.

BASE gear might be as safe in a perfect world where everything is perfect.

Skydiving from aircraft will always be based on a two canopy system. Regardless of how much it gets argued for or against here. However. You should get with a Base jumper at your DZ and check out the gear.

[JWest 0]

wolfriverjoe

The clear requirement for use of only dual parachute systems was made less clear when the regs were re-written to include tandems.

AC-105 has the requirement in it, but it's only "advisory", not a reg.

But going out the door with a base rig (or an emergency "bailout" rig) would most definitely be frowned upon by the FAA if they found out.

THIS THREAD has a good discussion on it.

Not that it doesn't or hasn't happened.

But if something goes wrong, the pilot will suffer consequences. Search "Dwaine Weston" and the incident at the Royal Gorge Bridge for an example.

Interesting, with the new wording there is no regulation against it. Maybe they did it on purpose knowing/hoping few people would notice.

[JeffCa 0]

grimmie

You should get with a Base jumper at your DZ and check out the gear.

OK.... Care to get me started on what I might discover if I do? That's what this thread is for. I'm not seeing many merits of BASE gear here, so please explain.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[JeffCa 0]

nolhtairt

It's already mandatory by the FAA, isn't it? So it's a moot point.

Yes, but the question is should they be mandatory? It's a hypothetical discussion.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[yoink 321]

piisfish

JWest, are you featured on this video ? http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

[JWest 0]

JeffCa

***It's already mandatory by the FAA, isn't it? So it's a moot point.

Yes, but the question is should they be mandatory? It's a hypothetical discussion.

It's not mandatory, everyone just thinks it is. Look at my previous posts.

[Anachronist 2]

Yoink for the win!

Yeah man, if you are a die hard BASE jumper then you will have access to someone who will let you out of their plane, heli, paraglider, etc. Don't make it so easy a 100 jump retard can burn in.

Barriers to entry are important, if you want to "play BASE jumper" it shouldn't be as easy as getting a A license and buying a BASE rig and jump ticket.

[wolfriverjoe 1,444]

JeffCa

***You should get with a Base jumper at your DZ and check out the gear.

OK.... Care to get me started on what I might discover if I do? That's what this thread is for. I'm not seeing many merits of BASE gear here, so please explain.

Base rigs are designed and engineered to be extremely reliable.
They are packed that way too.

There are a number of tradeoffs in the design, as in all designs. All of those go towards reliability.

Packing a Base rig is done similarly to packing a reserve. In technique, attention to detail and time.

I'd put Base rigs and reserves very near each other in reliability.

That doesn't address the other times that you note where having a second canopy in the rig would be a good thing, but that's a different area of the question.

I voted that they shouldn't.
I'd probably never jump without a reserve, but I don't see any reason to stop someone who knows what they are doing from using a properly packed & maintained Base rig to go out of a plane.

The comments about the "Madd Skilz" crowd are pretty accurate though.
It used to be pretty difficult to get your hands on a good Base rig. The community as a whole kept the idiots, newbies and Madd Skilz fools in check by denying them access to gear.

"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

[mark 107]

JWest

It's not mandatory, everyone just thinks it is. Look at my previous posts.

Bob Pierotti should have had you as his lawyer.

Mark

[JWest 0]

mark

***It's not mandatory, everyone just thinks it is. Look at my previous posts.

Bob Pierotti should have had you as his lawyer.

Mark

The form search is down and google didn't do me much good. All I could find is that he lost is rating for a year do to disciplinary action in 2004. I assume he piloted/jumped out of a plane with a base rig? I understand that the SIM and FAR have been rewritten since then. Perhaps the new verbiage could of helped him out a bit.

[ryoder 1,509]

JWest

It's not mandatory, everyone just thinks it is. Look at my previous posts.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The title of 105.43 was changed to distinguish it from tandem rigs, and 105.45 was added to cover tandem rigs. If there is no comparable section for a single-harness/single-parachute rig, then it is not permitted.


Old (prior to permanent tandem approval)

105.43 Parachute equipment and packing requirements
(a) No person may make a parachute jump, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to make a parachute jump from that aircraft, unless the person is wearing a single harness dual parachute pack, having at least one main parachute and one approved auxiliary parachute that are packed as follows:
...

New(includes tandem)

105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems
No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:
...

105.45 Use of tandem parachute systems
(a) No person may conduct a parachute operation using a tandem parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a tandem parachute system, unless:
...

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[JWest 0]

ryoder

***
It's not mandatory, everyone just thinks it is. Look at my previous posts.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The title of 105.43 was changed to distinguish it from tandem rigs, and 105.45 was added to cover tandem rigs. If there is no comparable section for a single-harness/single-parachute rig, then it is not permitted.


Old (prior to permanent tandem approval)

105.43 Parachute equipment and packing requirements
(a) No person may make a parachute jump, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to make a parachute jump from that aircraft, unless the person is wearing a single harness dual parachute pack, having at least one main parachute and one approved auxiliary parachute that are packed as follows:
...

New(includes tandem)

105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems
No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:
...

105.45 Use of tandem parachute systems
(a) No person may conduct a parachute operation using a tandem parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a tandem parachute system, unless:
...

They really should have left 'allowed' and 'unless' in there. With the old verbiage it's clear that you must use a dual parachute system.

Quote

If there is no comparable section for a single-harness/single-parachute rig, then it is not permitted.

No were does it say it's not allowed. AKA no law against it. Unless there is a prevision that states that anything not covered is not allowed than one cannot claim that it's not permitted.

[format 0]

JeffCa

If we were jumping BASE rigs, what would the annual fatality rate be, given the number of skydives stays the same?

If there is no reserve, aside from BASE jumpers - nobody would skydive.

If you add some free choice whether to use single or dual system - nothing would be different than it is.

What goes around, comes later.

[skez 0]

its pretty simple if it were legal...would u rather have a skydive rig with a reserve and do the standard 5min rush packjob where the only real thing u have to worry about is having the slider down coz if shit goes bad u have your reserve right.

or have single parachute system..spend about half hour fucking round packing a reserve style/base packjob were everything has to be perfect evertime coz your life depends on that 1 canopy and it still could malfunction..or even rap canopies with another jumper and have no options

FTMC

[JWest 0]

skez

its pretty simple if it were legal...would u rather have a skydive rig with a reserve and do the standard 5min rush packjob where the only real thing u have to worry about is having the slider down coz if shit goes bad u have your reserve right.

or have single parachute system..spend about half hour fucking round packing a reserve style/base packjob were everything has to be perfect evertime coz your life depends on that 1 canopy and it still could malfunction..or even rap canopies with another jumper and have no options

I dont think anyone is suggesting that it be mediatory to use a single parachute system only that it is an option. If you don't want to then don't.

[skez 0]

i would do it just wouldnt make a habit out of it and only do it on my own were theres no risk of someone flying into me under canopy..but mainly coz i hate packing base gear lol and only reason i would do it is to pull low as fuxk and freak a few ppl out ....and its never going to be legal and no dz in any normal country is ever going to let anyone do it anyway im pretty sure most base rigs cant even be jumped even if u had a chest mount reserve due to most base gear not being tso'd or some shit like that..also i could be wrong but im pretty sure one of the rules state if u dont have an aad u need an rsl...and vice versa not sure how u would go with that on a base rig

FTMC

[platypii 20]

§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United States except in accordance with part 105 of this chapter.

BASEline - Wingsuit Flight Computer

[Hellis 0]

skez

also i could be wrong but im pretty sure one of the rules state if u dont have an aad u need an rsl...and vice versa not sure how u would go with that on a base rig

Is that aussie rules or US rules?

About RSL, look up stevens lanyard in poynters.
It connects your main with your belly reserv

[peek 20]

you (JWest) wrote:
"With the old verbiage it's clear that you must use a dual parachute system." and "Interesting, with the new wording there is no regulation against it."

and wolfriverjoe wrote:
"The clear requirement for use of only dual parachute systems was made less clear when the regs were re-written to include tandems."

my comments:
"I have studied the new versus the old verbiage too, and have concluded that it was an oversight. They were probably concentrating on getting the tandem section verbiage just right and the overall verbiage became less clear.

Technically you are correct, but I'm quite sure you would lose any argument with the FAA during any enforcement action. They would refer to the old text and argue that the intent of the changes was only to add the tandem section, not to change the intent of anything else."