Canopy Collision video (thankfully non fatal)

[dthames 0]

I have a question about collision avoidance, related to the video. You see the oncoming jumper appear to start a right turn, as it appears he swung out to his left. When he gets close enough to really see, he appears not really to be trying hard to turn, based on the toggle position. Also notice the oncoming jumper moves more toward the center of the field of view. This might be because the guy with the first person view looks (turns head) more toward him or because he is making no effort to turn to the right, but for some reason turns slightly to the left. I can’t see any evidence that progress toward avoidance was made.

If both jumpers were doing just a little better at turning away, I mean just somewhat better (not using master skills) does it look like contact could have been avoided?

Instructor quote, “What's weird is that you're older than my dad!”

[loch1957 0]

I was making a joke about looking up and a camera. The last thing in world i want to do is cutaway. I'm not scared id just rather not have too. OK maybe a tad scared.

Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”

[spootch 0]

Quote

Trolling post deleted.

If you want to post here on skydiving topics, feel free. If you're not a skydiver and just want to taunt people, or play games, then go to Bonfire and do it there.

Trolling post deleted? We shoulda started deleting posts after the first gopro post , then the ones slandering the jumper. thats trolling.
And since when do you have to be a skydiver to post here? Are we kicking out the grey beards or the heavy metal club because they havent made a jump in 2 years? Can't have an opinion or information till you reach 700 jumps or more? serious?
I cant read what was last posted (cuz its deleted) but the kid makes a point 2 posts up.
Maybe we can move past the whole gopro thing and move onto the REAL question... Was he wearing one of those plastic hook knives?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Maybe we can move past the whole gopro thing and move onto the REAL question... Was he wearing one of those plastic hook knives?

I don't get the gist that your post, or the line above was a joke, so I'll reply as such.

I'm not sure how you see the presence of a hook knife to be any more relevant than the issue of the Go-Pro. It's simply another aspect that may or may not have been a factor, and in the end comes down to bad equipment choices and something he should do differently next time. Just like it's speculation that wearing a camera might have added to the problem, it's specualtion that a hook knife would have subtracted from the problems. I saw no evidence of an entanglement that would have prevented a cutaway, so how does a hook knife become the 'real' question here?

It all comes back to 'making a list'. There are some huge, obvious problems we can see here, from a poorly planned (or executed) freefall, to poor speration on opening, to a lack of response to canopy damage and electing to land a clearly comprimised wing without a complete controlability check/inspection. Those points are easy to see, and jumpers at any experience level could easily spot those.

Then there are some 'finer' point that may not be apparent to all right off the bat. You bring up a good point with a hook knife. There's little evidence to support the notion that a hook knife was required, but there have been many canopy collisions/wraps where a hook knife was of use, and you'd be crying if you didn't have one. The guy lucked out this time and didn't need the knife, but just because he dodged a bullet this tim doesn't mean he will next time. He should put a hook knife on his shopping list before his main canopy repairs are complete.

The camera is the same thing. Did it play a role in this instance? Hard to say, some think so, some think no. Was it present on a jumper who clearly lacks the decision making ability to handle the extra work load of jumping a camera? Yes it was, and much like the hook knife, the idea is to recognize that it was a bad choice and to correct it before it does become the main player in a future incident.

On top of that, this video is a prime example of there needs to be some regualtion of cameras for the new guys. Here we can see 4 jumpers, with 3 of them wearing cameras. Without being sure what the exit plan was, none of them appear to be very skilled in freefall, to the point that it leads to a very close opening and canopy collision. For everyone who claims that 'X' number of jumps is plenty for jumping a camera, we can see the type of choices people are making, and that it's not good.

On the subject of Saecex250 (or whatever it is), it's not that non-jumpers aren't welcome to comment, that poster has gone beyond commenting from the prepsective of a non-jumper, and he's over-stepping his bounds. He was chastising real jumpers because he didn't like the direction of the thread, and in general the majority of his posts are contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. With no jump experience, there's no way to state a contrary opinion other than speculation as you don't know one thing or the other with any certaincy, it's all based on 'what you read'. That's fine to a degree, but when you forget that you're a 'visitor' sitting in on discussions about jumping with actual jumpers, it just turns into excess noise that muddies the waters here.

Case in point, you also didn't like the angle of the thread, but I didn't call out your credibility or try to knock you down a few pegs, I gave you a reasonable and polite explanation of my view. As a fellow jumper, you have a place from which to speak, and your thought/comments were well within what would be 'appropriate' for someone of your status.

The problem with guys like him (and there have been others) is that it makes it hard for people like me to try and get quality information up on the board. My feeling is that if people are going to read this shit in an attempt to learn, I'm going to do my best to post accurate, quality information. That doesn't mean I'm always 100% right, there's a huge value in the point/counter point of two jumpers with different view points on a subject. It allows the reader to see two angles, two opinions, and work out their own answer. However, when one of them is not a jumper, and just pulling opinions out of their ass, it turns into more of a fight just to post accurate/quality info.

I think the 'last straw' was that I recieved a PM from another jumper with a link to a google search. If you google that guys screen name, you get several pages of posts from various forums all over the web, and they all have the same flavor as what you see here. The guy is a professional post-whore, and I'm just sick of hsi shit.

Since his post was deleted, I'll let you know that he never answered my question. I said 'simple questions, simple answers', and he replied with a lenghty post of 'what ifs' such as, 'What if I'm planning to make a jump', and 'what if I am a jumper and just don't want to tell you', and so forth. In the end, his reply was anything but simple, and he never actually answered the question. You tell me why you think that is?

[JackC1 0]

Quote

I have a question about collision avoidance, related to the video. You see the oncoming jumper appear to start a right turn, as it appears he swung out to his left. When he gets close enough to really see, he appears not really to be trying hard to turn, based on the toggle position. Also notice the oncoming jumper moves more toward the center of the field of view. This might be because the guy with the first person view looks (turns head) more toward him or because he is making no effort to turn to the right, but for some reason turns slightly to the left. I can’t see any evidence that progress toward avoidance was made.

If both jumpers were doing just a little better at turning away, I mean just somewhat better (not using master skills) does it look like contact could have been avoided?

I think this is actually the first good question posted on this entire thread.

I guess the answer to your question is: possibly.

Normally you would turn to the right in the event of an impending head on collision (that is unless it is safer to turn to the left). In this case, the other guy had got his toggles in his hands and steered slightly right whereas our gopro hero didn't seem to do anything. The other guy could have executed a fast 90 degree right turn as soon as he saw the collision approaching which seems possible as he had his toggles in hand already or at least he could have gone into deep brakes to slow down (ideally both?). Our gopro guy could have pulled on his right rear riser to turn, he probably had time to do that. So yes, I think if they had both done a little better the collision could have been avoided. But what happened isn't particularly surprising given the circumstances.

So why didn't they do better? My guess is target fixation. People tend to fly towards whatever they are looking at, it's a subconscious thing. It takes a conscious effort to break your attention away from the problem and onto a solution when you are taken by surprise. You can train yourself, but it doesn't happen overnight because it requires experience, essentially so that surprises become less surprising.

I think there are lessons here that can be learned from the BASE community. Most skydivers don't have to deal with object avoidance on a regular basis so when they deploy, they tend to wait for it all to settle down, then stow the slider, undo the chest strap, switch off the camera, take a good long fart, scratch their arse, pick their nose and then finally pop the brakes. The BASE guys tend to toss the pilot chute and have their hands waiting to take the toggles. The moment the canopy has enough shape to start flying the brakes are popped and they take control of the situation so they can turn away from an object strike instantly. I think it is actually a really good idea for skydivers to practice getting on the toggles as quickly as possible after deployment. It's also a good policy to make your first task after deployment to turn your canopy onto a safe heading.

Of course the real reason they collided was because the scuba waves emanating from the camera distort the medulla oblongata area of the brain making it impossible for people to think of anything other than "getting the shot" and uploading it to youtube. The only known antidote for this scuba-wave medulla oblongata interaction is of course 200 jumps and a tinfoil hat.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

The BASE guys tend to toss the pilot chute and have their hands waiting to take the toggles. The moment the canopy has enough shape to start flying the brakes are popped and they take control of the situation so they can turn away from an object strike instantly. I think it is actually a really good idea for skydivers to practice getting on the toggles as quickly as possible after deployment.

I'll agree with the premise, but not the execution.

Being ready to react to a situation is a good idea, but using the toggles on a skydiving canopy is not. An asymetrical release of the brakes, or premature application of too much input can lead to a skydiving canopy spinning itself into line twists. Keep in mind that skydiving canopies and BASE canopies are made for two different things, and loaded at two very different wing loadings.

On a skydiving canopy, the rear risers are the preferred control method right after opening. Leaving the toggles stowed helps to control the airspeed you enter and exit from any manuvers, and that helps to reduce the possibility of over-controling the canopy during deployment/inflation.

Also, missing one toggle, or even the time it takes to grab a toggle is going to lead to trouble. Again, BASE gear is specific, and the toggles are designed to stand proud of the risers for an easy grab. Skydiving toggles are designed to fit narrow risers and tuck into slim riser covers on the rig.

In the skydiving environment, the better move is to have your hands up and in place, but ready to grab the rear risers, and use them to make evasive manuvers. The other benefit it that when the jumper does want to stow their slider, and-or play with their chest strap or camera, they can do so with the brakes still stowed, which is the preffered method anyway. It provides a slower canopy speed and decsent rate while you do your 'house keeping', and having the brakes unstowed leads to complications if you want to pull your slider past your toggles.

[JackC1 0]

Quote

On a skydiving canopy, the rear risers are the preferred control method right after opening. Leaving the toggles stowed helps to control the airspeed you enter and exit from any manuvers, and that helps to reduce the possibility of over-controling the canopy during deployment/inflation.

If you honk on a rear riser with the brakes still stowed the canopy will lock itself into a turn and you won't be able to stop it until you pop the brakes. Next time you deploy, try doing a fast 360 on rear risers with the brakes still stowed. Really give it the beans on that riser.

Everything else, I agree with. Except that good packing practice can make your slim, flat toggles stand out when you deploy. But really, stowing sliders, undoing chest straps and the like are all luxuries you can do without when you're faced with an imminent canopy collision. But the point of practicing this is to give you options.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

If you honk on a rear riser with the brakes still stowed the canopy will lock itself into a turn and you won't be able to stop it until you pop the brakes. Next time you deploy, try doing a fast 360 on rear risers with the brakes still stowed. Really give it the beans on that riser.

Really giving any control input 'the beans' is ill adivised unless you ahve practiced it in controlled conditions. Over doing just about any input can lead to problems at any time in the jump.

And if you toggle yourself into line twists, that's an even bigger problem than being 'locked' into a turn that just requires you to unstow the brakes. I'm not even sure you can 'lock' yourself into any turn, short of line twists that physically lock the lines into an asymetical configuration.

The fact remains that the rear risers are quicker to access, more reliable as they don't require a specific grip or to be unstowed, and a safer option in that even if you get 'locked' into a turn, the remedy is simply unstowing the brakes. If you use toggles, and only grab one, or only one unstows, you can spin yourself into line twists where the only remedy is a cutaway (yes, you could kick out of some twists, but some you cannot).

Many years ago, when skydiving canopies were more similar to BASE canopies, the toggles were the preferred method of control. The canopies, and the way they reacted, made the rear risers less effective, and the toggles less of a risk in an emergency scenario. With the higher loaded, higher performance canopies jumpers are using these days, the rear riser is very effective, quick, and a safer option for a quick evasive manuver during or just after inflation.

Keep in mind that even the newset jumpers are on gear that was unheard of 20 years ago. A Sabre2 170 loaded at 1.2 is considered a 'common' canopy you might find in a newer jumpers rig, but that canopy and WL is years ahead of any F-111 canopy from back in the day.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

If you honk on a rear riser with the brakes still stowed the canopy will lock itself into a turn and you won't be able to stop it until you pop the brakes. Next time you deploy, try doing a fast 360 on rear risers with the brakes still stowed. Really give it the beans on that riser.

Everything else, I agree with. Except that good packing practice can make your slim, flat toggles stand out when you deploy. But really, stowing sliders, undoing chest straps and the like are all luxuries you can do without when you're faced with an imminent canopy collision. But the point of practicing this is to give you options.

Which canopies are you referring to?

I know the Diablo is notorius for that sort of behavior. I'm sure there are others.

But my current Sabre2 and the Triathlon I flew before that are both very well behaved. The turn stops as soon as the riser is released, no matter how hard it was pulled or how long it was held (yes, it takes a little longer to recover from a longer turn).

And even though I jump at a small DZ, I was shown a couple close calls on video and learned very early to check traffic and be prepared to use the rears to make an avoidance turn (to the right) as soon as I was open.

And I don't see any indication that the camera worn by the jumper in the video had any direct influence on the situation.

But it is one of many things that show less than ideal decision making.

He never looks out the door.

He never looks around during freefall.
If I lose track of the others on a jump, my head is whipping around a lot until I locate them.

He never checks his canopy after opening. There wasn't a lot of time, but he never looked up towards it before the collision.

He never took any evasive action prior to the collision.

He never did any sort of check after the collision. Not a visual check, not any "turn left, turn right, flare" controllability check.

From the reaction of the guys on the ground, the canopy was pretty heavily damaged. One guy says "if that thing had let go, we would have been picking you up with a sponge." That tells me that the fabric was pretty badly torn.

This dude got lucky. I'm happy he didn't get hurt or dead. But he could have. Very easily.

I'm kind of curious about his experience level. My guess is not a lot. But I could be wrong on that.

I'm really curious about what the canopy looks like. I'd love to see how badly it was damaged.

"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

[godfrog 2]

I agrre wiyh WRJoe, He had total tunnel vision, I did see other jumpers in the freefall portion of the video.
He also was not prepared for the landing, he took no measures to PLF.
I was taught to use risers to execute a turn on opening rather than go for toggles and that was to long ago.
Everyone should know the dynamics of their canopy, whether they be positive, negative or nuetral, this is part of learning your canopy when you first get it and start jumping it.

Experience is a difficult teacher, she gives you the test first and the lesson afterward

[demoknite 0]

So we dont give the DZO crap for letting the plane take off in conditions where visibility is reduced? We dont give the pilot crap for the same thing? We dont give the the DZO crap for not appointing a competent jumpmaster to spot the DZ and release the jumpers at reasonable intervals? The DZO probably has more than 10,000 jumps so he's infallible. I know there were some people up thread who pointed this out, but it has just been glossed over while we continue to blame the go pro.

[Tuna-Salad 0]

The deployment looked pretty low too.. or maybe my sense of distance is way off

Millions of my potential children died on your daughters' face last night.

[JackC1 0]

Quote

Really giving any control input 'the beans' is ill adivised unless you ahve practiced it in controlled conditions.

Which is exactly what I suggested people do. If you don't know where the limits are, then you will be in for a surprise on the day you accidentally step over them.

Try it, or don't. It makes no difference to me.

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Another option here... Fly your canopy thru the opening. I tend not to look at my canopy as it opens (just watch any of my video) but rather, I try to watch where I'm going. A little body english in the harness can do a lot to correct minor problems. If your canopy starts to turn to the right on opening, pull your right hip up towards your shoulder. As my canopy opens, I steer with my body while my hands continue to fly the relative wind.

If I see anything in my line of flight (which is changing during opening) I'm making corrections long before I could get to the toggles or the risers.

OK.... Blast Away!

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[skinnay 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hang on, is there any evidence that the camera had anything to do with it, that he was distracted by it?

If not, then the stupidity could have occurred in the same way any time over the last 30+ years. The only difference would be that we get to see a lot more of it on youtube now.

+1
funny how in 5 or 6 posts it goes to a camera witch hunt, and by the end, the guy hasn't got the basic skills to skydive.

+1

I see nothings changed with those camera witch hunts.... only gotten worse. Oh well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzdXoFJbQ0c&feature=g-upl&context=G2748bbbAUAAAAAAADAA

I wish there were stricter camera rules just so I didn't have to watch so many over-sensationalized 2 dock sitfly jumps.

[dthames 0]

Thanks guys for the input. A couple of jumps after I did some rear riser drills, I did a quick look and a modest 90 turn with the rear riser right after full inflation. Mostly I just wanted to get the feel for how quickly (without some crazy move) you could get turned after opening.

It did appear there was at least some time to make a turn, in the video.

Instructor quote, “What's weird is that you're older than my dad!”

[billvon 2,396]

>So we dont give the DZO crap for letting the plane take off in conditions where
>visibility is reduced?

Because it was still jumpable over most of the area.

>We dont give the pilot crap for the same thing

He can't see straight down, so he has to rely on the spotter.

>We dont give the the DZO crap for not appointing a competent jumpmaster to spot the
>DZ and release the jumpers at reasonable intervals?

I think giving the "jumpmaster" crap would be more appropriate since he was the one who screwed up the spot.

>I know there were some people up thread who pointed this out, but it has just been
>glossed over while we continue to blame the go pro.

No one is blaming the Gopro. Blaming the Gopro would be as dumb as blaming the airplane for the over-the-cloud spot.

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Quote

I see nothings changed with those camera witch hunts.... only gotten worse. Oh well.

What amazes me is this…

We see a video of a near fatality! 8 or 9 potentially deadly mistakes are pointed out by several very experienced, highly respected, skydivers. But as soon as the word “Go Pro” is mentioned as one of these potentially deadly mistakes, the GoProHuggers call foul and spend the next 10,000 words blasting anyone willing to point out that an inexperienced jumper should not jump cameras.

Sorry, but it’s like telling someone who just got their motorcycle license that a ZX14 is not a good choice as a first motorcycle.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[spootch 0]

You are absolutely right I do not agree with the direction of the thread. And I also agree with Twardo on what goes on in these threads. This place wouldn't be so dry and crusty if newbs felt safe to post.

Heres what pisses me off. You Dave have good working knowledge of the sport, and enough years to have been there done that. You also have enough passion for the sport to take time out of your day to pass on your knowledge and experiences to others here. But instead of explaining to others the dangers of jumping in clouds, or providing links to topics such as tracking time and separation, this thread gets rail roaded into a stupid gopro thread, and everyone goes down the rabbit hole. Your better than that, and much more intelligent.

2 guys nearly died here and we cant see past our noses to break down this incident into more than dont wear a gopro? Theres much, much more to be learned here, and you Dave have much more to contribute to the discussion than just a damn camera, I know you do. Your other posts on topics support that.

And as for the rest who would insist I am a gopro "hugger", I am not. I helped implement rules at my dz for ANY camera that far exceeds what is required. That rule is still in effect
Did the camera have a role in the outcome of this jump? Sure it did, but i'd put it just above the pilot putting fuel in the plane and way below Weather conditions in my list.

Delete my post again if ya have to Bill,

[PiLFy 0]

+ (another) 1... I removed myself from this thread when the sh*t started flying (yet again). It really gets tiresome. The tone is not conducive to learning (or teaching, for that matter).

That guy's camera was merely along for the ride. That seems blatantly obvious to me. Should he take the thing off his helmet, & focus on basic skills? Absolutely. Was he looking straight ahead to get a good shot? Or, not checking the canopy to hide crash damage? Hogwash. He thoroughly ignored the planned 4-way. He froze when he saw the impending collision. He stayed frozen, afterward. He was too afraid to cut away, or even check his canopy. Panicked, he headed straight for home, cross-pattern, cross-runway (low), & all. This guy did far more wrong than strap a camera on his head. He would've wanted to show off his mad 4-way skillz on camera. He would've wanted to film the damage & cutaway for youtube. In this incident, nothing indicates the camera distracted him in the slightest. He would've performed just as poorly without it.

It has been five pages. Can we move on, please?

[TSISK 0]

I pretty much read dz.com for entertainment. Any questions I have I ask the experienced people at my dz. Its kinda entertaining watching the oldtimers on here have pissing contest when someone disagrees with them. Most of them have the "its my way or the highway " mentality. I agree that Dave is one of the people that has a lot of knowledge but it doesn't always come across as educational. I feel that most of the oldies, pops, chuck ect has forgotten what's its like to be a "noob " and have the excitement that goes along with it. But then again look at my jump numbers..... what do I know

[billvon 2,396]

>He would've performed just as poorly without it.

That's as stupid a claim as "the camera caused the incident" or "small canopies have nothing to do with landing accidents."

Any incident is a combination of many factors. ONE of the things that may have contributed was his decision to use a camera - and to ignore that because one prefers that cameras be available for new jumper is foolish.

[jrjny 0]

TSISK - I would agree. One day since I can't do head down naturally, I will rig up an imax to my head so the position is inevitable. 2 birds, one camera.

[pchapman 261]

Quote

>He would've performed just as poorly without it.

That's as stupid a claim as "the camera caused the incident" or "small canopies have nothing to do with landing accidents."

Any incident is a combination of many factors. ONE of the things that may have contributed was his decision to use a camera

For some reason I'll get into this futile discussion.

It is possible that the camera was a factor -- ie, it "may have contributed" -- there being a more than 0.0% chance that the camera influenced his behaviour.

Yet we see basically zero actual evidence for it. So "he would have performed just as poorly without it" seems fairly justified too, fairly likely to be essentially true. I just don't remember anything about the video that indicated that he was thinking about the camera shot at all. (I could be wrong.)

I'll grant that the camera could have been a general distraction - perhaps he had fiddled with it on jump run when he should have thought about the exit separation plans, and strategy to deal with any clouds encountered. But we have no direct evidence to accuse him of that.

Overall, I guess it is ok to say the camera MAY have contributed. But indirect supposition is not direct evidence. The video suggests that in at least some way, he's a screwed up noob, which is I suppose indirect evidence that a camera might distract him from a successful skydive -- but for him, so might an untied shoelace or something shiny...

[taylor.freefall 0]

~He stayed frozen, afterward. He was too afraid to cut away~

Do you think it's possible that some people (who've never had to cut away before) could be scared to do so? (from the point of view that if the second chance fails aswell then it's over , in this case it could have been that he was more willing to chance a dodgy landing rather than go to reserve).
I remember seeing, I think it was UPT, that had a rig you could do an intentional cut away on - but what I'm getting at is that maybe it would be a good idea (on safety days, or whatever) to do an intentional cutaway so that, if the need ever arises) people are not so afraid to do so.
This could lead to - how reliable are reserve systems, and should an intentional cut away be part of the student learning process so people aren't afraid of it?
My thoughts might be crap - but, in this case, it certainly could be that he was afraid to cut away, when really he should have...