Canopy Collision video (thankfully non fatal)

[spootch 0]

>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."


- He's making a general observation about how the jump went, we all get adding more gear to a jump adds to complexity. Stupid is splitting hairs over a "claim"

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


-well did it or didn't it? and to what degree? Usually an incident is whittled down to 3 or so major things. Would this make the 3? How bout the top 5? No? how bout the top 10? where would you put it?


- and to ignore that because one prefers that cameras be available for new jumper is foolish.


Whos ignoring that? and while were at it can you tell us the jump numbers and time in the sport said jumper has?

I'm throwin out my pc on this thread kids. It could have been a good one with lots to learn, there's some big shit goin on in this jump. Show your instructors the video, ask lotsa questions. Figure out reasons why it happened and try to plan for it. And to the jumper in the video FWIW I'd jump with ya any day.....but we're havin a chat before we go

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Quote

~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). .............
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...

Nothing Crap about your line of thinking. Yes! I think fear of cutting away can be a very serious problem. My question to you would be, are you willing to cut away if need be? I know I wondered about this before I had my first cutaway. The bottom line is, you need to have 100 percent confidence your reserve! If not, give yourself the bowling speech. And keep the good questions comming....

Birdshit & Fools Productions

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

[The_Don 0]

Good post. FWIW, I would have ZERO problem with pulling the chop.

Pure trust in my rigger.


No, Ive not had a chop yet.

I am NOT being loud.
I'm being enthusiastic!

[billvon 2,396]

>well did it or didn't it? and to what degree?

That's an excellent question! And is worth asking rather than getting into a pissing contest about it.

We have a list of dozens of incidents that were either the result of or exacerbated by people's use of "turn-it-on-and-forget-about-it" cameras. In most cases the additional attention required by the camera caused a loss of attention that resulted in the jumper forgetting to do something very obvious (put on his chest strap, flare, avoid an obstacle, avoid other jumpers, check the spot, check his altitude, stay on his belly etc.) One lesson you can take from this is that any camera, even a tiny one, requires some of your attention, and some jumpers (especially newer ones) often do not have a lot of attention to spare.

In this case we have a jumper who had a few lapses of attention - not turning away from an impending collision and not checking out his canopy to list two of them. Might the camera distraction have been part of those lapses, given how often it's caused similar problems on other jumps? It's likely, IMO. Were there other mistakes on the jump that were even more serious than taking along a camera? Definitely.

>Usually an incident is whittled down to 3 or so major things. Would this make the 3?
>How bout the top 5? No? how bout the top 10? where would you put it?

In order, based on the video? IMO:

1) Not turning away from an impending collision
2) Not checking out his canopy, realizing it had problems and cutting away from it
3) Not having the skill to do a 4-way per the plan
4) Not having the attention to spare to jump a camera
5) Not checking the spot

a) First jumper putting a load out over solid clouds (listed separately because it's not this jumper's fault)

[taylor.freefall 0]

Honestly, and if it was me (I'll get flamed for this this big time) but... I would have stayed with it - my line of thinking being that I'd rather have a rough landing (that I know I will probably get away with) than cut away and be left with something that I can't manage - and I know that's a stupid attitude AND I also know that it was definitely a cut away situation.
-Having said that I've never had a cutaway situation - the worst I've had so far has been line twists and a tension knot in my right steering line, meaning I didn't have full control of the right side, but I had 90% - decided to keep it - it was fine, no problems.
However - I would welcome the chance to do an intentional cutaway, just to know that if the time ever comes - I can do it.

[rnicks 0]

Quote

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.

I think this is a good idea and have always wished cutaway rigs were more available. However, the USPA disagrees stating that you must have a minimuim of a C license to do this (Section 2 J-c) which is quite ridiculous.

I hear over and over on these forums about how you should have confidence in your rigger. For many, it's not about not trusting your rigger, it's apprehension about something you've never done before.

[sebcat 0]

Quote

~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?

That's why God invented bowling :)

I understand why someone without a cutaway might find the concept frightening, but in the end it's one of the few things you really *need* to be able to do. So what if you suck at RW, so what if you look dorky in your old jump suit, so what if you haven't got the latest altimeter or helmet... All you need is to be able to arch, pull, flare and perform EPs if needed. Everything else is not important. Sometimes people forget.

A little anecdote. It used to be a requirement over here to have a cutaway before you could be a TI. You know, like a trial by fire thing. The ones who didn't have one could borrow a cutaway rig and make one. This was of course not the same thing, because if you plan to do a cutaway and you have three canopies then what's the big deal? That requirement was later scrapped. This was before my time, so I might be wrong but that's what I've been told.

Learning proper EPs on the ground (and actually pulling stuff) is way more important. There should be no hesitation. If you're not up to saving yourself when you need to, no intentional cutaway can fix that.

Also, intentional cutaway rigs are different from regular ones so if you really wanted to do intentional cutaways for training, you should make them with your normal gear.

In the scenario that presented itself in the video I would've probably made a controllability check and if things felt OK I would've landed it. Depending on WL and canopy type of course. To each his own.

[jrjny 0]

I chopped on that rig from UPT and it was a good learning experience. At 1900 feet, not quite at the spot I wanted to be (in order to retrieve the cutaway main) after having my hop and pop converted to a full altitude jump I was a bit apprehensive. I had a reserve over my head pretty damn quick though and got to fly the pd 176, which is what I actually have and is pretty easy to fly compared to my 210 but I guess they're built to be ultra docile.

Will it make me less hesitant to chop should I need to in the future -- impossible to say. In some way shape or form I think it was beneficial.

at a minimum it was a cool feeling dropping out into freefall again

[rnicks 0]

That's awesome that you were able to jump it!! Eventhough I have had an unintentional cutaway, I would still love the opportunity to jump a tertiary rig.

[sacex250 0]

Quote

In order, based on the video? IMO:

1) Not turning away from an impending collision

How can not turning away from an impending collision be a primary cause of an impending collision?

1) Freefall through a cloud deck with a coincident deployment in the path of another canopy that he couldn't see open.

2) The other jumper had fallen quite aways ahead and was under canopy earlier and flying at speed when a canopy suddenly appeared in his path, if anyone should have avoided the collision it was the jumper who was already flying under canopy at a faster speed. Expecting a slower canopy that's just deployed to dodge a faster incoming canopy in that amount of time is a bit much to ask.

2) Not checking out his canopy, realizing it had problems and cutting away from it

This was the most significant life-threatening decision/issue of the jump, but it's so far down on the list of chronological events that it doesn't have causal significance. The damaged canopy has nothing to do with what caused the collision.

3) Not having the skill to do a 4-way per the plan

How do you know what the plan was? Nowhere in this video is there a 4-way, and the second two jumpers never attempt to link up with anyone. The first two jumpers went out together, but can you really say that the second two jumpers were doing an RW jump? I think not.

4) Not having the attention to spare to jump a camera

What is that supposed to mean? The camera was turned on wasn't it? How much more attention was he supposed to be paying to the camera during the jump, was the camera neglected in some way? The fact that he was wearing a camera is not part of the causal chain of events or even a contributory factor in the jump. On the whole, I'd say that the value of the video that the camera provided far outweighed any harm that was done to get it. If you don't like what you see in the video and if you don't want to see it for what it is then just close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, and it'll be like the jump never happened.

5) Not checking the spot

a) First jumper putting a load out over solid clouds (listed separately because it's not this jumper's fault)

How is not checking the spot not the jumper's fault? Is exit separation not the jumper's responsibility either? How about tracking? Should we blame the clouds for causing the jumpers to make an illegal jump?

Here's my top 5 "major" things that make this jump a significant issue:

1) Failure to initiate EPs on a damaged canopy by doing a controllability check and, in hindsight, cutting away from an unstable canopy while it was possible to do so.

2) Failure to initiate EPs on a damaged canopy by doing a controllability check and, in hindsight, cutting away from an unstable canopy while it was possible to do so.

3) Failure to initiate EPs on a damaged canopy by doing a controllability check and, in hindsight, cutting away from an unstable canopy while it was possible to do so.

4) Failure to initiate EPs on a damaged canopy by doing a controllability check and, in hindsight, cutting away from an unstable canopy while it was possible to do so.

5) Failure to initiate EPs on a damaged canopy by doing a controllability check and, in hindsight, cutting away from an unstable canopy while it was possible to do so.


Now here's my top 5 ranking of the mistakes that were made on this jump which CAUSED the incident:

1) An intentional illegal jump through a cloud layer. The jump shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Now to see things as that black and white won't make sense to a lot of jumpers who don't take following FAA regulations in and under Class B airspace as seriously as making up their own rules to keep low-time jumpers from jumping with cameras; so, let's assume that, "well, everyone jumps through a cloud layer at some point, right?"

2) We may never know what the plan actually was on this jump, was it a 4-way that dissolved as quickly as the jumpers left the door, or did the second two jumpers just follow the first two out, just because? Like mom always said, "If your friends jump off a cliff...?" Clearly, in either case, there's HUGE spotting issues going on here. I'm inclined to believe that the second pair of jumpers were solo jumpers that didn't put any effort into spotting for themselves or giving themselves any exit separation from the first two jumpers or each other.

3) The collision itself was an unfortunate accident caused by the above factors; exit separation and poor visibility. Could the collision have been avoided by maneuvering? Perhaps, but it still would have been a close call and the fact of the matter is, given the conditions the jump took place in, a chance collision between two canopies occurred. Is it reasonable to assume that a canopy collision, or even a freefall collision, could occur given these circumstances? Absolutely.

4) Not Applicable

5) Not Applicable

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[PiLFy 0]

A stupid claim, Bill? I shouldn't have to tell you this, but w/Newbies, sometimes "the camera caused the incident" proves to be very true. Though, I never said that, here. I've never said this, anywhere: "small canopies have nothing to do with landing accidents."

Lastly, I have never taken the position that someone w/such poor general skills/knowledge should add to the mix by strapping on a camera. "...and to ignore that because one prefers that cameras be available for new jumper is foolish." Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. What we have is a difference of opinion. It's the basis for discussion, not a pissing match.

Spootch is right. You clearly have a lot of knowledge you could share. It's a shame you choose to act like this, instead. Twardo is right, too. Some Sky Gods have lost perspective, & gotten stuck in the Grumpy Tree... You gonna delete my post too, Bill?

[PiLFy 0]

"Do you think it's possible that some people (who've never had to cut away before) could be scared to do so?"

Absolutely. I used to look forward to my first cutaway in a warped-humor sort of way. I viewed it as a rite of passage. I'll now be quite content to wait several hundred jumps before one comes my way. It almost certainly will happen one day. I'll do it without hesitation when the time comes. I know my life depends on it. As well as the safety of those around me. I would jump (sorry) at the chance to do an intentional cutaway. I don't see how it could do anything but help preparedness. It would be a logical extension of the training harness. Such a requirement could have made the difference w/that young man (& potentially save his life).

[Snowflake 0]

What I truly find amusing about all this is that go pro was only mentioned twice on the first page and that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. All other comments referenced a camera in the context of the jumpers skydiving skill set. Then somewhere on the second page someone who probably didn't read the whole thread calls it a "go pro hunt" and everyone is off to the races, too funny!!!!!

[PiLFy 0]

"In order, based on the video? IMO:

1) Not turning away from an impending collision
2) Not checking out his canopy, realizing it had problems and cutting away from it
3) Not having the skill to do a 4-way per the plan
4) Not having the attention to spare to jump a camera
5) Not checking the spot"

What? #1 was "not turning away"? The primary cause of that collision was his virtually ignoring his three buddies once they exited. He had no idea where they were when he punched through that cloud. "Best way avoid getting hit? No be there." (Mr.Miaggi). Better separation would have prevented the collision, & all that followed.

Edited to add: Oops, I forgot the disclaimer: But what do I know? I only have 99 jumps...

[rifleman 61]

As a soldier I was taught two things which I've tried to take with me into skydiving (yes - I know I'm a noob and my opinions don't count for much). The rules were:

Don't shoot unless you have a clearly defined target

The 6 P's - proper preparation prevents piss poor performance

IMO the biggest mistake this guy made was, when the spotter said "I can't see shit!", not sitting his ass down and either taking the ride down or asking the pilot for another pass 1500-2000 ft lower. I'm always getting told that the only person responsible for my safety is ME and to my mind that means that if I'm not happy with the spot or the weather conditions then I don't jump.

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[skydiver604 0]

IMO the biggest mistake this guy made was, when the spotter said "I can't see shit!", not sitting his ass down and either taking the ride down or asking the pilot for another pass 1500-2000 ft lower. I'm always getting told that the only person responsible for my safety is ME and to my mind that means that if I'm not happy with the spot or the weather conditions then I don't jump.





best post yet

"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo

[shropshire 0]

Quote

As a soldier I was taught two things which I've tried to take with me into skydiving (yes - I know I'm a noob and my opinions don't count for much). The rules were:

Don't shoot unless you have a clearly defined target

The 6 P's - proper preparation prevents piss poor performance

IMO the biggest mistake this guy made was, when the spotter said "I can't see shit!", not sitting his ass down and either taking the ride down or asking the pilot for another pass 1500-2000 ft lower. I'm always getting told that the only person responsible for my safety is ME and to my mind that means that if I'm not happy with the spot or the weather conditions then I don't jump.

Very true - but peer pressure is a powerful thing ... and 'appears' to have a big XY chromosome component!!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 2,396]

>How can not turning away from an impending collision be a primary cause of an
>impending collision?

The same way not pulling can be the primary cause of a collision with the ground. Had he turned the collision would likely not have occurred.

>What is that supposed to mean? The camera was turned on wasn't it? How much more
>attention was he supposed to be paying to the camera during the jump . . .

Cameras require attention, and distract jumpers during the jump even if no buttons need to be pushed once they are on. That's what those dozens of incidents that DSE posted demonstrated. You do not just "turn them on and forget them."

>On the whole, I'd say that the value of the video that the camera provided far
>outweighed any harm that was done to get it.

And that attitude is why we have dozens of camera related incidents in that list.

[billvon 2,396]

>but w/Newbies, sometimes "the camera caused the incident" proves to be very true.

OK. I've never seen one, but I could imagine one might occur. Do you have an example?

>It's the basis for discussion, not a pissing match.

Agreed. If we could stop with the knee-jerk defense of cameras that would be great. (Not directed at you.)

>Some Sky Gods have lost perspective, & gotten stuck in the Grumpy Tree..

Yep. And I'm a canopy nazi, and I hate newbies, and I stick my nose in other people's business etc etc. If I prevent one incident for every 100 people who get bent out of shape with my opinions, I'm happy with that. You don't have to be. In fact you can have a completely different opinion if you want.

>It's a shame you choose to act like this

?? Like what? Being honest about my opinion? I'm not going to change my opinion so as to not offend someone with more delicate sensibilities. You can have a different opinion; that's fine. Your discussions might be a lot more valuable if you can accept that other people won't always agree with you, rather than making it into a pissing match.

[TampaPete 35]

Do you actually jump?
Or fly? You seem to post on a flying website also.
Or is it strictly theory?

[PiLFy 0]

>but w/Newbies, sometimes "the camera caused the incident" proves to be very true.

"OK. I've never seen one, but I could imagine one might occur. Do you have an example?"

Again, I never said that here, but... DSE's list cites many.

>Some Sky Gods have lost perspective, & gotten stuck in the Grumpy Tree..

"Yep. And I'm a canopy nazi, and I hate newbies, and I stick my nose in other people's business etc etc. If I prevent one incident for every 100 people who get bent out of shape with my opinions, I'm happy with that."

And if a few hundred other Newbies fail to ask questions due to a fear of getting flamed, here. Resulting in a couple dozen serious injuries or fatalities. Are you going to be happy w/that, too? Because that's the climate you help create. That's a fine legacy for an educator. Congratulations.

>It's a shame you choose to act like this

"?? Like what? Being honest about my opinion? I'm not going to change my opinion so as to not offend someone with more delicate sensibilities. You can have a different opinion; that's fine. Your discussions might be a lot more valuable if you can accept that other people won't always agree with you, rather than making it into a pissing match."

I didn't turn it into a pissing match, Bill. You did. You were asked quite nicely to bring something better to the table. Instead, you chose to dig your heals in. You allow others to have a differing opinion. Only to badger them if they do. Disagreeing is a good thing. It leads to further discussion & insights. I never said/inferred/thought that everyone has to agree w/me. Again, stop putting words into my mouth.

You know what? Forget you. You have ceased to be relevant to my continuing education. I'm out of this now, too. It's pointless.

[billvon 2,396]

>DSE's list cites many

Take a look at the list. At the top of the list is this summary:

"Please note that in almost every instance, the camera is a distraction vs being a physical impediment."

Which means that the camera did not do anything to "cause the incident." It was just a distraction, something that reduced the level of attention that the jumper had available to deal with things like avoiding obstacles, other jumpers, keeping track of altitude etc.

>And if a few hundred other Newbies fail to ask questions due to a fear of getting
>flamed, here. Resulting in a couple dozen serious injuries or fatalities. Are you going to
>be happy w/that, too? Because that's the climate you help create.

Honestly, if the choice is to scare someone by telling the truth vs. telling them "hey don't listen to the haters man, cameras aren't that big a problem" I'd rather tell them the truth.

I guess perhaps it's a difference in culture. When I started, if you did something dumb you got yelled at. You felt like an idiot (because you were one) and you resolved to never do something like that again. No one thought "gee, if I criticize Bill for wrapping that guy he might feel like the climate is not welcoming, so I better not say anything negative." Instead you got "what the FUCK were you thinking? You've got 50 jumps and you were trying to do CRW? You're lucky you didn't kill yourself!"

And they were right.

And maybe modern skydivers can't handle that any more. Maybe they need to be told politically correct positive stuff to create a "welcoming climate." And honestly I'm not very good at that. Maybe it's the S+TA in me that saw where being the nice guy led.

>You allow others to have a differing opinion.

And you don't. You seem very offended that I could think differently than you do.

I think you'll find that there are a lot of skydivers out there with different opinions than you have. I hope you won't get this hostile to all of them - because if you do you'll be angry a lot of the time.

[ixlr82 7]

"Honestly, and if it was me (I'll get flamed for this this big time) but... I would have stayed with it - my line of thinking being that I'd rather have a rough landing (that I know I will probably get away with) than cut away and be left with something that I can't manage - and I know that's a stupid attitude AND I also know that it was definitely a cut away situation.
-Having said that I've never had a cutaway situation - the worst I've had so far has been line twists and a tension knot in my right steering line, meaning I didn't have full control of the right side, but I had 90% - decided to keep it - it was fine, no problems.
However - I would welcome the chance to do an intentional cutaway, just to know that if the time ever comes - I can do it."

You don't know what you don't know regarding the canopy, but there isn't one of us that hasn't learned in depth the basic controllability check. You know, 'Is it there, is it square? Left turn, right turn, flare.' No indication in the video that took place. I doubt you would have stayed with it, because you would have done a controllability check-altitude permitting, said 'oh fuck' and then bought us a case of beer. (1st cutaway)

__________________________________________

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Do you actually jump?
Or fly? You seem to post on a flying website also.
Or is it strictly theory?

Don't expect a reply, I've asked that direct question several times (including in this thread) and have yet to recieve a straight answer. I got some bullshit, run-around, list of 'maybe I'm this', or, 'maybe I'm that', but never a straight answer. Come to your own conclusions as to why that is, and then regard his opinions accordingly.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I doubt you would have stayed with it, because you would have done a controllability check-altitude permitting, said 'oh fuck' and then bought us a case of beer. (1st cutaway)

Something to keep in mind, even the controlability check is not 100% accurate. I broke a line (or two) on my canopy once, and it passed the controlability check, which I expanded (because I had plenty of altitude) to include some prolonged slow-flight and slow-flight manuvering, just to avoid any low altitude 'surprise' stalls or collapses if I needed to make any last-minute corrections or avoidance manuvers.

The canopy felt good and remained inflated the whole time. It also felt solid and remained inflated during the falre, it just didn't slow down very much at all. It slowed down somewhat, and I felt it slow down when I checked it at altitude, but it turns out that it wasn't slowing down all that much, and I found out when I pounded into the ground.

Just because a damaged canopy is open and flying straight doesn't mean you can relax. You still only have until your hard deck to make the call to land it or cutaway, and you better make the right choice. Keep in mind that there's a very slim window if impacts that we as humans can endure uninjured. If the canopy cannot do 80% or 90% of what it was designed to do, that's going to be a substantial impact and you might not walk away from it. There's not a 'ton' of difference between a landing you can walk away from, and one that will snap an ankle or tib/fib you right into the ER.

A canopy that 'seems pretty good' just might not be enough to get you down safe.