0
Sangi

Trick with tandem

Recommended Posts

Oh I get it...

If I don't agree and don't have the same point of view of the masses, then I'm an outcast...

The NickD guy summed it up quite well... Time will show you.
"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


And what's so bad about my question?



The question isn't bad. What's bad is that you continue to argue with experienced individuals (and believe you're right) when you lack basic knowledge.

Quote

So give me a break.



Did you even attempt to answer your own question before asking others? I doubt it, no break for you ...
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not arguing from the technical side.

I understand that the stunt is dangerous and that it can kill it's participants and that it should not be done with students.

What I'm arguing about is that everyone who are involved in this stunt have to be experienced and know what they are getting into, by meeting those 2 criteria they are free to attempt it and if they succeed, then they show some nice skills :)
I doubt that the people who survive that stunt and see their colleagues die will sue the tandem rig manufacturer for that. They knew what they were getting into and I bet they got the same view as you about the tandem manufacturers going out of business...
"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Oh I get it...

If I don't agree and don't have the same point of view of the masses, then I'm an outcast...

The NickD guy summed it up quite well... Time will show you.



If that's how you want to interpret it go ahead. But I have a feeling to most of these people that have the same point of view as me that its more about your blatant disregard for safety.

I'll repeat myself from a previous post.
Quote

P.S. If you guys want to get Basik shut down I don't give a flying fuck. But don't get our US companies shut down cause you European folks want to 'push the limits' and have a "hardcore 'progressive' attitude".



The difference between you and me is when an experienced skydiver tells me something is a bad idea I listen. I don't argue with them about why it's a bad idea. I ask why its a bad idea and when they tell me I say to myself 'Oh, I see where he is coming from. Maybe I'll get a few more jumps before I try whatever it is.' Retarded ideas and progressive ideas are totally different. Your problem seems to be not being able to distinguish between the 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

1st thing:

Why do you think the person wearing the rig is in charge ? Actually I would say the "passanger" gets better acces to relative wind when bellyflying. The passanger has better means to control the two of them.

However, I would say this is kind of irrelevant because next you might argue that the "passanger" might be held liable for killing the person wearing the rig.




Part of the reason we can do what we do is the 'Hey - it's your life' argument. The majority thinks we're crazy. But at least we're only taking our lives into our hands when we hurl ourselves out of a so-called 'perfectly good airplane.'

It's different when 2 people are strapped together. In the eyes of most people (non-skydivers - the ones who would make up a jury), the person with the rig IS calling the shots. Because ultimately, when it comes time to prevent the person from meeting up with the earth, the TI has much more control over the situation than the passenger in front.

Put it this way - if the TI is incapacitated, and no AAD is present, the passenger is strapped to the front of a meat missile. If the passenger's family brings a lawsuit, I think whuffos on a jury wouldn't like the idea of that lack of control - no matter how much you try to explain otherwise. They can't relate to the situation.

Quote

So let us focus on the manufacturer liability issue once more:

Basically your theory was that if the person wearing the rig is held liable than the also the manufacturer could be held liable. I dont understand the logic here. To me it sounds as crazy as if Volvo would be held liable for a pedestrian fatality when some drunk driver runs her over with a car manufactured by Volvo. I just cant see the logic there.




Yep, that's the theory. I agree, it's crazy. It would be laughable if it didn't happen so often. In the U.S., manufacturers are usually lumped into lawsuits by default, because they tend to have more money to dole out than that drunk driver. Sad, but true.

Maybe not so much with your Volvo example, because whuffos can relate more to a car accident - but in aviation, they can't. Cessna almost went out of business back in the 70's because pople would get in their 172, forget to fill up the gas tank (or some other operator error), and crash into a mountain. Then the family would sue everyone from the airport to the company that made the tires on the plane. It was only after legislative protection was enacted in the U.S. that Cessna started making planes again.

Now, my family are very rational people - risk-takers themselves. But who's to say that if I tried something like this and got killed strapped to the front of someone because something went wrong - and it was on video - that they wouldn't be hysterical and sue everyone remotely related?

(The answer is: I am, based on instructions in my last will & testament. I would venture to say that most skydivers don't have a non-sue clause inserted in theirs, though).

Quote

As I have said before tandem manufacturers would be very very unlikely sued if something was to go wrong with someone performing a stunt like this. I quote my self:

actually one might argue that tandem gear manufacturers are actually much less likely to be held liable, since they have produced so much protocols, recommendations and training programs for how to use their gear properly. And so if someone chooses to act against, they are on their own..



But as I said before, this argument is self-defeating. Because in this case (where ratings are involved), a rule is meaningless unless enforced. If a manufacturer didn't pull the TI's rating every time something like this happened, they *could* be held liable. And if they do pull ratings when this happens, then they're 'preventing the progress of the sport'. People work hard to get those ratings, and rely on them for income. Most don't want them pulled for a stupid stunt.

In a country of run-away tort law, that's just the way it has to be.


Quote

I wonder why no one pulls off this liability card when talking about MR.bills or some other stunt not involving tandem gear?



Again, tandems are a special thing. Because in a Mr. Bill, each participant has a parachute, and the responsibility to save him/herself falls to him/her. Not necessarily so with a tandem.


Quote

As far as Im conserned the liabilty claim is total BS, in the context of this thred. I might also add that Im a 4th year law student and I would guess I have learned a thing or two about liability issues. Im willing to hear more argumentation if you can reason your statements however. So far Im not convinsed.



Perhaps it is B.S...in Finland. I assure you it's anything but that in the U.S. (where most of the largest tandem manufacturers are located).
Signatures are the new black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that and a lack of understanding of what a tandem is really all about.

Most of the experienced jumpers I know, wouldn't want to do a tandem, much less as a passenger. They typically ride passenger as a favor to someone getting a rating or renewing one, that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Again, great post Lloyd :)
It's simply a matter of attitude and laws...



Yep. [DISCLAIMER: I'm talking about experienced jumpers attempting this stunt, NEVER with a student.]

As for laws, if we're talking about U.S. manufacturers, as far as I'm concerned, their word is final. Doesn't matter if you think it would be really cool. If they license you with a tandem rating, you should obey their rules...or lose that rating.

As for attitude...back to a jury seeing it as an issue that the passenger has no control over their fate...I'll admit, I see it as a huge issue, too. When you get the required amount of jumps (C license or equivalent in the U.S.), go ride as a tandem passenger for someone who's working on their ratings. It's one of the scariest jumps you can make.

Reason being, you're completely dependent on the TI. You don't realize how helpless you are until you've got a couple hundred jumps of self-reliance, then are forced to rely on another person strapped to your back.

That's why I find the whole idea of this stunt to be ridiculous. Especially in the example you originally posted, where it *was*, in fact, an unknowing student. But even with experienced jumpers, the idea of liability gets tricky, since one jumper is at the mercy of the other one.

Do a couple of tandem passenger rides and you'll see that. It's eye-opening.
Signatures are the new black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am really puzzled by this thread. So far Sangi has only expressed curiosity in something that he freely admits is dangerous and risky.

He has been bashed by swoopers who push the envelope in terms of wingloading and while landings under highly loaded canopies kill more skydivers than anything else these days (even experienced "conservative" jumpers like Tonto) they continue to expose themselves to the un-necessary and added risk. A number of base jumpers have reacted very negatively as well - another group who push the very envelope of what many people would call insane (myself included :P)

As someone put it even skydiving is an un-necessary risk activity - hell its not like he asked this on the bowling forum:ph34r:!

The ONLY logical argument that I have heard is that tandem manufacturers are probably subject to a higher level of liability and therefore in terms of ethical behaviour it is unfair to risk someone else's livelihood for the sake of a cheap thrill.

As to tandems being the holy grail/lifeblood of modern skydiving, I don't accept or believe that. Turbine aircraft and "large" DZ's provide a certain lifestyle or environment but so do little DZ's perhaps it is due to my entire skydiving experience being at a DZ with only a single cessna where we were annually treated to jumps from a CASA and helicopters courtesy of the airforce (Africa has its perks as these were cheaper jumps than the cessnaB|). The environment is different and having lurked at a couple of large(r) UK DZ's you are clearly a customer of a business rather than a member of the family.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Because ultimately, when it comes time to prevent the person from meeting up with the earth, the TI has much more control over the situation than the passenger in front.



You still havent told me why does the person wearing the rig have more control ?

I on the otherhand did argument that the passanger has more control of the relative wind when the tandem is on its belly. Dont you think this is the case ?

Surely you must be aware that the passanger also has the possibility to deploy and steer the canopy on his own ? With chicken handles you can even cutaway and deploy reserve. (I guess even without them it isnt necessarily impossible) I dont have so much experience on tandem gear so someone please correct me if Im mistaken here..

Nevertheless IMO this isn´t really relevant when talking about manufacturers liability. It could only be relevant if we were to talk about the liability among participants and even then it is a faint change of it actualizing..





Quote


Again, tandems are a special thing. Because in a Mr. Bill, each participant has a parachute, and the responsibility to save him/herself falls to him/her. Not necessarily so with a tandem.



I dont think so. Two participants performing any stunt what so ever often rely on each other in many occasions. Also when performing MR.bill

And this actually is only relevant when talking about the liability among the participants them selves. Not really relevant when talking about manufacturer liability in relation Sunt performer - manufacturer. Please try to distinguish these two different things.


Quote


Yep, that's the theory. I agree, it's crazy. It would be laughable if it didn't happen so often. In the U.S., manufacturers are usually lumped into lawsuits by default, because they tend to have more money to dole out than that drunk driver. Sad, but true.

Maybe not so much with your Volvo example, because whuffos can relate more to a car accident - but in aviation, they can't. Cessna almost went out of business back in the 70's because pople would get in their 172, forget to fill up the gas tank (or some other operator error), and crash into a mountain. Then the family would sue everyone from the airport to the company that made the tires on the plane. It was only after legislative protection was enacted in the U.S. that Cessna started making planes again.

Now, my family are very rational people - risk-takers themselves. But who's to say that if I tried something like this and got killed strapped to the front of someone because something went wrong - and it was on video - that they wouldn't be hysterical and sue everyone remotely related?

(The answer is: I am, based on instructions in my last will & testament. I would venture to say that most skydivers don't have a non-sue clause inserted in theirs, though).

...

But as I said before, this argument is self-defeating. Because in this case (where ratings are involved), a rule is meaningless unless enforced. If a manufacturer didn't pull the TI's rating every time something like this happened, they *could* be held liable. And if they do pull ratings when this happens, then they're 'preventing the progress of the sport'. People work hard to get those ratings, and rely on them for income. Most don't want them pulled for a stupid stunt.

In a country of run-away tort law, that's just the way it has to be.

Perhaps it is B.S...in Finland. I assure you it's anything but that in the U.S. (where most of the largest tandem manufacturers are located).



Im sorry but you fail to assure me on this one. You take what ever previous proceedings and try to form an analogy without the slightest effort of finding Ratio decidendi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Ok, I so said this before and I will say it again. Flying to the moon was exiting and the crew almost died on the way back, but look at people now, they are planning on flying to Mars in like 50-60 years...

Car racing. It's exiting as it is and people die and yet they still build faster and faster cars.

Who the hell told you I was going to do this stunt with tandems? Hell, I'm far enough from doing SF and HD...

Don't you get it? People are getting bored, they are looking for new things to do, this is why they do stunts like this or jump with stuff like cars... Some of you may not get bored doing the same thing over, but others do! They want more thrill, that's how everything evolves. That's how skydiving went from round non controllable to square high performance canopies, from simply belly falling to FreeFly, Freestyle, Skysurfing, Wingsuits and BASE jumping...

People are curious beings and they risk all the time. Yeah, some die risking, some invent new and exiting things/ideas, which later become very popular and widespread / used.

People are not used to / don't want to do new things with tandems now, but it's most likely that in 4-6 years they will be doing even crazier stuff with tandems, because the technology will be better and safer and people will learn new ways of jumping with tandem. When Freefly appeared people said it was stupid and dangerous, but look at FF now. I bet in time, same thing will happen to Modern Tandem Flying.

Things don't stay in one place, they move on, change, evolve... Same goes for skydiving, it won't be the same forever, it WILL CHANGE...

I don't understand why you don't understand this?



I know you're talking about experienced people and all that, but the "280 sq ft cross braced freefly friendly tandems" are probably not manufactured solely for stunts with experienced jumpers.
They are targeted at the bored TI's who have hauled so many students that they need a challenge on their jump.
The sad thing (IMO) is these things actually sell.

I somewhere read the bogus argument that an x-braced/280 canopy will penetrate in higher winds. Poor justification. What if there's no wind but the only tandem rigs available are the 280s? Will the tandems be put on "no wind hold"?
Novel and controversial suggestion: If the conditions are poor, TIs should sit down until the conditions improve again. If that gets the TI sacked, well - they were probably working for the wrong DZO anyway.

No. Like has been said before, students should be taken on (for the TI) "boring" rides, while experienced jumpers are free to kill entertain themselves any way they see fit, provided it's within the limitations the manufacturers and DZs (should) enforce.
Skydiving isn't safe - all a TI can do for their student is to limit the risks as much as possible.
If they feel "hauling meat" is getting boring, they should stop working for tandem factories, get a regular job or win the lottery and use that money to make (more) fun jumps.
"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the 280 x-braced is available for mass production. I had heard it was a demo thing only, and a real bitch to fly due to high toggle pressure.

I also checked their website, they only have an option for 330/365/400 sq ft on the order form.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last time I checked on this thread it was on page 6. And to be honest catching up on the whole ordeal has been one of the most annoying things I've done lately. I wanted to just jump to the end and give my $.02 but I don't want to repeat after someone else.

I realize I've had a short career so far. I'm obviously not a TM. Hell i can't even freefly yet.

My first jump was a a little over 2 years ago. It was a tandem at a certain dz. Do you know how much of it I remember? .......... Ya I remember little glipses of some clouds and a cameraman smiling at me. Then a sudden jerk and a quiet ride under a blue canopy. 6 months later I did my next jump. Yep, a tandem again. This time is was at my now home dz. I remember a little more, but not even close to everything. I have stills from the first jump and video from the second. So out of curiosity from this thread I went back and watched the video and looked at the pictures. Turns out, that first tandem was full of HD "tandem modern flying" :D and the drogue wasn't tossed until a few seconds before deployment.

Watching the video closely, the TM was wearing an Eclipse rig. I don't know much about other tandem rigs, but I've packed several hundred Eclipse tandems (my home dz owns Eclipse's) and I KNOW that isn't a freefly friendly rig. Quite honestly it pisses me the F#@& off.

Do you know how much of all that extra shit I remember? At the time, both jumps felt the exact same to me. I mean I just jumped out of a plane! Now with a few more under my belt, I realize things alot more. But back then, I had no idea what was going on.

So why do it then? You can argue it all you want, but tandems are always dangerous jumps. In just over a year ive seen all kinds of videos and heard all kinds of stories of close calls with seemingly "normal tandem jumps". I agree with the experienced folk. Leave the damn tandems alone. The student (passenger) is counting on you to get them down safely. They are putting their life in your hands. And they sure as fuck won't know the difference between freeflying or belly flying when it's over. The unnecessary risk is pointless for so many reasons.

Sure pushing the envelope is necessary for the sport. But do you remember seeing any tandems jump out in cars, or chase their rig out the door? No? I wonder why. :S Keep on pushing the limits for the experienced jumpers. Some great things have come from it! But damn, just give the tandem passenger the ride they want...a regular skydive. What if you're not willing to be bored during a regular droguefall? Simple. Quit jumping with tandems. Go freefly with your pals.

And Sangi, we're pretty close on experience and no one expects us to know everything, far from it really. But gees, most questions you ask should be answered in your head with basic common sense as you type them out. When you get a rundown of a tandem rig maybe you'll understand why a little more.
"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well...

I remember my tandem jump (it was my first) and I remember everything from it, the way we left doing a half frontflip, when I was looking to the ground and the cameraman tap me on my head to look at him, the turns, the canopy deployment, when the TI gave me the controls for a bit, the landing... Really, dunno about others but I remember that jump as if it was yesterday (it was in 2007 spring)...
"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well...

I remember my tandem jump (it was my first) and I remember everything from it, the way we left doing a half frontflip, when I was looking to the ground and the cameraman tap me on my head to look at him, the turns, the canopy deployment, when the TI gave me the controls for a bit, the landing... Really, dunno about others but I remember that jump as if it was yesterday (it was in 2007 spring)...


I think this explains a lot. While people have been trashing this guy for not paying attention to the wisdom acquired by the experiences of those with more jumps than him, people refuse to entertain the notion that just maybe he can appreciate these things with less jumps than it took them. Maybe, just maybe, his ability is such that he can see possibilities at 94 jumps that they could not.
In short, this guy obviously has,...























MAD SKILLS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0