Summary of 2013 US sport skydiving fatalities

[Divalent 89]

Here is a brief overview of the 2013 US sport skydiving fatalities, based on those incidents reported in the Incidents forum here.

There were a total of 22 sport skydiving fatalities (compared to 17 in 2012 and 24 in 2011). Two involved tandem jumps (in both, the TI died). Of the 20 non-tandem fatalities, 16 were experienced jumpers (400 hundred jumps or more), 1 low timer (a no pull on a HALO jump), and 3 students* (1 no pull, 1 tail strike, 1 low turn).
[* the "student" in the 6/16/13 Utah incident may have just competed her A license shortly before she died.]

10 of the 20 non-tandem fatalities followed the successful deployment of a good canopy.

4 of the 20 non-tandem fatalities were the result of a deliberate attempt to induce speed for landing (i.e, a high performance landing) and 2 were from low turns apparently initiated to alter the landing spot or direction.

Zero fatalities due to a canopy collision during a HP landing.

If anything is can be said to be notable (in a bad way) about 2013, it was the 4 fatalities of experienced jumpers due to a "Low Cutaway, no RSL".

Complete list is below.

#1&2 Zhills 3/23/13 Student no pull, AFFI chased low, double AAD fire, neither survived. Student and (EJ)
#3 Washington, NC. 4/6/13 dropped toggle after front riser acceleration on final (EJ; GC)
#4 New Mexico – 4/27/13 HP landing (EJ; GC)
#5 Deland FL 5/8/13 - Low cutaway, no RSL. (EJ)
#6 Palatka FL 5/25/13 - Low cutaway, no RSL. (EJ)
#7 Elsinore CA 5/25/13 CReW wrap, unable to cut free (EJ; GC)
#8 Deland FL 5/25/2013 Hard opening broke jumper's neck. (EJ)
#9 SD Warren Co, OH. - 5/26/13 RW based struck and killed by diving LTer (EJ)
#10 Snohomish WA 5/31/13 - HP landing (aggressive downsizer) (EJ; GC)
#11 SD Spaceland TX 6/15/13 - Low cutaway, no RSL. (EJ)
#12 Skydive Utah 6/16/13 Student (recent A lic?) low turn (to avoid obstacle?) (GC)
#13 Wisconsin 7/9/13 Tandem lake landing due to winds; TI drowned (EJ; GC)
#14 Hawaii 7/23/13 Student tail strike on hop-pop (no cut / no level jump run)
#15 Chicago 8/1/13 - Low cutaway, no RSL. (EJ)
#16 Goldcoast MS, 8/3/13 Tandem TI died, pax paralyzed. Main cutaway, landed off. Details still unknown. (EJ)
#17 Skydance Davis, CA 8/24/13 Fell from harness under good main; chest strap undone. Accidental? (EJ; GC)
#18 Skydive West TN 9/23/13 HALO jump from 30K. Apparent no pull, no AAD. Details still unknown (LT?)
#19 Midwest Freefall, MI 10/12/13 HP landing (EJ; GC)
#20&21 Arizona 12/3/13 Canopy collision ~150ft on final after 200-way attempt. (EJx2; GCx2)
#22 Perris, CA – 12/27/13 Low turn (~50 ft) on landing (EJ; GC)

Key to codes used above
EJ = Experienced Jumper (400+ jumps)
LT = Low Timer (< 100 jumps) relatively inexperienced but not a student
GC = Good main Canopy deployed (+ no complications shortly thereafter)
HP = deliberate High Performance turn (i.e., not forced by conditions or inexperience)

[grue 1]

#1&2 are still the ones that concern me the most. Did we ever find out why the hell they bounced after an AAD fire?

cavete terrae.

[mjosparky 3]

grue

#1&2 are still the ones that concern me the most. Did we ever find out why the hell they bounced after an AAD fire?

Probably because the reserve did not open in time. All an AAD does is cut the loop. It does not open your reserve. It’s up to the jumper to save their life. These 2 jumpers failed to that.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 3]

More reader friendly. Thanks for your time and trouble.

Sparky

---

US Fatalities 2013

#1, 2 - Zhills 3/23/13 Student no pull, AFFI chased low, double AAD fire, neither survived.
Student and (EJ)

#3 - Washington, NC. 4/6/13 dropped toggle after front riser acceleration on final (EJ; GC)

#4 - New Mexico – 4/27/13 HP landing (EJ; GC)

#5 - Deland FL 5/8/13 - Low cutaway, no RSL. (EJ)

#6 - Palatka FL 5/25/13 - Low cutaway, no RSL. (EJ)

#7 - Elsinore CA 5/25/13 CReW wrap, unable to cut free (EJ; GC)

#8 - Deland FL 5/25/2013 Hard opening broke jumper's neck. (EJ)

#9 - SD Warren Co, OH. - 5/26/13 RW based struck and killed by diving LTer (EJ)

#10 - Snohomish WA 5/31/13 - HP landing (aggressive downsizer) (EJ; GC)

#11- SD Spaceland TX 6/15/13 - Low cutaway, no RSL. (EJ)

#12 - Skydive Utah 6/16/13 Student (recent A lic?) low turn (to avoid obstacle?) (GC)

#13 - Wisconsin 7/9/13 Tandem lake landing due to winds; TI drowned (EJ; GC)

#14 - Hawaii 7/23/13 Student tail strike on hop-pop (no cut / no level jump run)

#15 - Chicago 8/1/13 - Low cutaway, no RSL. (EJ)

#16 - Goldcoast MS, 8/3/13 Tandem TI died, pax paralyzed. Main cutaway, landed off.
Details still unknown. (EJ)

#17 - Skydance Davis, CA 8/24/13 Fell from harness under good main; chest strap undone.
Accidental? (EJ; GC)

#18 - Skydive West TN 9/23/13 HALO jump from 30K. Apparent no pull, no AAD. Details
Still unknown (LT)

#19 - Midwest Freefall, MI 10/12/13 HP landing (EJ; GC)

#20, 21 - Arizona 12/3/13 Canopy collision ~150ft on final after 200-way attempt. (EJx2;
GCx2)

#22 - Perris, CA – 12/27/13 Low turn (~50 ft) on landing (EJ; GC)

Key to codes used above
EJ = Experienced Jumper (400+ jumps)
LT = Low Timer (< 100 jumps) relatively inexperienced but not a student
GC = Good main Canopy deployed (+ no complications shortly thereafter)
HP = deliberate High Performance turn (i.e., not forced by conditions or inexperience)

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[grue 1]

mjosparky

***#1&2 are still the ones that concern me the most. Did we ever find out why the hell they bounced after an AAD fire?

Probably because the reserve did not open in time. All an AAD does is cut the loop. It does not open your reserve. It’s up to the jumper to save their life. These 2 jumpers failed to that.

Sparky

Definitely, but I'd like to see more
Specific causality.

cavete terrae.

[Divalent 89]

mjosparky

***#1&2 are still the ones that concern me the most. Did we ever find out why the hell they bounced after an AAD fire?

Probably because the reserve did not open in time. All an AAD does is cut the loop. It does not open your reserve. It’s up to the jumper to save their life. These 2 jumpers failed to that.

Sparky
Well, I'd like to know why two AADs and reserves on two separate rigs simultaneously failed to prevent both from impacting the ground at a lethal velocity. I don't expect perfection, but I would really like to know what the failure point was here.

Yes, it's a chain of failures that each started with the jumpers failing to deploy a parachute in time. And I know what to do to avoid that when I jump (and I hope that I do). The AAD information on activation speed and altitude from each unit must be known to some, and that information should allow us to understand what the next failure was.

- Did the AADs not operate as expected? (And if so, why not and in what way?)

- If the AADs operated as expected, were the conditions at the time (velocity, body orientation) outside the normal range that the AAD expected? (And if so, in what way?)

- If the conditions were as normally expected, and the AADs fired at the properly programed time, then both reserves must have not deployed as rapidly as expected. If so, why not? (Reserve packing error? Equipment maintanence? Non-ideal reserve size? Container design flaw? Reserve PC flaw?)

I want to know these because I'd like to reduce the risk that I hit the ground at a fatal speed (as much as reasonably possible while still enjoying jumping). Right now all I know is that this dual incidents reveals that the reliability of those particular AAD/Reseve/container combinations were less than I had expected. But we are being kept in the dark about the chain of failures, and so have no information about what the second failures were. Consequently, I have no idea how to *best* reduce the risk of whatever this second failure was. So "Don't fuck up" (while certainly true) is not all that useful a lesson to take away from these two incidents.

[Hellis 0]

Divalent

******#1&2 are still the ones that concern me the most. Did we ever find out why the hell they bounced after an AAD fire?

Probably because the reserve did not open in time. All an AAD does is cut the loop. It does not open your reserve. It’s up to the jumper to save their life. These 2 jumpers failed to that.

Sparky
Well, I'd like to know why two AADs and reserves on two separate rigs simultaneously failed to prevent both from impacting the ground at a lethal velocity. I don't expect perfection, but I would really like to know what the failure point was here.

Yes, it's a chain of failures that each started with the jumpers failing to deploy a parachute in time. And I know what to do to avoid that when I jump (and I hope that I do). The AAD information on activation speed and altitude from each unit must be known to some, and that information should allow us to understand what the next failure was.

- Did the AADs not operate as expected? (And if so, why not and in what way?)

- If the AADs operated as expected, were the conditions at the time (velocity, body orientation) outside the normal range that the AAD expected? (And if so, in what way?)

- If the conditions were as normally expected, and the AADs fired at the properly programed time, then both reserves must have not deployed as rapidly as expected. If so, why not? (Reserve packing error? Equipment maintanence? Non-ideal reserve size? Container design flaw? Reserve PC flaw?)

I want to know these because I'd like to reduce the risk that I hit the ground at a fatal speed (as much as reasonably possible while still enjoying jumping). Right now all I know is that this dual incidents reveals that the reliability of those particular AAD/Reseve/container combinations were less than I had expected. But we are being kept in the dark about the chain of failures, and so have no information about what the second failures were. Consequently, I have no idea how to *best* reduce the risk of whatever this second failure was. So "Don't fuck up" (while certainly true) is not all that useful a lesson to take away from these two incidents.


I'm not sure we are 'kept' in the dark.
Looking at past incidents, if there is a faliure the cause of the faliure is told.
(at least as far as we know)
I do not believe there is a conspiracy in these incidents, they are very uniqe and I believe if the cause was found it would have leaked out.

But maybe i'm just one of those who don't believe in every conspiracy I hear of
But how to prevent it? Don't know for sure.
But once I get my rig and Cypres back from maintnence I will set a higher firealtitude.

[mark 102]

Divalent

The AAD information on activation speed and altitude from each unit must be known to some, and that information should allow us to understand what the next failure was.

IIRC, the AADs went back to the families, who declined to provide them to Airtec for examination.

Mark

[airtwardo 6]

mark

***The AAD information on activation speed and altitude from each unit must be known to some, and that information should allow us to understand what the next failure was.

IIRC, the AADs went back to the families, who declined to provide them to Airtec for examination.

Mark

Wow...really?

Something I never thought about, but may be a good idea to let my loved ones know it's my wish to allow for any & all investigation be made, in the hope of furthering the safety of the sport..."if' something ever happens that is.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Hellis 0]

mark

***The AAD information on activation speed and altitude from each unit must be known to some, and that information should allow us to understand what the next failure was.

IIRC, the AADs went back to the families, who declined to provide them to Airtec for examination.

Mark

Wow...
I guess we are keept in the dark, but by the families

[grue 1]

airtwardo

******The AAD information on activation speed and altitude from each unit must be known to some, and that information should allow us to understand what the next failure was.

IIRC, the AADs went back to the families, who declined to provide them to Airtec for examination.

Mark

Wow...really?

Something I never thought about, but may be a good idea to let my loved ones know it's my wish to allow for any & all investigation be made, in the hope of furthering the safety of the sport..."if' something ever happens that is.

Yeah I may need to advise my family not to be selfish idiots.

It might considered be too harsh to deem people who would do that as such, but I'm standing by it because they're actively impeding efforts to prevent other people from suffering the fate of their loved ones.

cavete terrae.

[bluebird932 0]

Why you are writing: "Low cutaway, no RSL" instead of "low deployment" that was before?

[mjosparky 3]

bluebird932

Why you are writing: "Low cutaway, no RSL" instead of "low deployment" that was before?

Are you talking about one incident in particular? You can have a normal deployment altitude and a low cutaway on the same jump.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Hellis 0]

grue

*********The AAD information on activation speed and altitude from each unit must be known to some, and that information should allow us to understand what the next failure was.

IIRC, the AADs went back to the families, who declined to provide them to Airtec for examination.

Mark

Wow...really?

Something I never thought about, but may be a good idea to let my loved ones know it's my wish to allow for any & all investigation be made, in the hope of furthering the safety of the sport..."if' something ever happens that is.

Yeah I may need to advise my family not to be selfish idiots.

It might considered be too harsh to deem people who would do that as such, but I'm standing by it because they're actively impeding efforts to prevent other people from suffering the fate of their loved ones.

And I assume skydivers have informed the families how important the data in these AADs are, and they still don't want to send them in.

If this would have happened in 'normal life', let's say a car crash with a videocamera in the car the families don't have the option to keep the camera, do they?

[airdvr 197]

Hellis

************The AAD information on activation speed and altitude from each unit must be known to some, and that information should allow us to understand what the next failure was.

IIRC, the AADs went back to the families, who declined to provide them to Airtec for examination.

Mark

Wow...really?

Something I never thought about, but may be a good idea to let my loved ones know it's my wish to allow for any & all investigation be made, in the hope of furthering the safety of the sport..."if' something ever happens that is.

Yeah I may need to advise my family not to be selfish idiots.

It might considered be too harsh to deem people who would do that as such, but I'm standing by it because they're actively impeding efforts to prevent other people from suffering the fate of their loved ones.

And I assume skydivers have informed the families how important the data in these AADs are, and they still don't want to send them in.

If this would have happened in 'normal life', let's say a car crash with a videocamera in the car the families don't have the option to keep the camera, do they?

I see another paragraph on the waiver coming.

Although tragic I think it might have done the community a good turn by getting us talking about AADs and reserves and containers and all that can go right and still go wrong.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[bluebird932 0]

mjosparky

***Why you are writing: "Low cutaway, no RSL" instead of "low deployment" that was before?

Are you talking about one incident in particular? You can have a normal deployment altitude and a low cutaway on the same jump.

Sparky

I know but it sounds like they died because they didn't have RSL and some people will think that was the reason. We know that RSL sometimes help but sometimes kills.

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

I know but it sounds like they died because they didn't have RSL and some people will think that was the reason. We know that RSL sometimes help but sometimes kills.

That's like saying that seat belts sometimes help but sometimes kill. The chances of either a seat belt or RSL helping far exceed the chances of their killing, barring certain specific exceptions (CRW and video come to mind).

They died because they didn't get a parachute over their heads in time. If they cut away their main from a malfunction, then an RSL makes the reserve opening happen faster than an AAD will.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mirage62 0]

The Palatka incident w NOT low deployment, it WAS a low cut away.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[bluebird932 0]

mirage62

The Palatka incident w NOT low deployment, it WAS a low cut away.

I just want to say that higher deployment and audible altimeter doesnt kill so often like RSL

[airtwardo 6]

bluebird932

***The Palatka incident w NOT low deployment, it WAS a low cut away.

I depends what you mean "not low" . I just want to say that higher deployment and audible altimeter doesnt kill so often like RSL

What the hell are you talking about?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[bluebird932 0]

Sorry mate I dont remember exactly what happend in Palatka and I'm not writing about it

[Remster 24]

bluebird932

***The Palatka incident w NOT low deployment, it WAS a low cut away.

I just want to say that higher deployment and audible altimeter doesnt kill so often like RSL

Whether you are a proponent of RSL or not, saying they kill often, or even once in a while, is a big stretch.

Remster

[wmw999 2,123]

He's saying that he thinks RSLs are dangerous; probably because he doesn't have one, and figures that if he doesn't, no one else should either unless they're a student. . Therefore, "they're dangerous."

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[bluebird932 0]

No. I think its not good when somebody will think they died because they didnt have RSL. The reason is they died because they didn't get a parachute over their heads in time.

[chuckakers 370]

Hellis

************The AAD information on activation speed and altitude from each unit must be known to some, and that information should allow us to understand what the next failure was.

IIRC, the AADs went back to the families, who declined to provide them to Airtec for examination.

Mark

Wow...really?

Something I never thought about, but may be a good idea to let my loved ones know it's my wish to allow for any & all investigation be made, in the hope of furthering the safety of the sport..."if' something ever happens that is.

Yeah I may need to advise my family not to be selfish idiots.

It might considered be too harsh to deem people who would do that as such, but I'm standing by it because they're actively impeding efforts to prevent other people from suffering the fate of their loved ones.

And I assume skydivers have informed the families how important the data in these AADs are, and they still don't want to send them in.

If this would have happened in 'normal life', let's say a car crash with a videocamera in the car the families don't have the option to keep the camera, do they?


A camera is no different than any other property. Unless it is suspected of containing evidence of criminal activity, is somehow connected to a suspected crime, or is stolen, police would not be justified in seizing it. Likewise the footage on the camera is the property of the person who shot it (or the copyright holder in the case of someone shooting for hire) and is not subject to seizure without cause.

I couldn't tell you what the laws are about cops demanding to see video footage in the event of an accident, but seizing a camera or master footage without probable cause would be a pretty clear 4th Amendment violation.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX