0
Divalent

Summary of 2013 US sport skydiving fatalities

Recommended Posts

Doug_Davis

***OSHA has no jurisdiction over skydiving. You're argument is invalid.:|



I assume you are being sarcastic? In case you werent, my reference to OSHA was for explanatory reasons or as an example of how the legal definition of "contributing factor" actually works.
Not because OSHA has anything to do with skydiving.

mjosparky


Skydiving is a recreational activity not a sweat shop. Each jumper is free to make his own choice on how to outfit his gear. The only limitation is it must be TSO’d.

So I hate to tell you, but are really wrong. As for the DZO, camera flyers are “independent contractors” providing their own gear. Most DZ’s do not have the number of employees to fall under most of OSHA’s regulations so it is mute point.

So I guess you are wrong.

Sparky



Im not wrong. See what I said above. Again my point wasnt about OSHA having anything to do with skydiving.
It was explaining what the legal system in the US actually defines as a factor. Mitigating, aggravating or otherwise.
Whether something is considered a factor or not is determined by the court system, not people arguing on an internet forum.

Edited to add for clarity...
Hypothetical:
You run a DZ and school. Customer comes out to jump there. However your rental rigs arent equipped with RSL's. Customer cuts away during a malfunction and burns in with partially deployed reserve.
Their spouse or family is going to be contacted by a lawyer. That lawyer is going to haul 10 other DZ owners or instructors in front of the jury all of whom use and recommend RSL's. He is going to ask them if use of the RSL is a recognized "industry best practice." And they will say yes.
Your lack of use of RSL's will then be argued by the attorney for the plaintiffs as a contributing factor in the death of the spouse. The jury will decide (most likely in the plaintiffs favor as everyone else is using RSL's for their rentals). And your liability insurance company will pay out.

The reason I know this is while Im a newbie skydiver, Im familiar with the law and liability because Im a former cop who now runs a whitewater kayaking and river rescue school. Im very familiar with industry best practices and liability, and what I must do to keep myself from getting sued or at least keep them from winning.

As far as I am aware, all DZ's rental gear is fitted with RSL and AAD options. I think you will find the people jumping without are using personal gear and there are a multitude of reasons why they don't have one or the other.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bluebird932

I would rather say that sometimes people with RSL do RSL campaign, I even saw some special pictures on facebook. I don't like it because as I said before I know about fatalities with RSL + camera. My opinion was just it will be good to not write with 2 meanings and its better for students if they will understand situation and all what is for and what is against and later they can make some choice.
Beside that I know experienced jumpers without RSL



Instead of focusing on the RSL as part of the RSL and Camera - focus on the camera which is the completely optional and non-essential piece of equipment. If you want to pursue a worthy cause, chase up the idiots who are mounting snaggy cameras all over their gear>:(

Frankly I'm in awe at the level of ignorance shown with regards to cameras. Recently a friend discussed putting a gopro on their full-face helmet. Asked if she had spoken to anyone, she had spoken to a number of jumpers ALL of whom had given excellent advice on how to mount it for best view etc, not ONE mentioned safety. When I flagged safety the answer was 'everyone else has a G3 with a Go-pro so it isn't a problem'
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2013 US sport skydiving fatailities involving a helmet mounted camera: 0
2012 US sport skydiving fatailities involving a helmet mounted camera: 0
2011 US sport skydiving fatailities involving a helmet mounted camera: 0
2010 US sport skydiving fatailities involving a helmet mounted camera: 0
2009 US sport skydiving fatailities involving a helmet mounted camera: 0

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4565179#4565386

(Can I get back on your lawn please? B|)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JackJ

***

I don't like RSL because I like my universal algorithm. If you have malfunction with hard spining it always works

1. Higher deployment.
2. Time to get stable
3. Reserve in stable position

but RSL doesnt ask you how hard is your line twist or what is your body position



Guys #1: Hey Bro, did you hear Chris went in yesterday!
Guy #2: No way Bro, what happened?

Guy #1: He pulled a little low on this jump as people were all on different levels and i assume he wanted to clear his airspace, he then had had a spinner and had to cutaway, didn't have an RSL and he fought for stability for too long...

Guy#2: Ah well, not to worry at least he went in stable



....said no one ever!

bluebird932

How about his AAD?



Guy #1: Yeah his AAD was on, but he cutaway too low and he didn't build up enough speed until he was way lower than 750ft, I think his reserve pilot chute came out just before impact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What else ebout your RSL campaign
If somebody understand how does it work and all these situations when it's more or less dangerous that's ok but teaching with understanding is not the same like pure propaganda and brainwashing.

For me idea with RSL is sometimes like how to help ourselves if we pull too low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You give a VERY strong, well thought out & stated argument...one that I agree with wholeheartedly.

It's impossible to quantify the number of possible incidents we HAVEN'T seen because an RSL working as advertised.

I think that for 90% of the jumpers on 90% of the types of skydives they do, having the RSL in place is a cheap insurance no-brainer.

I'm a "70's guy" too & remember all the arguments against and the stigma that went along with using and AOD...wasn't until enough of them were in use and people saw for themselves the benefit of having one did they really go 'mainstream' so to speak.

I sometimes wonder if that 'lack' of dramatic fanfare isn't what keeps this RSL question churning...

I just shake my head sometimes hearing a 'newer' jumper list off the reasons they don't need, want, trust something that as with the seat belt analogy - more often than not tremendously stack the odds in your favor.










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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the seat belt analogy is a bad one. In almost all instances, at any speed, a seat belt is likely to make a big and positive difference in survivability. RSL’s are a personal choice because they are only likely to be very effective in a small window of circumstances, and can actually cause problems in many other situations. Personally, if I am cutting away low, like 1000 feet, I would much prefer not to have an RSL. It’s my last chance and I want damn well to make it my best chance. That means cutting away and rolling over, head high to my belly for a clean reserve deployment. Below 800 feet or so I might wish I had an RSL. Below 500 feet, on a standard non skyhook RSL, it wont matter anyway. The entire rest of the skydive there is no benefit in my own risk assessment to have an RSL. And in the case of a canopy wrap, a snagged or misrouted RSL, a high speed spinning cut away, or other complications it will only be a detriment.
Of course, anything can happen to anybody no matter how experienced you are. I could not find my handle or I could end up crazy low in the basement. But my personal risk assessment has these fears outweighed by the other factors. I personally want as much control over the situation as possible when it comes to my last chance.
And having made the decision not to use an RSL I do what I can to minimize the risk. I use an AAD. I use the one hand per handle method for emergency procedures. I practice emergency procedures every day and I maintain my gear on a daily basis. I have very strict hard decks and I have experience in cutting away low.
Of course, the holier than thou DZ.comers are going to flame away. They will call me dangerous and say I have “Mad skillz”. But remember, using an RSL is a choice for a reason. I choose not to. Everybody is different. I prefer to take the risks I am comfortable with and be free to choose not to take certain other risks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And in the time that it took you to determine that you were at 1000 feet instead of 800, you fell 200 feet.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
70sGuy


The logic of your argument (and it is a common one) is that a very careful and very skillful driver should perhaps not use a seat belt. Isn't that too a statistical loser?



Yes I agree that it is a loser. The difference in the comparisons is that one has to get super lucky to get thrown clear of an accident and be saved when not wearing a seatbelt. There's no skill involved. In the RSL case, in all but very unusual cases, you just have to remain normally aware and do normal reserve procedures that even students learn, to not die without an RSL. (Of course, we all screw up at some point.)

Thus the no-seatbelt example is indeed a terrible one, no matter where one is on the RSL argument.


Just to point out (no matter where one stands in the argument), the USPA SIM is still slightly ambivalent about RSLs. While "An RSL is recommended for all experienced jumpers", it also cautions that "c. RSLs can complicate certain emergency procedures", listing 7 scenarios including, "(3) unstable cutaway, although statistics show that chances are better from an unstable reserve deployment than delaying after a cutaway".

Despite the issues occasionally caused by RSL's, it is pretty amazing how well reserves do open even when activated unstably. Only very very occasionally will they do something really bad, like blow up the reserve (like in some tandem side spin scenario with risers very uneven; I don't recall the details). Not sure about lineover stats though, from unstable main or reserve openings. Rarer in any case. Even with bridles pulling across shoulders and infront of faces, and all that kind of stuff people report from unstable openings (with or without RSL), usually there's no snag with a freebag and the reserve opens with no more than nuisance twists. All the same, I can't say I'm a big fan of unstable reserve openings.

In some ideal world we'd have a handle setup that would give us the choice between "I want a reserve now!" and "I know I have time, just chop me and I'll pull the reserve myself (unless I do happen to get really low because I can't get the handle.)" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There's no skill involved.



Car accidents don't happen on accident either. There are people that go through life and never get into a single one. There are people that total two cars a year. And I've met people who don't wear seatbelts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pchapman

In some ideal world we'd have a handle setup that would give us the choice between "I want a reserve now!" and "I know I have time, just chop me and I'll pull the reserve myself (unless I do happen to get really low because I can't get the handle.)"



I have always felt that we have always had that, in the form of the "one hand on each handle" form of emergency procedures.

However, it seems that we have given this up in favor of the "both hands on cutaway handle, then both hands on reserve handle" form.

The latter seems to be better for students, to prevent pulling the reserve handle first, and perhaps it is better for everyone. It is difficult to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pchapman


...In some ideal world we'd have a handle setup that would give us the choice between "I want a reserve now!" and "I know I have time, just chop me and I'll pull the reserve myself (unless I do happen to get really low because I can't get the handle.)" :)



We've got one. Not "in some ideal world," but here and now. It's the snap shackle on the RSL. If you have enough time to decide that you want a delay before your reserve opens, you have enough time to reach up and grab it.

It's something that needs to be practiced, and I'll bet most jumpers don't practice it anywhere near enough (how often do we practice pulling the cutaway and reserve handles?).

But it's a valid option.
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe


We've got one. Not "in some ideal world," but here and now. It's the snap shackle on the RSL. If you have enough time to decide that you want a delay before your reserve opens, you have enough time to reach up and grab it.

It's something that needs to be practiced, and I'll bet most jumpers don't practice it anywhere near enough (how often do we practice pulling the cutaway and reserve handles?).

But it's a valid option.

And we've got a recent fatality where it appeared that thing is what might have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Divalent

2013 US sport skydiving fatailities involving a helmet mounted camera: 0
2012 US sport skydiving fatailities involving a helmet mounted camera: 0
2011 US sport skydiving fatailities involving a helmet mounted camera: 0
2010 US sport skydiving fatailities involving a helmet mounted camera: 0
2009 US sport skydiving fatailities involving a helmet mounted camera: 0

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4565179#4565386

(Can I get back on your lawn please? B|)



Peter, I accept it is rare. I don't think the dropzone database is correct though as I remember a fatality in parachutist from a broken neck due to a camera entanglement (female jumper, honestly don't remember any other detail). However your point is valid in that the old rsl and camera debate needs revisiting as you are better off with an rsl and a typical camera setup nowadays.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

***
...In some ideal world we'd have a handle setup that would give us the choice between "I want a reserve now!" and "I know I have time, just chop me and I'll pull the reserve myself (unless I do happen to get really low because I can't get the handle.)" :)



We've got one. Not "in some ideal world," but here and now. It's the snap shackle on the RSL. If you have enough time to decide that you want a delay before your reserve opens, you have enough time to reach up and grab it.

It's something that needs to be practiced, and I'll bet most jumpers don't practice it anywhere near enough (how often do we practice pulling the cutaway and reserve handles?).

But it's a valid option.

I do not believe it is a valid option. If, and that is a big if, a jumpers thinks of this move and then tries it the loss of altitude would unacceptable. Not to mention the chance of losing altitude awareness.

I did a series of test for Capewell’s KAWARS canopy release. One test was a ground drag with one side already released. At 7 mph it was all I could do to locate, trap and release the other side. I knew in advance the task and did not the ground to contend with.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have always felt that we have always had that, in the form of the "one hand on each handle" form of emergency procedures.



I have always felt this was the best method, I learned as soon as I started on a pig rig. I went so far as to have metal handles on both sides. Hook your thumbs and it works great.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pchapman


Yes I agree that it is a loser. The difference in the comparisons is that one has to get super lucky to get thrown clear of an accident and be saved when not wearing a seatbelt. There's no skill involved. In the RSL case, in all but very unusual cases, you just have to remain normally aware and do normal reserve procedures that even students learn, to not die without an RSL. (Of course, we all screw up at some point.)



But aren't we talking strictly about the unusual cases? If we aren't concerned about how to prevent the few low reserve pull fatalities that do occur, then why even have an incident forum? Why not simply chalk off the fatalities to "unusual circumstances"? And your last quoted sentence, which I bolded, suggests quite a contradiction in your thinking there ;)

Along the same lines, if the actual percentage of skydivers that are using RSL's is as high as some suggest, then without RSLs these low reserve pull fatalities might not be nearly as unusual as they are now.

(USPA should gather some statistics on RSL use in conjunction with their annual renewal survey. It would answer a lot of questions regarding the statistical arguments)

My line of reasoning on the seat belt analogy is that, for most or perhaps even all skydivers, skill should not be considered in this decision. And because of that, the seatbelt analogy fits perfectly.

Surely this is true of most skydivers. Because, by definition, most skydivers cannot have better than average skills.

I cannot possibly argue that you, Peter, do not have those skills. Only you can "know" that, assuming it is possible to know that.

And what I am saying here is predicated on the fact that 4 skydivers this year ended up somewhere around line stretch on their reserves as they impacted. And surely all 4 thought through this "skills verses statistics" decision and they surely thought they had the skills to beat the odds.

The only reason I entered this thread is that I recently had a discussion with a post AFF grad student who I think is somewhat confused by these RSL discussions that have gone on "forever" here...

It concerns me that no matter how you coach your thoughts, the nature of things is that there is always confusion between the very personal choice you have made, based on thousands of jumps, and the "statistically correct decision". Even the USPA SIM is trying to say the same thing, I think: in order to more safely jump without an RSL you must pit your skills against the statistics.

(After reading the recent Parachutist article on RSLs, I got the distinct sense that they are heading in a direction of more forcefully recommending RSLs, except in the case of CRW, for which I don't think there is any disagreement by anyone. Maybe subsequent to reviewing the 2013 fatality reports?)

Even worse, I well know that initially uncertain and scared students quickly become 100 jump wonders and that seems to stay that way for some time. And I think that is a very dangerous phase of a skydiving career, where the average skydiver believes they possess exceptional skills that history has always and will always prove they do not, for the most part have.

So I think we (including all the others that responded to my post) had a good discussion on this and I hope that the context of the decision is well understood by those trying to learn something here. And in particular I hope I've made someone, somewhere, realize that statistically they are not likely as good as they currently think they are.

ShotterMG

Personally, if I am cutting away low, like 1000 feet, I would much prefer not to have an RSL. It’s my last chance and I want damn well to make it my best chance. That means cutting away and rolling over, head high to my belly for a clean reserve deployment.
...
I practice emergency procedures every day and I maintain my gear on a daily basis. I have very strict hard decks and I have experience in cutting away low.



I truly wish we could interview those 4 dead skydivers to find out how often they practiced their EPs and how many successful cutaways they had.

I think an interesting scientific experiment would force 100 similarly minded skydivers (that intend to get stable before their reserve pull) into unexpected spinning mals and see how many can cut away at 1000 ft, actually get stable, and beat the race against time. And then repeat 10 times for each.

You understand that you have as little as 3 seconds between 1000 ft and the 500 ft level where you yourself acknowledge it doesn't matter any more? So you must leave some margin for error there and I am curious how long you think it will really take to get stable and how much margin for error you leave yourself in the event you can't? How exactly will you divvy up those 3 seconds? And Wendy made a very good point too in this regard.

And you believe you can do that in a consistently repeatable way?

(and by "you" I really mean the hundred people reading this that might get the idea that they can do the same)

I'm not being facetious or picking a fight. Honest. These are serious questions, although I suspect no one would ever do that scientific experiment. I really am curious, at a purely intellectual level, if people really are as good as they think they are.

But more importantly I hope that people reading this understand that in most, if not all cases, it might be prudent to assume they aren't that good, even if they think they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
70sGuy


It concerns me that no matter how you coach your thoughts, the nature of things is that there is always confusion between the very personal choice you have made, based on thousands of jumps, and the "statistically correct decision". .



I don't really have much argument with you at all. It is indeed a big question whether one can beat the average. So far with a few non-RSL chops in my few thousand jumps, I've done OK.

After I'm done with skydiving we'll see whether I always managed to avoid impacting the planet too hard. Whether a skydiver, BASE jumper, skier, or just a driver on icy roads, we always accept certain risks and avoid others, and pretty much always figure we can "pull it off", whatever we're doing. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're not, and others' opinions will differ on whether we should have tried in the first place.

While I personally kind of like the choice of when to pull my reserve, it isn't that big a benefit to most people -- whether in terms of certain advantages or simple enjoyment -- so yes:

In most cases the simplest thing to do these days is to just hook up your RSL with or without MARD.

While I tend to recommend that when someone asks, I'm also clearly going to mention where it can cause the occasional problem.

(I haven't looked at order forms lately, but I would think RSL's are getting closer to being standard equipment... or at least, rigs always being RSL ready. In the old days, it was harder to recommend RSL's, because a used rig often wasn't set up for it anyway, making arguments moot.)

This has indeed been a fairly civil discussion on the various benefits and disadvantages of RSLs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"You understand that you have as little as 3 seconds between 1000 ft and the 500 ft level where you yourself acknowledge it doesn't matter any more? So you must leave some margin for error there and I am curious how long you think it will really take to get stable and how much margin for error you leave yourself in the event you can't? How exactly will you divvy up those 3 seconds? And Wendy made a very good point too in this regard. "

It's a fair question and worth clarifying. Don't picture someone falling away and trying to get stable. At that altitude I am talking about a tenth of a second. That is, pull right, snap body around so container is up and pull left. Very quick. And I would literally pull no matter what after about a half a second.
I am sorry if this sounds like an unreasonable expectation. You and Wendy worry about some things, I worry about other things. It's not black and white. There are a bunch of trade offs. We all reserve the right to make decisions based on our individual experiences. I happen to have a ton of sub terminal experience. Does that matter? I think it does. You guys might think differently depending on your own experience.
But my mind is always open. I have thought about RSL's long and hard. It's not easy. I am always willing to change my mind and I welcome the debate. But I do think it's a reasonably debatable issue and RSL'S should remain a choice.

"And you believe you can do that in a consistently repeatable way?"

Absolutely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

***
...In some ideal world we'd have a handle setup that would give us the choice between "I want a reserve now!" and "I know I have time, just chop me and I'll pull the reserve myself (unless I do happen to get really low because I can't get the handle.)" :)



We've got one. Not "in some ideal world," but here and now. It's the snap shackle on the RSL. If you have enough time to decide that you want a delay before your reserve opens, you have enough time to reach up and grab it.

It's something that needs to be practiced, and I'll bet most jumpers don't practice it anywhere near enough (how often do we practice pulling the cutaway and reserve handles?).

But it's a valid option.

It is not wise to waste time screwing with the RSL shackle in the middle if a malfunction.

Are there scenarios in which a jumper would have time to release the RSL safely? Of course there are. However the vast majority of main mals occur at the bottom of the jump when performing EP's quickly is critical.

A jumper can think they are capable of all kinds of things while on the ground solving the sports' woes in their head, but adding a step to the EP's that requires fiddling with a little shackle (often while wearing a fullface helmet that restricts vision below the jumper's chin) is not a good idea.

Possibly even more dangerous is the decision and execution time required in the added step. The jumper must first decide whether or not to release the RSL. Under the stress of a mal that can take several seconds and the jumper may need those seconds depending on altitude. In fact, that added time required to make the decision and then execute the process could put the jumper at an altitude where they NEED the RSL that they just disconnected.

I'm sure some on here will reply with a million reasons why putting the extra step in EP's is ok or even superior to not adding it. Don't bother. If you want to do it, do it. Just understand that it could cost you.

Another reason to keep the EP's simple and fast is the possibility of problems after EP's. The altitude wasted screwing with the RSL could leave a jumper over an unsafe area without sufficient time to fly out of trouble or avoid obstacles. The adage used by pilots is applicable here - "altitude above you is useless".

Likewise, if there are problems with the reserve deployment altitude is your best friend.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you have enough time to decide that you want a delay before your reserve opens, you have enough time to reach up and grab it.



No, you don't. that little tab is not meant to be found/operated while under a mal (is it possible to do it sometimes, probably.. but not as a rule). You will waste what probably are the last seconds of your life. Why do you think Tandem rigs have big handles attached to their RSL shackles?
Remster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how about your altimeters but my is painted like that:

http://www.parasport.it/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=92

So it's possible to pull even between 1500 - 1200 m

I've been told one day that rules have been written with human's blood. I guess somebody knew why to paint that altimeter in this way. We deploy main in stable position and I think if it's last chance its good to pull reserve stable.

That's true reserves are more reliable with openings but it's extra gift from manufacturer not the reason why to pull too low and later think how to help ourselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0