Summary of 2013 US sport skydiving fatalities

[Divalent 89]

I probably should have put the "no RSL" in as a parenthetical, as in "Low cutaway (no RSL)", so that it wouldn't seem like the absense of an RSL was a clearly known factor in the fatality. For all we know from these incidents, a RSL might not have made a difference. (Or it might have; we just don't know).

However, the larger point is that last year 4 people died after cutting away their main but then failing to get their reserve out in time. And all 4 of those individuals did not have an RSL on the rig they were jumping. I don't know exactly what proportion of jumpers use an RSL (50%? More? Less?) but it does seem notable to me that all the fatalities from cutting away low involved those without one. It may be a statistical fluke, or it may be indicative of an actual risk.

[70sGuy 0]

bluebird932

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.

Do you want to go back to the 70s when the fatality rate was around 1:8300 as opposed to the about 1:160,000 it is today? Most of those fatalities were low pulls/no pulls/low cutaways/low reserve pulls... unlike today when people have to drive themselves into the ground under perfectly good canopies in order to keep the fatality rate reasonably high.

Same with AADs... most AAD saves are conscious people that just screwed up. There are probably 500 of those listed on the AAD save lists. And the real number is probably in the thousands by now. You are "right", they should have done it better but the punishment for screwing up is rather severe?

Maybe the new classification will help people make that choice - do RSLs save more than they kill? Of course they would have to mark "possible RSL fatalities" some way, but it may be quite a few years before we see how those are classed??

[chuckakers 370]

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.

Way over the line, brother.

What a family decides concerning the release of AAD data, video footage, or other possibly helpful information is none of our business. Sure that information might be helpful in analyzing the accident, but we don't know the personal circumstances of the deceased's family or why they don't want to release it.

Keep in mind that many families don't like their loved ones jumping to begin with. For many of those people, helping in the analysis would be akin to helping the sport - the sport that killed their family member as they see it.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[DeeBeeGee 0]

Quote

unlike today when people have to drive themselves into the ground under perfectly good canopies in order to keep the fatality rate reasonably high.

was there *only* 4 HP fatalities in the US last year?
seem to remember a glut of more than that in a week in 2012. is the message getting through or is that just the nature of low sample statistics?

[lyosha 46]

Divalent

I probably should have put the "no RSL" in as a parenthetical, as in "Low cutaway (no RSL)", so that it wouldn't seem like the absense of an RSL was a clearly known factor in the fatality. For all we know from these incidents, a RSL might not have made a difference. (Or it might have; we just don't know).

However, the larger point is that last year 4 people died after cutting away their main but then failing to get their reserve out in time. And all 4 of those individuals did not have an RSL on the rig they were jumping. I don't know exactly what proportion of jumpers use an RSL (50%? More? Less?) but it does seem notable to me that all the fatalities from cutting away low involved those without one. It may be a statistical fluke, or it may be indicative of an actual risk.

There is never evidence with a 100% threshold of confidence. However, given the facts stated in the last issue of Parachutist magazine, it certainly appears that the lack of an RSL is a strong contributing factor to fatalities where a reserve is not deployed in time. In other words, after seeing aggregate data from several years, my confidence threshold in the statement is met, and I believe in such incidents it should be noted whether an RSL was or was not used.

One could say the exact same things about AADs. Under certain conditions they are dangerous and could and have resulted in fatalities, but the lack of an AAD is a strong contributing factor to nothing-out fatalities and in my opinion should be mentioned when these kinds of fatalities occur.

Knowledge is power. It allows people to make more informed decisions. In all honesty I would love to know the entire setup that was used for each of those jumps.

And correct me if I'm wrong - any time a death is involved it becomes a police matter and is investigated in the public arena? What happened in the case of #1 and #2?

[Remster 24]

Quote

lack of an RSL is a strong contributing factor to fatalities

This is where I really get annoyed.

The lack of an RSL is not a contributing factor. An RSL may have saved them (we don't know), but the fact that they didn't have one certainly did not CONTRIBUTE to the accident / fatality.

Remster

[70sGuy 0]

Divalent

.... For all we know from these incidents, a RSL might not have made a difference. (Or it might have; we just don't know).

When a report says that the reserve achieved line stretch, that could be a very good clue that the (perhaps optimistically?) one or two seconds difference would have had a very good chance of making a difference. Isn't most of the deployment time getting the pilot chute into the wind stream and getting the bag out of the container and lines stretched?

No one will ever know, but it seems that an awful lot of low cutaway/low reserve pulls have a reserve at least at line stretch.

[Southern_Man 0]

Divalent

I don't know exactly what proportion of jumpers use an RSL (50%? More? Less?) but it does seem notable to me that all the fatalities from cutting away low involved those without one. It may be a statistical fluke, or it may be indicative of an actual risk.

I haven't been everywhere or seen everything but I would guess RSL use is much, much higher than 50%. I'd say around 80% or more.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

Remster

Quote

lack of an RSL is a strong contributing factor to fatalities

This is where I really get annoyed.

The lack of an RSL is not a contributing factor. An RSL may have saved them (we don't know), but the fact that they didn't have one certainly did not CONTRIBUTE to the accident / fatality.

Really?

So if someone cuts away at an adequate altitude for reserve deployment (No RSL) and doesn't pull their reserve (for whatever reason) until it's too late, would the lack of an RSL NOT be a contributing factor?

It certainly couldn't be proven that the RSL would definitely have saved them, but it would have initiated deployment of the reserve at a much higher altitude, giving them a much better chance of survival.

It's a little "nit-picky" and I understand where you are coming from, but I can see the lack of an RSL being a contributing factor.

Others may have a different opinion. That's cool too

"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

[Remster 24]

Yes. Really.

Remster

[SethInMI 145]

Remster

This is where I really get annoyed.

The lack of an RSL is not a contributing factor. An RSL may have saved them (we don't know), but the fact that they didn't have one certainly did not CONTRIBUTE to the accident / fatality.

I am fine with that term. It is a pretty common usage, for instance a google search of "lack of seat belt contribute" brings up a lot of news articles using the term in a similar way, like this:

If a person is drunk and runs into a tree without wearing a seat belt and dies, the convention is to say the lack of a seat belt contributed to the fatality. [Not the accident itself, but the fatality]


Seth

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[lyosha 46]

Remster

Quote

lack of an RSL is a strong contributing factor to fatalities

This is where I really get annoyed.

The lack of an RSL is not a contributing factor. An RSL may have saved them (we don't know), but the fact that they didn't have one certainly did not CONTRIBUTE to the accident / fatality.

All I'm saying is that seeing aggregated data my confidence criteria in that statement is met, and I will make it. I'm not saying it's the only reason for those unfortunate events. I'm saying you can only fight the math for so long.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion. I'm just trying to increase my own odds. If you for whatever reason feel that an RSL or AAD is counterproductive, by all means do not use one. It's a personal decision.

However, withholding information doesn't really help anything except the emotional states of the families of the deceased...

[Boogers 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.


The family, from their perspective, may want to have some independent third-party download that data,to prevent any falsifications that might occur to hide faults by the equipment manufacturers, to protect themselves from a lawsuit.

I'm not saying that such a thing would happen, but from the perspective of a grieving family, looking in at a tight-knit skydiving community, they might think like that. That could be why they're holding off on letting the manufacturer look at it. To them, it's like letting the fox guard the chicken coop, or letting police investigate their own misconduct.

[grue 1]

chuckakers

Way over the line, brother.

What a family decides concerning the release of AAD data, video footage, or other possibly helpful information is none of our business. Sure that information might be helpful in analyzing the accident, but we don't know the personal circumstances of the deceased's family or why they don't want to release it.

Keep in mind that many families don't like their loved ones jumping to begin with. For many of those people, helping in the analysis would be akin to helping the sport - the sport that killed their family member as they see it.

It's their right to do that. It's my right to call them selfish cowards. In a case such as you mention where they're intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying, I'd say substantially worse.

cavete terrae.

[grue 1]

Boogers

******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.


The family, from their perspective, may want to have some independent third-party download that data,to prevent any falsifications that might occur to hide faults by the equipment manufacturers, to protect themselves from a lawsuit.

I'm not saying that such a thing would happen, but from the perspective of a grieving family, looking in at a tight-knit skydiving community, they might think like that. That could be why they're holding off on letting the manufacturer look at it. To them, it's like letting the fox guard the chicken coop, or letting police investigate their own misconduct.

That's a suitable choice. Not letting the data out in any form is a total dick move, though.

cavete terrae.

[chuckakers 370]

grue

***
Way over the line, brother.

What a family decides concerning the release of AAD data, video footage, or other possibly helpful information is none of our business. Sure that information might be helpful in analyzing the accident, but we don't know the personal circumstances of the deceased's family or why they don't want to release it.

Keep in mind that many families don't like their loved ones jumping to begin with. For many of those people, helping in the analysis would be akin to helping the sport - the sport that killed their family member as they see it.

It's their right to do that. It's my right to call them selfish cowards. In a case such as you mention where they're intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying, I'd say substantially worse.


Yes, it is your right, and it's my right to believe you're acting like a an ass. You think anyone that isn't for skydiving is somehow vehemently against it.

You're going a long way with your logic saying that if a whuffo family member of a deceased jumper won't release equipment for inspection that they are "intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying".

Based on your logic, if someone doesn't try to help you, they must be trying to kill you. Geez, Dood.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[grue 1]

chuckakers

******
Way over the line, brother.

What a family decides concerning the release of AAD data, video footage, or other possibly helpful information is none of our business. Sure that information might be helpful in analyzing the accident, but we don't know the personal circumstances of the deceased's family or why they don't want to release it.

Keep in mind that many families don't like their loved ones jumping to begin with. For many of those people, helping in the analysis would be akin to helping the sport - the sport that killed their family member as they see it.

It's their right to do that. It's my right to call them selfish cowards. In a case such as you mention where they're intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying, I'd say substantially worse.


Yes, it is your right, and it's my right to believe you're acting like a an ass. You think anyone that isn't for skydiving is somehow vehemently against it.

You're going a long way with your logic saying that if a whuffo family member of a deceased jumper won't release equipment for inspection that they are "intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying".

Based on your logic, if someone doesn't try to help you, they must be trying to kill you. Geez, Dood.


Um, you might want to re-read what you posted, and what I replied to:

" For many of those people, helping in the analysis would be akin to helping the sport - the sport that killed their family member as they see it."

To intentionally withhold something that might help prevent deaths is ABSOLUTELY intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying. I'm NOT saying that's what is happening here, it was a reply to your posting that as a hypothetical.

cavete terrae.

[chuckakers 370]

grue

To intentionally withhold something that might help prevent deaths is ABSOLUTELY intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying.

For that statement to be true - hypothetically or otherwise - one would have to know the motivations of the person doing the withholding. There are an infinite number of reasons a person might withhold, not just to "intentionally make sure people keep dying".

One does not prove the other.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[grimmie 173]

grue

*********
Way over the line, brother.

What a family decides concerning the release of AAD data, video footage, or other possibly helpful information is none of our business. Sure that information might be helpful in analyzing the accident, but we don't know the personal circumstances of the deceased's family or why they don't want to release it.

Keep in mind that many families don't like their loved ones jumping to begin with. For many of those people, helping in the analysis would be akin to helping the sport - the sport that killed their family member as they see it.

It's their right to do that. It's my right to call them selfish cowards. In a case such as you mention where they're intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying, I'd say substantially worse.


Yes, it is your right, and it's my right to believe you're acting like a an ass. You think anyone that isn't for skydiving is somehow vehemently against it.

You're going a long way with your logic saying that if a whuffo family member of a deceased jumper won't release equipment for inspection that they are "intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying".

Based on your logic, if someone doesn't try to help you, they must be trying to kill you. Geez, Dood.


Um, you might want to re-read what you posted, and what I replied to:

" For many of those people, helping in the analysis would be akin to helping the sport - the sport that killed their family member as they see it."

To intentionally withhold something that might help prevent deaths is ABSOLUTELY intentionally trying to make sure people keep dying. I'm NOT saying that's what is happening here, it was a reply to your posting that as a hypothetical.

I know DZO's that have not thoroughly investigated an incident and had the gear destroyed. Stop blaming a family for anything.

[grue 1]

grimmie

I know DZO's that have not thoroughly investigated an incident and had the gear destroyed. Stop blaming a family for anything.

and those DZOs are dicks as well.

cavete terrae.

[Doug_Davis 0]

Remster

Quote

lack of an RSL is a strong contributing factor to fatalities

This is where I really get annoyed.

The lack of an RSL is not a contributing factor. An RSL may have saved them (we don't know), but the fact that they didn't have one certainly did not CONTRIBUTE to the accident / fatality.

You would be wrong.
Definition:
contributing - tending to bring about; being partly responsible for;

Under OSHA if a business fails to update their production system to the latest safety equipment and a death results, which might have been prevented by the newer gear they are liable.
Legally you could look at it in terms of failure to follow industry best practices as the "contributing factor."
Same holds true here. Their failure to update their rig with an RSL was a contributing factor in the same way.

grue

and those DZOs are dicks as well.

Agreed.
In fact Im surprised by the lack of investigations. In today's litigious society you would think most families would investigate the cause simply to see if there were grounds for a wrongful death suit.

[Trafficdiver 8]

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

[mjosparky 3]

wolfriverjoe

***

Quote

lack of an RSL is a strong contributing factor to fatalities

This is where I really get annoyed.

The lack of an RSL is not a contributing factor. An RSL may have saved them (we don't know), but the fact that they didn't have one certainly did not CONTRIBUTE to the accident / fatality.

Really?

So if someone cuts away at an adequate altitude for reserve deployment (No RSL) and doesn't pull their reserve (for whatever reason) until it's too late, would the lack of an RSL NOT be a contributing factor?

It certainly couldn't be proven that the RSL would definitely have saved them, but it would have initiated deployment of the reserve at a much higher altitude, giving them a much better chance of survival.

It's a little "nit-picky" and I understand where you are coming from, but I can see the lack of an RSL being a contributing factor.

Others may have a different opinion. That's cool too
A “contributing factor” is something that by action or inaction contributes to the end result. An RSL is passive until the jumper does something to activate it.
Not having one does not contribute anything to a jumper going in. Most jumpers go in because of decisions they make on the ground before they ever get on the plane.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

You would be wrong.
Definition:
contributing - tending to bring about; being partly responsible for;

Under OSHA if a business fails to update their production system to the latest safety equipment and a death results, which might have been prevented by the newer gear they are liable.
Legally you could look at it in terms of failure to follow industry best practices as the "contributing factor."
Same holds true here. Their failure to update their rig with an RSL was a contributing factor in the same way.

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

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[pchapman 261]

(not @ sparky specifically)

In the debate about listing how lack of an RSL "contributed to a fatality" -- which has been going on for many years -- one problem is one of truth vs. the whole truth.

It may be completely true that having a specific safety device would have saved the person. But whether to mention it depends on ones norms for the sport. One could as well finish a bunch of car crash reports with, "Lack of a 5 point harness, roll bars, and fire resistant suit contributed to the fatality." Well yes, but it is hardly worth mentioning unless you expect most cars to have that. And yes, there has been a growing awareness by many that RSL's can be very useful for most jumpers, even if others insist that not having one shouldn't be treated as a crime.

The other issue is that it is annoying if an accident report is so often finished with a statement only about one particular contributing cause. At the very end of the report, the concluding statement becomes "Lack of an RSL contributed..." or "An AAD would have prevented..."

But if one mentions one contributing cause, then shouldn't one mention others as well? Aviation accident reports try to list all the major contributing causes.

So a bunch of skydiving accident reports could be changed to something like this, to satisfy more people: "One contributing factor was the lack of an RSL. Others were [....]. The primary cause appears to have been the jumper's inappropriately slow reaction to the malfunction, when sufficient time and altitude were available."

Nonetheless, exactly how to write the conclusions to an accident report is still up for debate. Large professional aviation safety organizations in different countries have used different formats over the years and continue to vary in how they state "causes", "probable causes", "contributing factors", "findings", "findings as to risk", etc.

To put it it in a less formal and a not always as technically accurate way, "The jumper's stupidity contributed to the accident."....

You could throw that on the end of quite a few skydiving accident reports. That's how we often get ourselves in trouble.