Malfunctions are not Incidents

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

I couldn't agree more. Most CRWdogs shrug off wraps, entanglements, cutaways, etc. that many jumpers would consider life defining events.

But you guys don't count, you are fucking crazy.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[MakeItHappen 15]

See these threads that were originally posted in Incidents and later moved:
1st Out Close Call
Packing Mal

What's with the animosity???
This thread has a jumper bitching about newbies attitudes too:


……………………………….

I'm sorry... I should have been more precise when I explained the mal... yeah... 

it was a 'step through' on the left side but not the right. 

The same side that had the line over had a twist in the riser from my packing 

mistake.


Make it happen:

Incidents include: malfunctions, cutaways, wraps, collisions, crash landings etc.

While I appreciate your critical nature, maybe you should read the rules before 

asking questions.


Thanx everybody...


Chaps


doh! - I think I read the 'rules'.


Before you start a thread in the Incidents Forum or reply to post please consider 

the guidelines below:


* The purpose of this forum is to report, discuss and learn from fatal and serious 

non-fatal incidents.

* Most, if not all, new threads here should start with the report of an actual incident. 

General safety issues or small and 

potential incidents should be posted to the Safety and Training forum.

* Incidents include: malfunctions, cutaways, wraps, collisions, crash landings etc. 

I trust everyone will use their good

judgment before starting a thread or disposing of advice.

* In case of a fatality please post your condolences to the Talkback forum and

keep this forum for discussion.


was this a fatal or serious non-fatal incident???


seems to me to be just an ordinary run of the mill malfunction..

That's something everyone ought to expect some time or another while jumping.

USPA wouldn't even expect an incident report on this.


Why is this an 'Incident' as opposed to a 'General safety issue'???


IMHO, this is not an incident.


Let me explain my motivation for asking this question.

If run-of-the-mill-mals get elevated to 'Incidents', then people may start thinking 

that this is abnormal. 

They might think parachutes work all the time. They might even think reserves 

work all the time - just cuz they have a TSO (in the US).


I don't know about you, but this stuff is 'to-be-expected' on any given jump. 

Normal stuff.


I repeat - this is not an incident.


You are not the first person to pack a step thru & probably won't be the last.

Remind people to do a brake line check at the start of a packing & it most 

likely won't happen to them.


General Safety Issue: Do a brake line check at the start of packing.

.

.

Make It Happen


(This post was edited by MakeItHappen on Jan 11, 2004, 7:55 PM)





Chapsta

Enthusiast



Jan 11, 2004, 9:39 PM


Post #9 of 20 (810 views)


Re: [MakeItHappen] packing mal [In reply to] 	Can't Post

Right on man...


I wasn't trying to flame you. I just had an accident and this seemed like the 

place to put it. I was hoping

to get feed back from others or to let others know that it happened to take 

from it what they will... which is 

probably that I'm an idiot for packing a step through.


You've shown me I shouldn't have posted here.


Maybe one of the moderators could move it for us.

…………………


Grant - Who's opinion do you think I write here??? Mine - that's who's - in case that is not obvious. Read your posts here Tell me what the difference between how you write your opinions is so very different than the way I write.


Tom - I had my first malfunction on jump number 7 (still on SL - I was a slow learner). That makes me 'qualified' to see the world of first malfunctions thru the eyes of new guys. If you want more info on that see Too Scared to Jump. I did not and do not consider any of my malfunctions 'Incidents' - altho the water jump on a round reserve on a demo jump in high winds would come close.

Tonto - I seriously doubt that JP or any other jumper has filled out an incident report for a run-of-the-mill malfunction.

I asked a simple question:

So why do so many of you think that ordinary, run of the mill malfunctions are Incidents?

and I still want to know the answer.

Smart asses can continue to call themselves dense. Makes no difference to me.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Smart asses can continue to call themselves dense. Makes no difference to me.

Jan,
If you remember, you are the one that called people not agreeing with your point of view "dense".
Why should it make any difference at all to you if people wish to discuss what happened to them on the "Incidents" forum. They may be able to learn something and someone else can learn from what happened to them. To you a malfunction is not an incident, to others it is. No big deal, its just a word.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Scrumpot 1]

This is truly one of the funniest threads I have seen in a long time!
Thank you Jan, for being so fresh ...and ENTERTAINING!

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

If you remember, you are the one that called people not agreeing with your point of view "dense".

This is what I said in the post :

[reply to most everyone]

Are you people dense or what?

Look - do you think Jan Chandler would continue to futz with a hung brake line if she KNEW she was 20 feet off the deck?


You can take this as however you want.
You can take it as a personal insult. I really do not care.
It was not meant as a personal insult any more than "don't lose alti awareness, dummy"' was.
It was meant to illuminate the fact that someone dicking around with a problem that was not fixable in real time lead to the death of a friend of mine.

If some new jumper tends to propagate the story in some other way - well I just do not have the volition or desire to fuck with it.

Quote

Why should it make any difference at all to you if people wish to discuss what happened to them on the "Incidents" forum. They may be able to learn something and someone else can learn from what happened to them. To you a malfunction is not an incident, to others it is. No big deal, its just a word.

You did not read the part about:

Let me explain my motivation for asking this question.
If run-of-the-mill-mals get elevated to 'Incidents', then people may start thinking that this is abnormal.
They might think parachutes work all the time. They might even think reserves work all the time - just cuz they have a TSO (in the US).

I don't know about you, but this stuff is 'to-be-expected' on any given jump.
Normal stuff.
.....

And you know what ---
That post about Who Lives and Who Dies
It was precipitated by Bill Von's replies on the no AAD -no jump thread.
Think about that for awhile

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[Michele 1]

Jan, was Jan Chandler's death an incident or malfunction? That would be the only relevance to this thread...

What does it matter, really, what Sangiro calls that particular forum? I mean, it's his site, his money, and his call. He did it as he sees fit. If you have a real issue, either start your own site or don't post to it. Simple as pie, really.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[mjosparky 3]

Having all answers to all the questions must be a heavy burden to bear.
And it is quite obvious you "don't care" what other people think.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

And you know what ---
That post about Who Lives and Who Dies
It was precipitated by Bill Von's replies on the no AAD -no jump thread.
Think about that for awhile

What has this got to do with what is posted in the "incident" forum?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Scrumpot 1]

That's an interesting story you have there Jan, in the "Scared to Jump" link you've attached. You indeed do have the ability to write some good and valuable stuff. However, the link to whatever post of mine you seem to want to point fingers at does not bring me anywhere. I didn't know that I was getting you so hot 'n bothered that you apparently can't even now "type straight".

Now, largely because I like you so much Jan (I really do ...even if you do still continually seem to blow me off during each of my rare 1-3 times per year visits, when I get to actually come all the way out there to "cushy" California) I find myself in a position where I need to decide... ...do I continue to "mess with you" or do I let you off the hook?

Hmmmm..... decisions, decisions....
(guess which one I've just made )


From your very own story you yourself just pointed us to (and I LOVE this!):

Quote

He kept asking me if I wanted to jump. I kept saying "No, I do NOT want to jump. Unhook me." Geez, I thought, why was is this guy so dense.

I can see Jan, clearly now, ...that even back then you obviously knew better than anyone else. Why can't now the rest of us just see this, accept it and acquiesce too? Oh my, my, my, my, my WHY do all these different people all have to have differing opinions from time to time?? ...Can't they (we all) see our folly? What are we? ...DENSE?

Okay now... all "fun" aside, "messing mode" now [off]

C'mon now Jan, and maybe I shouldn't have done the above at all, because I can see that this is serious to you (but look-out ...you are in "general skydiving discussions" now - check out those forum rules -and "sticky" posts again: MAYBE THIS SHOULD BE MOVED TO "TALK BACK"?), and in actuality I can see your point. In fact most of us probably can. The only "problem" we have here, and the ONLY point that I have tried to illustrate in any of my posts here (to this thread) is that your perspective (regarding the "real world" definition of "incidents" -and your concern for some jumpers considerations of them here), although valid, just really has no bearing on the intent, the set up, and the discussion rules of the Incidents FORUM.

I understand your frustration. As I know you have attempted to even point out here (feel free to fix the broken link in your post), I too indeed can get "frustrated" with some responses in here from time-to-time when people just don't seem to be "getting it". But maybe, sometimes, just like in that story with your early days static line jumpmaster (he didn't seem able to have YOU "get it" either, or vice versa right away -did he?) sometimes realization does not set in until later ...over time.
Was he "Dense"? Really? Somehow, I don't think so.

Bottom line is that this virtual domain's (nothing more than a fancy bulletin board really) posting rules don't seem to match up EXACTLY with YOUR personal definitions (Valid or not) and you are squaking about it. And some of us are picking on what seems to be your over-blown concerns over just that. Maybe if you got off your elitist pedestal, and maybe mingled with us "commoners" every now & then, let alone allowed yourself to make a jump or two sometimes with us, this sort of thing wouldn't really be that big a deal to you. As far as who posts where on these BB's: You don't make the rules here. GET OVER IT.

Does that sum it up okay for you?

Blue Skies,
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[MakeItHappen 15]

I have read and re-read my original post looking for the phraseology that pissed people off. I'll admit I am not a graduate of the BJ Worth School of Diplomacy and cannot always see what words unintentionally create offense to others. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what or how I worded my question that pissed you off.

The viewpoints from new jumpers are one of the great features of DropZone.com. These views never appeared on rec.skydiving.

I made a post asking new jumpers why they thought a certain way because I am dumbfounded as to why it exists. I do not understand why new jumpers think an ordinary, run of the mill malfunction would be considered an Incident. I supported my statements with 'assumed' education and training that US jumpers would most likely have experienced.

I clarified that ordinary, run of the mill malfunctions are not Incidents by showing two threads that were moved out of Incidents. A moderator of Incidents also supported this view with his reply.

I am not debating the rules on DropZone.com.

I am asking why ordinary, run of the mill malfunctions are considered Incidents by new jumpers.

Why is that?
.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I have read and re-read my original post looking for the phraseology that pissed people off.

Let me help you out with that. I've copied your original post below. The parts that I thought sounded condescending or contemptuous of less experienced jumpers appear in red.

Quote

I am dumbfounded (expresses shock at the attitudes of less experienced jumpers) at the number of new jumpers (lumps all jumpers less experienced than yourself--hence most jumpers--as "new", and also implies that anyone who disagrees with you must be inexperienced) that post stories about regular, ordinary, to be expected malfunctions as Incidents.
Why do you think like that??? (again, expresses shock that anyone could possible hold an opinion that varied from your own)

On student status (non-tandem jumps) your are taught about malfunctions. They are expected events. Sure they do not happen often, but they are expected and known events. They have known cures.

One day you have a partial mal, cutaway, pull reserve and land safely. Normal stuff. Everything (except the main opening) went as planned. The main not opening was in your list of 'it might happen this way', so it is expected. Why is this an Incident?

Maybe the mal is an incident in your life, but in the big picture of skydiving (implies that the life of the less experienced jumper is somehow less important than the "big picture" of skydiving; also implies that you understand said "big picture" and that anyone who disagrees with you obviously fails to grasp the "big picture) - this is to be expected. You are taught about mals from jump one. (ok-exclude the tandems).

Malfunctions are a fact of life in skydiving.

So why do so many of you think that ordinary, run of the mill (belittles experiences that "so many of" us find important to discuss and learn from, and suggests that they are actually of very little importance in the "big picture" of skydiving) malfunctions are Incidents?


And pulling at 3500 feet is not pulling in the basement!
Jeesh!(implies that anyone who pulls at 3500 feet is somehow less than you; directly states that anyone who thinks a 3500' pull is low is wrong; implies that when we gain more experience we will realize that we ought to be pulling lower)

I find the last bit particularly flagrant.

(edit to add) Pull altitude varies dramatically depending on the jump. I, personally, do consider 3500' to be a low pull when I am skydiving. That is because I generally pull around 4000', since my standard skydive is a wingsuit flight under an elliptical, 9 cell, ZP canopy loaded around 1.5. I am not confident in my ability to deal with potential problems with these openings at lower altitudes.

(edit to add) I'm fairly certain that my average pull is made at a lower altitude than your average pull. That doesn't mean that I hold people pulling at higher altitudes in contempt. In fact, I have more respect for people who establish their own pull altitudes based on personal comfort and safety margin than those who pull lower because it's the "cool" thing to do.

(edit to add) You may be interested to hear that Bill Dause regularly pulls at 3500' or higher. I am fairly certain that he has almost as much skydiving experience as you do.

(edit to add) Just out of curiousity, what pull altitude would you consider to be "in the basement"?

edit: My comments on each red part follow that section, in italics.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what or how I worded my question that pissed you off.

You haven't pissed me off Jan. Or perhaps you missed it (I thought I said it), but no, no, no, no... rather I am having fun with this. Where I now have concern though, is where it is now also becoming clear to me that instead, you are dead serious about it in contrast.

Quote

I made a post asking new jumpers why they thought a certain way because I am dumbfounded as to why it exists.

And most everyone recognizes you Jan, as someone with significant experience (and "stature"). The statement with expanded inflection including the description of your position on this as being dumfounded certainly carries with it, coming from you, certain contemptuous implications and innuendo ...even of itself. ie: condescending. Are you really so high up on that pedestal that you can't see that?

Quote

The viewpoints from new jumpers are one of the great features of DropZone.com. These views never appeared on rec.skydiving.

Absolutely Agreed.
Then why didn't you just ask more simply why these newer jumpers think, or have picked up their impressions to think like this? Seems like a reasonable question to me. And as you point out here, unlike trying this on the unmoderated wreck-dot, most likely they would have also been happy to simply just answer that for you too. But no Jan.... instead you made it sound more like a "I AM JUST ABSOLUTELY DUMFOUNDED BY YOU PEOPLE"

You don't find that condescending?

Quote

I am not debating the rules on DropZone.com.

Sure you were. And you did. As you say yourself, you even tried to use examples to abck you up. But I actually agreed with you (albeit in a roundabout way) and that is, that this does not really matter, relative to the question I know you are trying to pose ...so why are you worrying about where they are posting at all in the 1st place?? YOU opened that can of worms!

Quote

I am asking why ordinary, run of the mill malfunctions are considered Incidents by new jumpers.

Good question. And a reasonable one too. Why didn't you just ask it just like that in the 1st place, instead of breaking out into one of those "I am just dumbfounded by your people's apparent attitudes" in here? How did you really expect to get a straight simple answer out of that??

And then, I wasn't even remotely involved in this Jan... until you drew me in.

Quote

Smart asses can continue to call themselves dense. Makes no difference to me.

Or does it?

All in "good clean fun".
Yours,
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

If you want more detailed explanation, let me know, and I'll come back and comment on each red section.

Yes, please do, that would be enlightening.
.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

And most everyone recognizes you Jan, as someone with significant experience (and "stature"). The statement with expanded inflection including the description of your position on this as being dumfounded certainly carries with it, coming from you, certain contemptuous implications and innuendo ...even of itself. ie: condescending. Are you really so high up on that pedestal that you can't see that?

dumbfounded: to confound briefly and usually with astonishment

I am dumbfounded as to why new jumpers think ordinary mals are considered Incidents.

I am astonished as to why new jumpers think ordinary mals are considered Incidents.

I am amazed as to why new jumpers think ordinary mals are considered Incidents.

I am surprised as to why new jumpers think ordinary mals are considered Incidents.

Grant, you should take me off whatever pedestal you have me on. I have an opinion and a view - just like everyone else. I am puzzled, confounded and dumbfounded about how new jumpers see things. I seek to understand how they see things. You can ridicule me for that - it won't bother me - but I will continue to ask the questions to clarify how jumpers see things.

If you some how think that I know everything and understand how and why everyone thinks, you are sadly mistaken. I ask questions because I do not understand the views or thought processes.

I am absolutely dumbfounded about this thread. What if an explanation was just a simple statement that 'I thought an Incident was any type of problem, not a scenario where there was an injury or death.'

Perhaps, this all boils down to semantics. I will reconsider posting under a pseudonym - so as not to offend people that judge a post by who says it as opposed to what is said.

BTW, I am only supposed to be confounded briefly. I still want to know why new jumpers think a regular, ordinary malfunction is considered an Incident.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[billvon 2,435]

>I am absolutely dumbfounded about this thread.

So am I. And as it is rapidly turning into a pissing contest, this would be a good time to end it.