piisfish 136 #1 September 1, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYvfh90P1hQ almost a triple fatalscissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JBR 0 #2 September 1, 2014 is one of the 2 canopies in that collision a tandem? how is it a near triple? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 26 #3 September 1, 2014 It's not the 180 that was bad... It was a freakinglishly low turn and mostly opposite landing directions....Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpsalot-2 3 #4 September 1, 2014 How is the guy who hit the ground face first ?Life is short ... jump often. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dokeman 0 #5 September 1, 2014 I watched this video several times, and its hard to tell who was in the bad. First off, there was no wind sock shown in the video to show wind direction. We can only assume the first guy landing was into the wind, but it could have been a down wind, who knows. No wind indicator shown. Looking at the palm tree, there appears to little to no wind anyways. That does not seem the norm for hawaii. Either way its hard to tell. The 180 didn't seem to bad. Weather you agree with tandem low turns, it is very much common place through out the industry. Seems the root problem, its an undecided landing direction before boarding the plane and obviously not enough separation during landing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #6 September 1, 2014 DokemanI watched this video several times, and its hard to tell who was in the bad. Here's a hint: If you hit the top of someone else's canopy, it's you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dokeman 0 #7 September 1, 2014 QuoteHere's a hint: If you hit the top of someone else's canopy, it's you. not necessarily, If you fly underneath someone going the wrong way on final. Your wrong Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #8 September 1, 2014 The low man didn't fly underneath, he was below and behind. The 180 by the tandem instructor put the low man under the tandem pair's "final", if we really want to consider the portion of flight between hook and stab a "final". I won't argue about the 180, but I will point out that a pattern with an actual base leg, and a 90 degree turn to final would have had the lower man clearly visible, and given the tandem instructor the opportunity to avoid the collision."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #9 September 1, 2014 DokemanQuoteHere's a hint: If you hit the top of someone else's canopy, it's you. not necessarily, If you fly underneath someone going the wrong way on final. Your wrong Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from. I've been fairly outspoken in discussions here about what the low man needs to be trying to do to lower the risk of a collision while he's enjoying his right-of-way, particularly when it comes to separate big-turn landing areas. At the altitude in this incident though, no way. My guess is that the jumper who was struck saw the tandem at least by his base leg, noted they seemed to be setting up to land left to right (from the video's perspective) and decided it was safer to fly a similar pattern than to try and follow any other canopies that may have been landing right to left. The only thing the struck jumper might have done differently is if he saw the tandem and concluded the tandem looked to be landing against traffic, to then say "screw that guy, what's he thinking?" and landing away, rather than to try and follow someone flying erratically. But I don't think you can equate missing an opportunity to be even more defensive than you were with being partially at fault when someone makes that low and that dramatic of a turn and hits you when you're preparing to flare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miconar 0 #10 September 1, 2014 Looking at: * the heading of the top right canopy, another tandem, looks to be holding into the wind at a spot that would allow a safe pattern in either direction. Seems to be facing into the wind to me. * the normal upwind low wind flare and collapse behavior of the canopy landing right to left at the very start of the vid. * the flat flat flight path the black canopy (low guy) has on final before being hit. * the much less flat flight path the tandem has on landing after strike, as compared with both its own flight path before the turn and the black canopy's flight path before the strike. * the fact the TI executes a 180 into a heading, and the fact a TI chooses a landing direction, unless other info is avaliable I will most always assume a TI is landing into the wind regardless of local practice for sport canopies. It seems to me that low guy landed down wind, and possibly the wrong way depending on local practice. Either way a lesson there. I really want to say something else but first id like to ask. Is everyone clearly avoiding the 180 debate because this thread could be viewed by lawyers or because this is a hot button issue between pro and con 180s for landing a tandem and people don't want to star a flame war over this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #11 September 1, 2014 He very well could have been down wind. This opens a few points for observation: - We don't know the experience level of this jumper, or why he was landing at the same time as tandems - We don't know how the drop zone set the landing pattern on this given day, could have been first man down, land in to the wind, or no discussion at all. - We don't know the conditions on the ground. In my opinion light and variable winds cause the most atrocious events in the pattern. I don't think it matters unless you can guarantee that the tandems are landing last, and that they are all landing exactly the same way, there is always the potential that someone may bust the pattern, and pulling 180's like that is completely blind and very dangerous if there is opposing traffic. 100's of reasons why someone may end up opposed to the tandems landing pattern: -Long spot -Student with poor canopy control -Fun jumper with poor canopy control -Low reserve deployment -Wind change and a lousy drop zone policy on chasing the flag -Using the first man down and having some groups unable to see the first man. -Using the first man down and having the first man down be a douche swooper who does a down winder. The tandems don't want to do a down winder, but other jumpers follow first one down. I could go on, but the point really is that the 180 is like jamming on your brakes in rush hour traffic, or flooring it out of your driveway without looking because it is private and their shouldn't be anyone behind your car. It is fucking stupid! And even if it was the other guys fault, you chose to fly a pattern that left the risk completely unmitigated."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 141 #12 September 1, 2014 Both jumpers at fault here I would say. The TI for executing a turn close to the ground which leaves him little or no margin for error in the case of anything unexpected. (turbulence for example). In this case other traffic. I'd give him a boot in the arse for that alone. His job is to take care of his rider, and this shows he is a little casual in that department. The solo guy for not staying away from the tandem. That looks a pretty large airfield, so he should be giving the tandem a bit more room. Whatever altitude he opened, he needed to get down and out of the way of the tandems. Was he conforming to an accepted landing pattern?. A kick in the arse for him as well, if not. Both need to up their awareness levels instead of painting themselves into a corner.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
05BlackWRX 0 #13 September 2, 2014 A comment to the video said the lower solo jumper might be an AFF on radio. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #14 September 2, 2014 Another comment (down thread from there) was from his friend who says he was talking about the incident. Which, hopefully, means this may not have been a fatality? Anyone with first hand info?Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdpml 0 #15 September 2, 2014 The solo guy for not staying away from the tandem. You have to explain that statement,the lower canopy (in to the wind or not) has to avoid the higher canopy ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 141 #16 September 2, 2014 jdpmlThe solo guy for not staying away from the tandem. You have to explain that statement,the lower canopy (in to the wind or not) has to avoid the higher canopy ? As I said, the TI carries a lot of responsibility for the incident(perhaps most of it). What I meant was that the airfield was so big he should have given the tandem a bit more space on landing. (Did he need to be right there?) Also while he was at altitude, if he knew tandems were in the vicinity perhaps he could have got a bit more vertical seperation. (Of course he might have done that and the tandem may have spiralled down as well, something we don't know about). If it was an AFF student on radio, then the radio man needs the kick. Lots of possible factors at play here.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #17 September 2, 2014 At the point that he got hit, no; outside of a brake turn or flare turn his fate was mostly sealed by then. That jumper could have done many things long before he got to that point that wouldn't have put himself in conflict with the tandem instructor that likes to execute dangerous blind hook turns in to the wind on low final. Assuming of course that the jumper had any idea that he was busting the landing direction prior to being struck. Ignorance is bliss. Everyone doesn't always make the right decisions every single time, that is what is demonstrated here. Combine that with pattern work that doesn't allow you to spot and respond to the guy busting the landing direction and you eventually get this."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #18 September 2, 2014 He actually came out high. The turn wasn't low enough, I'd say. Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrHey 0 #19 September 2, 2014 . Rather than look for a guilty individual to hang, I think this incident instead shows that having students and tandems land close together has its own risks. Students don't generally have the control and awareness to ensure safe canopy separation on landing. Or are able to predict how others will fly. But they do have similar wingloading / time from opening to landing as tandems - and this can put them in the same air at landing time. Looks in this video like maybe they were both coming back from a long spot too which might have also distracted their focus. I've seen landing congestion a few times with students/very new jumpers and tandems on the same load when landing at the same landing area. Its not just a danger for collisions, but students can also get freaked out and turn low/ miss-time flaring/ make other mistakes when they see a tandem nearby on finals, or when landing in congested air. my 2c Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #20 September 2, 2014 Anyone defending the tandem pilot here is wrong, dead wrong, and if you don't agree, please stop skydiving before you kill someone. a) low canopy has right of way. ALWAYS. Physics dictates that. b) a tandem instructor and his/her actions are DIRECTLY responsible for the safety of another human life beyond their own. This means assumption (like assuming the blind spot below and behind you is clear) are deadly. c) if you're a tandem instructor who does an intentional speed inducing turn to landing without clearing your airspace you're a selfish dick who has no regard for human life, and if you fuck it up and hurt someone, well in my view that's akin to attempted manslaughter. Of course that's just the opinion of an asshole who's brought more than 8,500 tandem students safely back to the ground. On another note, we can breath a sigh of relief because by all reports, even though there is now yet ANOTHER black mark on tandem skydiving the size of Kansas for all to see, the AFF STUDENT that the tandem pilot hit is still alive and recovering in the hospital.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #21 September 2, 2014 So you are pro-tandem hooks? I am. I stood up way more landings when I hooked vs coming in straight in. I bitched out at one AFF student once for being in my way when I was landing my tandem canopy one time. I remember the other senior AFF/Cameraman with over 20000 jumps,(That's 20000 with having less than 200 tandems). Coming over to me and giving me a speech. "You have thousands of jumps and the other guy has less than 100 jumps. He didn't cut you off, you cut yourself off from that landing." Makes sense.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #22 September 2, 2014 stayhighSo you are pro-tandem hooks? I am. I stood up way more landings when I hooked vs came in straight in. I am not. If you can't stand them up without doing a hook turn, you need to work on your tandem canopy skills. Not every tandem needs to or should result in a stand up landing. Doing a hook turn puts the student who has no way of knowing the risk in added danger they didn't sign up for. The student expects and deserves the safest ride back down to the ground possible.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #23 September 2, 2014 But I used to wear white jump suit. How else am I going to keep them clean? That's a serious question. I used to pride myself for keeping them white for so long. Longest I've gone was 12-13 days. That's almost three weeks, all stand up landings. Doesn't that count as perfect landing? While others are sliding in? I much rather to be stood up by a ti vs getting my ass all dirty. When you hook em they flair much better, you can't deny that. And how is that an added risk? Also there is no way you can stand 240lbs student up using Icarus 330 without any wind, while coming straight in.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miconar 0 #24 September 2, 2014 stayhigh And how is that an added risk? This is how it's an added risk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYvfh90P1hQ Get their pants dirty, shake their hand, tell them they're a skydiver now, and watch them walk away safe and happy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #25 September 2, 2014 Ya, we all saw that video, I still don't see the add risk part besides he did a wrong turn. I feel that 180 creates blindspot, and not much altitude to bail and adjust the turn. He should've done a 270. I feel like TI with less than 5000 jumps should not even be involved in this forum. and who is that asshole having an orgasm watching someone getting hurt? On that youtube link.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites