180's are bad

[coozer 0]

Quote

I watched the video, saw the collision, cringed, and immediately worried what happened to the second canopy that impacted hard. Amazingly, there is someone in the video going 'Oh yeah... Oh yeah...' while watching the carnage. As if they are enjoying the view... What the hell man. Go get therapy if you get your jollies from watching someone's pain.

I noticed that too. Quite disturbing.

[NWFlyer 2]

woppyvac

All the other stuff aside that has been said about whose fault it is... here's a lil curve ball I'm kinda concerned no one has pointed out.

I watched the video, saw the collision, cringed, and immediately worried what happened to the second canopy that impacted hard. Amazingly, there is someone in the video going 'Oh yeah... Oh yeah...' while watching the carnage. As if they are enjoying the view... What the hell man. Go get therapy if you get your jollies from watching someone's pain.

Based on the collection of videos the user has uploaded, it's someone from the rival DZ on the same airport who is seeking video evidence of violations at Pacific Skydiving. So this type of video fits right in with what he's seeking.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK1E0JEmLlUT9298hiXI_rw/feed

(I don't huck tandems, I've never skydived in Hawaii or even been to either of the dropzones there, so I've got no dog in this hunt, but the rivalry between the two DZs at Dillingham is hardly a secret).

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[fincher 0]

well i guess he finally hit the jackpot. This should be the cherry on top of his youtube vendetta sundae

i'll huff and I'll puff and I'll burn your packing tent down

[tkhayes 125]

Quote

I am all for 180's on a tandem if the instructor is competent,...

define competent.

There are many many dead competent people. This is a flight for hire. This is not a recreational activity solely for the enjoyment of the tandem instructor.

Pilots in all disciplines of flight (except skydiving) are taught strict procedures, never to be deviated from, especially if you want to pass the check-ride.. SOPs, POHs. And the best professional pilots are checklist oriented systems managers. They manage the flight from start to finish, executing it according to a standard protocol.

Skydiving could learn a thing or two from an average flight school.

As least we seem to be more headed in that direction. there is some hope. Defending poor behaviors does nothing for our sport, nothing for our profession either, and certain nothing for you. Glad that everyone walked away from this, it could have been a disaster with a tenth of a second difference.

[jacketsdb23 45]

stayhigh

I feel like TI with less than 5000 jumps should not even be involved in this forum.

Why? Is someone with only 2000 tandems less qualified to discuss issues?

I have 0 Tandems. That video is not a Tandem specific issue. Its a cultural issue in the sport of skydiving.

This reeks of arrogance and is the same arrogance that our most talented and qualified instructors use to justify inappropriate and reckless behavior when flying parachutes. Make no mistake, that 180 was reckless.

We expect all canopy pilots to use basic common sense and use a predictable landing pattern. If you're going to swoop, land in the HP area. If your not, land in the other standard designated area.

Don't swoop across the standard area because "dude I totally saw everyone, its fine" or do a basic 90º turn into the swoop area because you don't like the rules and want to land closer to the hanger. There is not enough experience in the world to make up for missing someone in the sky when trying to 'clear' your landing area.

I saw someones sig line that says: Be the canopy pilot you want everyone else to be. <--- Truth.

Rant over...

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[kaiser 19]

180 turn by TI is a total fuck up.
Anyone knows this asshole?????

[champu 1]

I was looking for a particular answer, you are right about that.

If the pilot who was struck had been flying his pattern to land in the opposite direction and the tandem instructor did the same set up, that would have had the tandem and the other canopy playing chicken directly over the top of the landing area 300 ft off the ground. In that situation, even if you know that tandems all do 180s at this particular dropzone you don't know when they're going to do it. As you noted, this tandem leveled out high, that means the turn could have happened later or sooner, lower/higher, farther downwind or farther upwind. Who knows?

It only takes one of two pilots to take an action to avoid a collision. If you do things that others can't predict then you remove the ability of the other guy to avoid you in case you didn't see him.

[obelixtim 100]

Quote

in NZ there has only ever been one tandem fatality (2 if you count a drowning)

Bullshit right there.

Quote

and that one fatality was due to equipment failure.

Also bullshit.

Your words just proved you know nothing about either of those situations.

Please don't make things up.

People might believe you.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[Rover 9]

fincher

well i guess he finally hit the jackpot. This should be the cherry on top of his youtube vendetta sundae

The next vid might be the 'tar & feathering' of the video poster. Dirty way to conduct politics....

2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.

[coozer 0]

Quote

Bullshit right there.

Quote

Also bullshit.

LOL, you sure do have a been in your bonnet.

I am quite sure that I am correct, though you may be able to correct me on it.

Both the incidents I refer to were in Taupo, you must know about them. If you can say where any other tandem fatality has happened then I would appreciate it.

There has been a statement from the NZPIA stating that this is the case also, so I m not the only one suggesting this is the case.

You and all you the nay sayers out there calling bullshit need to substantiate your claims. I have explained myself quite clearly and if you are going to refute something you need to at least do the same.

[stayhigh 2]

You have no business talking about tandem when you haven't done one.

If you have less than 5000 tandem jumps chances are you are still kinda by the book guy.

Where is Bill Booth in this thread? After all he started it all and have more say than anyone else, and I know that he visits dz.com.

Can we hook it or not hook it? I want to hear it from THE MAN.

and if some dz are allow to break the so called tandem commandments, than why aren't we allowed to go for some tandem headdown jumps?

I still say keep one standard. Hook it or Not hook it.

If the condition requires you to hook the tandem, than maybe Ti should stay on the ground? If you must be able to hook it to land safely, aren't the Ti and the dropzone being negligent?

If it is impossible to land straight in without proper hook turn, I'd say it is too gnarly condition for anyone to jump in.

That being said, Hawaii might be only be able to do 2-3 jumps a day before the wind kicks up. Or otherwise if they keep saying that hook turns are absolute must, than I'd say both DZ and the TI is being negligent and opens it up for the lawyer to go sue happy. The waiver does not protect anyone against gross negligence.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[jacketsdb23 45]

Its not a tandem issue, thats the point. Its a Canopy Piloting issue, which we all are. I jump at a very windy DZ watching dozens of Tandems every weekend. Nobody lands like that.

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[stayhigh 2]

Do they all hook it?

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[jacketsdb23 45]

Brake-surge as its been referred to in this thread. Predictable and works just fine.

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[stayhigh 2]

So you are anti-tandem hooks?

All of these opinions really doesn't matter. Since we are not part of UPT. UPT needs to say what needs to be done and put it to action, and ti and dz needs to respect that and follow the manufacturer's RULE, not some manufacturer's recommendation.

If the dz absolutely needs to hook it to land safely than they should sit down and wait for the wind to get better instead of being gross negligent.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[stayhigh 2]

Wow, I learn something new every single day.

There is absolutely zero mention of how we can land our parachute according to UPT Sigma Manual.

If you guys can find it let me know and post it.

All I see is, when and how to deploy the drogue, when to release the drogue, when to cut away, when to grab the flair toggles. But I see no mention of what type of turn we can do to land.

So all you cry babies, whining about big turns with tandems can go suck it.

Tandem commandments are not RULES, they are an advice. UPT manual is the rule, and no where it mentions no hook turns.

Who came up with no hook turns with tandems because of the rule story in first place? Fun nazis?

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Why? Is someone with only 2000 tandems less qualified to discuss issues?

I have 0 Tandems. That video is not a Tandem specific issue. Its a cultural issue in the sport of skydiving.

This reeks of arrogance and is the same arrogance that our most talented and qualified instructors use to justify inappropriate and reckless behavior when flying parachutes.

Do you tolerate the guy with 100 jumps lecturing you about swooping? No? Yeah, well this is like that.

A TI with 100 tandems knows jack shit about it. They have the opportunity and choice to learn to do it the right way, or be another wanna be badass.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[obelixtim 100]

coozer

Quote

Bullshit right there.

Quote

Also bullshit.

LOL, you sure do have a been in your bonnet.

I am quite sure that I am correct, though you may be able to correct me on it.

Both the incidents I refer to were in Taupo, you must know about them. If you can say where any other tandem fatality has happened then I would appreciate it.

There has been a statement from the NZPIA stating that this is the case also, so I m not the only one suggesting this is the case.

You and all you the nay sayers out there calling bullshit need to substantiate your claims. I have explained myself quite clearly and if you are going to refute something you need to at least do the same.

And I am quite sure you are not. The guy who drowned had nothing to do with tandems.

As far as the tandem fatality that happened, I was part of the investigation team, and there was no conclusion as to the cause. Damage occurred to the gear, but to say gear failure was the cause is simply not true.

NZPIA were not around in 1997, so to say that NZPIA "stated this was the case" is pure bullshit.

The TM was a close friend of mine, so pull your head in.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[Rover 9]

Quote

And I am quite sure you are not. The guy who drowned had nothing to do with tandems.

A solo jumper on day release from her majesties service if I'm not mistaken

2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.

[coozer 0]

Quote

And I am quite sure you are not. The guy who drowned had nothing to do with tandems.

Well I did say definitely one and maybe two, I was told by someone I respected that was in the game at the time, maybe I was confused with fatalities total.

Quote

The TM was a close friend of mine, so pull your head in.

So was it your DZ?

The report I got from an old school TM that you probably know is that the first thing Bill Booth said when he saw the risers was "no wonder they died". They died due to a worn riser, a very worn set of risers, are you refuting that claim that is very well known?

Maybe Bill Booth can clarify that but I doubt he will contribute to this thread. This once again though is beside the point. People Hook Tandems every day, all day every day with no issue. had that student not have been there there would have been no incident.

The 180 is not the problem here.

This particular incident was a canopy collision and canopy collisions are caused by lack of awareness. Not all canopy collisions are 180's, but all canopy collisions are due to lack of awareness.

The subject of poor awareness has been overshadowed by people sour grapes with those that do 180 turns.

This is sad. Very sad because canopy collisions kill many people and have taken people I know or should I say, knew.

You need to pull your head in, you are not the only one to have lost friends here pal and if people are going to learn about canopy collisions then they need to discuss the actual problem and not vent their sour grapes.

[andym148 2]

diablopilot

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.

Absolutely agree!

Landing patterns need to be predictable, so everyone can assume that everybody else is keeping to the same pattern. And yes the lower man has priority, no matter which way he's going.
The student most likely made a mistake and found himself going down wind, it happens (landing priorities, flat and level canopy, into an area free from hazards and into wind if able) and the student looked like he was doing it. The guy on the radio can do absolutely nothing about it, he can't suddenly take control of the toggles. The radio is an aid, should not be relied on.
All the links in the chain of events, leading up to the accident, are in isolation not to be unexpected on DZ's. How ever when they all happened at once the results speak for themselves, and not looking to clear your airspace before a turn in unforgivable. We teach students on FJC to never turn before they look, and this is why.
In the end of the day common sense must prevail, and somebody that day lacked it.

At long last the light at the end of the tunell isnt an on coming train!!!

[coozer 0]

Quote

diablopilot wrote:
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.

I can agree with that for sure aside from the manslaughter part. But that part was subjective, the rest is spot on.

[Rover 9]

Quote

They died due to a worn riser

So the fact that there was a drogue issue / failure had nothing to do with the incident!? You are not presenting all the contributing causes.

It is so easy to 'cherry pick' the facts to suit ones arguments.

2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.

[obelixtim 100]

They did not die due to a worn riser, and anyone who says that is indulging in very poor speculation, and are completely wrong.

The damage to the riser occurred during the incident. The very "well known fact" is completely wrong. The riser suffered extensive burn damage, it was not "worn out".

It was perfectly serviceable before the incident. Everyone jumped on the "worn out" riser theory because they were too lazy to consider how it got into the condition it was after the incident, and most spouting this nonsense never even saw the gear.

One riser was sent to the States, but nothing else. And the reason the riser was sent to the States was because of the distortion to the 3 rings that occurred during a terminal opening, not because of the damage to the riser itself.

Mike was a very careful jumper who would never have jumped gear that was u/s.

There was damage to another component (the reserve lines) that matched the damage on the riser. The guy who wrote the report didn't even look at the reserve, in fact cleared it for service.

When I inspected it later I grounded the reserve due to at least half the lines being crisp.

There are some unanswered questions about that fatality, but the "worn riser" theory is totally wrong.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[coozer 0]

As you please, though I am still inclined to believe otherwise. bed on reports from those that were present in the area at the time. You and Obelix seem to have a vested interest in the matter.

However this is only taking away from the fact that this article is about a canopy collision that could have been avoided with some diligence on the instructors part.

The subject of hooking tandems has taken over and sadly people will continue to die every year from canopy collisions while a subject that has killed very few if any people continues to take the limelight.

Keep your head up people.