sabre210

Stats for anyone who likes stats are: B's - 21 A's - 19 S's - 16 E's - 18 O's -30 inc 4 dams, 3 chimneys, 8 cranes, 6 power towers, 3 gasometers, 2 monuments and 4others total 104 from 294 jumps since Sep 2002 highest - Italian Terminal Wall, lowest 140ft A,S,B Longest Canopy ride - ITW a few mins, shortest 2secs No Aerials, No unpacked jumps, no wingsuits. Would like to in the future though. 2 broken legs, many scars. Time out due to injury 4months. 1 object strike, a few tree landings, a few water landings 2 dead friends, several busts, no fines or cell time. Normal service on this forum may now resume. ian

Crosswind by patrick passe off italian terminal wall ian

My only other comment is how you configure the static line. I'm a heavier jumper (for my low jumps (around 140ft) i jump a troll dw 305 and that's slightly loaded btw). If you tie off to the pilot chute attachment point that means you have a minimum of 9ft to fall before the pins are even popped. If however you use a shorter bridle (specific) or simply larkshead a loop into your 9ft bridle a few feet from the bottom pin/shrivel flap and attach the breakcord to that, the whole deployment is going to happen sooner. 7ft sooner perhaps and that is a big gain on a jump of 120ft. Similarly, a well executed short bridle PCA would be an option. The buddy holds the bridle close to the container and initiates deployment almost the moment your feet leave the edge, only releasing the pilot chute when you reach line stretch. Bigger canopies have longer suspension lines so will open lower. Not a lot lower, but lower. Heavier jumpers will pound in harder. ian

As of Friday night 100th object - 290th jump. It's been interesting. Cheers to all along the way who've shared. ian

snigger, snigger. Oh stop it....purleeese.....no more, please no more....

You're arguing the wrong case with the wrong fella here and skirting the point i made. Using the logic that BASE is secretive and therefore no one knows everything about what gets jumped and when and by whom, leads you to ask how would you ever be able to claim you opened an object or were the first to do anything? Simple. You can't. Because the moment you make that claim, along come the people who say 'well how do you know, it might have been done in secret' despite the fact that all the evidence might support your claim, you simply can't side step the 'how do you know for sure' element. Now getting back to the inital point, all i ever said was that the London Eye wasn't getting jumped regularly, and i'll be even braver and say if at all. Jumping the London Eye is a major undertaking. It's not some rural A which can be flicked night after night without anyone knowing any better - just as I'm sure the ESB in NYC isn't. Gary did well and anyone who's ever been and looked at it would agree on that. What followed the jump remains controversial to say the least. ian

You ever opened an object Jamie? You know what's coming next? How do you know? What makes you think the thing you just jumped for (what you think is) the first time, wasn't jumped twice the night before? Because all the evidence points to the contrary. It's a small world, word gets around and if you ask enough questions and keep your ears open, and are generally active in your area, you generally know. If you don't have faith in that then the 'ask the locals' idea just took a dive right out the window. Gary did astonishingly well to bag this jump. No question about it. Hats off to the guy. Unlike Greeny though, i didn't think taking it to the press was done in good taste. I thought it was tacky and cheapened an otherwise brilliant achievement. However, seeing it through his eyes, as a stuntman, it undoubtedly looks good on his CV and must add kudos and credibility to him in his chosen profession. With that in mind, maybe i was wrong to attribute it to simple ego. Bankability as a stuntman is a far greater motive for sure. ian

Make no mistake....this is one object that isn't getting flicked regularly. That's not to say it hasn't been in the past or won't be in the future, but bagging this object is almost certainly on par with the Empire state building or the needle shaped B in vegas in terms of the security surrounding it and the planning required. Gary did well to pull the jump off at all. What is a shame is that he did such a good job, he could have gotten away absolutely clean with security either non the wiser or in total denial. Either way, his achievement would have been (in my eyes) even greater. It is a shame that he feels the value of the jump is intriniscally linked with the amount of attention/notoriety he gains from it. With regards, goading the security, this is not the first time this has happened in the UK. A very famous London building complex - successfully targetted by an IRA bomb in 1996, was jumped quite a few years ago with the jumpers getting away with just some late night drinkers spotting their activities. The witnesses reported their account to a local newspaper who then questioned the building's security staff regarding the claims of unauthorised parachuting from the roof. The security personnel countered that there was absolutely no way their security had been breached and the witnesses were drunk and undoubtedly mistaken. The very next day, a jumper contacted the newspaper and insisted that not only had the jump taken place, but that several buildings in the complex were being jumped regularly. He went on to scoff at the claims of the security staff and bragged at how much of a joke their security was, especially in light of the fact that it had previously been bombed by terrorists. I think that was perhaps the dumbest thing i have EVER read coming from a BASE jumper. Ego and stealth are simply incompatible, as is the case here. ian

True. And that's a good thing? Great jump from a great object. Shame he felt the need to take it to the press. Sounds like staff wouldn't have been any wiser if he hadn't. ian

I don't know why I'm fighting this corner, but i guess it must matter to me so... This thread is entitled Fatality: Swiss Valley and as such comments will be read in that light - as pertaining to the fatality on Saturday in the Swiss Valley. Csabi - the jumper who died on Saturday - is reported to have had 490 BASE jumps or thereabouts which by anyone's standards ought to make him an experienced jumper (insomuch as he had 490jumps worth of prior experience). I just thought that point is worth reiterating for anyone who cares about commenting on the facts in hand. Of course if there's anyone out there who'd like to vent in this thread about other unrelated subjects (maybe a monologue on securing your pilot chute to your bridle, or not using modified skydiving gear - subjects which equally have no bearing on this fatality) then i guess this thread (read soapbox)is as good as any. ian

Base Rigger. I was present at that exit point on his well executed and uneventful penultimate jump. The French jumper posted that they were present on an even earlier jump when he went handheld slider down to film the other two. I'm pretty sure they made 2 of those jumps, which makes the fatal jump probably the 4th from that cliff - which invalidates your point on the whole. However, the fact does still remain that many jumpers underestimate the positivity of the ledge and talus on this cliff and the actual lack of vertical to play with during aerials. On this you are perfectly correct. Like i said, there are lessons to be learned but only if you ask the right questions. This absolutely was NOT his first jump off this cliff. Let's stick to FACTS. ian

who isn't they were Because you jumped to conclusions. From that cliff. Yes. Perhaps he couldn't articulate in your language or to your understanding what he meant. How many reading this for instance could effectively communicate the fact that they are jumping an object for the first time in German? 'Mein erste springe' perhaps as you point to the exit point? "Seemed" to be saying because you didn't understand their language and because you'd already made some very wrong assumptions which had negatively clouded your opinion of them. I believe this is true, but with the right config, experience etc not an issue. No comment. I wasn't there at the exit point. However, poor abilities....that's subjective. Poor because they didn't make the road?? the landing area?? the tree line?? clear the talus?? clear the ledge?? I'm not trying to bash the french jumper who posted or others who have piped in with their pennies worth, but a lot of assumptions were made there which were very biased and unfair. A good man and by all informed accounts experienced jumper lost his life on Saturday, and many friends and family were left devastated. Of course we all want to learn lessons from such a fatality, but at least have the foresight and decency to ensure you've attended the right class before you stick your hand in the air with an opinion. ian

Absolutely. The comments, speculation and assumptions here are wrong, wrong, wrong. The hungarian guys were fun, polite, courteous and highly likeable jumpers, Csabi seemed a very experienced, and having watched his penultimate jump from the exit point at LM, i can say, very skilled jumper. Language barriers undoubtedly have played a large part in propagating some of the misinformation posted here. ian

It certainly wasn't my intention to throw one of those 'oh it's black death' clouds over this technique. There's no doubt that it works for many many many people and you could argue easily that you can get control of the canopy quickly using this technique. My comment really was just a thought relating to how you might compromise a more stable body position in the event that you have a serious hesitation. Personally i don't use this technique as i feel it compromises how square my shoulder are during deployment. However i know of people who say that when they started doing this, it actively helped their heading performance. Ultimately it's horses for courses, cos as with everything in BASE, one size doesn't fit all. ian

The head high attitude is something i have observed too. However, in this instance, the deploying canopy didn't happen and so the jumper would then have experienced something quite unusual and unique - a prolonged moment in this inherently unstable position with no extended arms to create drag on the upper half of his torso. Combined with perhaps the slightest resistance from the pilot chute pulling at the bottom of the container, is it unreasonable to assume he would then naturally have been pitched head down and then had a leg wrap with the bridle. Of course this is supposition but the purpose of this is to try to learn from this incident. I'm starting to think that the hands to the deploying risers is all well and good when the canopy deploys as anticipated, BUT should you experience a serious hesitation or an in tow, you're prone to serious instability when compared to returning to the boxman. Of course we will never know whether the drag created by the un-inflated PC was ever going to be enough to pop the pins (or peel the velcro) but one thing is for sure. Once that bridle became entangled with a limb, those chances were seriously reduced. No disrespect intended to anyone here. I just wonder if it's something you riser gropers might ponder? Consider and dismiss by all means, but i think it's at least worth considering. ian

They say a picture paints a thousand words. That pilot chute is clearly restricted from the offset. I see this jumper was in the habit of reaching up in anticpation of his risers extending, which i know is very popular and has it's pros and cons. Does anyone feel that returning to box after pitching might counter the tendency to go head down in such an event and therefore lesson the chance of a bridle entanglement with the legs. ian

It's a great idea, because as we all know, recycling is the key to saving the planet. But we need to take it a bit further. Revoke all BASE numbers issued after 1000. Sorry all post 1000 guys, tough call but someone had to make it.. From then on, there can only EVER be 1000 BASE number holders, so like a call centre, you get put in a queue and placed on hold. Then when someone dies, we all move down one and the dude at the front of the queue gets BASE1000. This way, we all stand a chance of becoming BASE number 1 - and can rightfully claim the crown of BASE pioneer and be attributed with creating BASE. It's selfish for Carl Boenish to hog all that kudos. I also think to get the number there should be practical and theoretical tests, a few multiple choice questions, maybe even continued assessment and monitoring followed by branding with a hot iron and implanted with a computer chip so we can monitor exactly who's doing what.If you're inactive for more than 2 months, you lose your number. If you get injured you have to apply for an extension in writing, with a doctors certificate. Comas don't count. Maybe even a chip that explodes (like in escape from new york) if you dayblaze an object or go on telly like a glory hound. ian ps. If i could choose a base number it would be B52, cos apparantly i land like one.

Yuri Drop me a PM with dates and times when you're around. ian

Fair point. This thread is more appropriate for my question. In the other thread i commented to which you replied ***I don't see why. The lesson that you keep track of all your tools is valid whether it was part of this 'specific' fatality or not. And that lesson has been stated a few times./*** It won't make a difference to the deceased, i agree, but whether it was an unintentional bridle wrap brought about by poor body position upon deployment, or a restrictive packing tool preventing pilot chute inflation,it will make a difference to a lot of others. Here's just two reasons which you fail to see. 1. Other jumpers (righly or wrongly) just notch this up as a stupid, utterly avoidable death OR are reminded of the fact that body position on deployment (even on a nice big bridge over water) is crucial to avoid entanglement and death. This is particularly pertinent as this bridge is probably the biggest practice ground for and biggest magnet for under-experienced jumpers doing aerials in the world. 2. Family get some answers as to why their loved one lost his life (believe it or not most grieving families want to know exactly why) so they can get "closure". You may not see it, but it does make a difference. In response to Tom who answered my question in the other thread and revealed that no pull-up was discovered by the sheriff/coroner on the deceased, which in itself indicates that he didn't remove it from the pilot chute and account for it, THANKS for a simple answer to a very simple and i think relevent question. If a pull up was used at the exit point to stow the pilot chute, and it's not found in his pockets or jacket, or under the flap of his rig or in the rig stash bag, then it means it somehow managed to disappear between exit point and impact. It is entirely feasible that the pull-up cord was bound around the cap but not knotted or secured, and restricted the pilot chute's effectiveness for long enough to prevent inflation prior to impact, before being dislodged by the building pressure/airspeed and then floating down wind. This could explain the various accounts from various witnesses of whether the pilot chute inflated. Whether the pull up was the cause of death or not, it is a technique which absolutely should not be used, PERIOD. BASE resides in an environment of stress, fear, fatigue, and distraction and we are not infallible beings. Factoring in our propensity to fuck up (regardless of age, experience and natural ability) in such an environment is crucial if we want to increase our chances of survival. Counting tools is not the best solution here. Using techniques which render the counting of tools unnecessary is. Besides, pull up cords or bungees are not like clamps. They're transient and nomadic.They drift around, they get lost, they accumulate for no real reason. You find ones in old jackets you forgot about. You find one in the landing area and pop it in your pocket. This could be the one you think you just removed as you get ready to climb over the rail. ian

Hey there Did anyone have a chance (jumpers, family, friends or police) to check the deceased pockets. This would pretty much confirm whether he removed the pull-up prior to jumping. If he did, it's on him somewhere, it simply has to be. If he didn't and did leave it on the pilot chute and it came off during freefall, you'll find it down wind or down stream. Of course this won't change what's happened, but the facts being revealed might mean the difference to someone else. ian

That's cheap. Has this been reprinted? ian

It's glib yes but it kind of does have a meaning in this context. Base_rigger made the comment that when he goes to any new dropzone he has his logbook and license checked before he is allowed to jump from their planes. In the context he is implying that similar checks could or should be made for jumpers at bridge day and is accusing Jason of failing to vet the applicants closely enough and hence is culpable in Brian's death. What i believe Rambo is saying is simple. Base jumping in essence is the antithesis of skydiving. It's about personal responsibilty and taking control of your own jumps, making your own analysis of the risks and chosing when and where and how you wish to jump. For sure, BASE jumping isn't about logbooks and licences and permissions and control. But the come back of course will be that Bridge day IS in fact more to do with skydiving - you book a slot, you pay for a ticket, it's legal, you need permission from the organisers who themselves need permission from the authorities - and less to do with BASE - freedom from authority, freedom from restriction etc. The come back to that would then be that without some form of control there would be no bridge day, so you're right back where you started, which when push comes to shove is really a debate based on : - 1.HOW FAR SHOULD LEGAL BASE EVENT ORGANISERS GO IN VETTING JUMPERS? which raises the question 2. HOW FAR DOWN THE ROAD TO REGULATION DO WE WANT TO GO BEFORE WE SAY ENOUGH? which could then bring about the question 3. DO THESE EVENTS NEGATIVELY IMPACT EVERYDAY STEALTHY BASE BY POPPING US ONTO THE RADAR SCREENS OF THE POWERS THAT BE AND IF SO ARE THEY WORTH IT? Answers on a post card. ian

I have to agree with the holmes on that point. On the one hand the 'yoof' are accused of wanting it all immediately but are simultaneously accused of not knowing their history immediately. I'm finding stuff out every single day. Stuff that has never entered my field of vision before. I'll be honest. I'd never heard of Brian before the fatality this year, although i was generally aware of the historic el cap jumps. I thought i had a pretty decent grasp of BASE history too. Now however, for all the wrong reasons, i know, and i'm looking into it further and discovering more. 'Fly by night', 'fairweather', 'in it for the glory' jumpers don't need to learn about the roots of their past....why???...because they're not in it for the duration. Jumpers who are passionate and do love the 'sport' by that very nature, will eventually feel the need to look at their pedigree and absorb the history. What we need to do is make sure spurious claims along the lines of 'Z was the first to ever jump X' or 'Z just made the lowest ever BASE jump' when we all know those claims are patently untrue, are instantly dismissed and consigned to the dustbin and never make it onto the historic record because once on there, it's very difficult to get them removed and by their very existence they deny a true pioneer their rightful place. ian

If i told you.....i'd have to kill you.

Cheers for the answer. Wasn't trying to catch you out. Just wondering if you had Vans on or something which might have been a factor. So many injuries could be avoided with proper footwear and ankle protection - this wasn't one of them. ian