MyTwoCents

A friend groundcrewed.

Apologies for a post which sole purpose is to brag, but I just have to share my joy. After three months of too much rain, snow, wind and zero flicking, I opened up a new 300 foot B within walking distance from my house. Jump 106 is a great start of 2007. May we all have safe and enjoyable jumps. Let's be careful...

That's exactly my point. Technically, slider down cliffs ought to be more dangerous. I'm well aware that tall cliffs are jumped more often, but not so much more that it would be the sole explanation for a 3 versus 80 percent difference. I think base736 pointed out an additional reason why people die more often on slider up cliffs. We over-estimate how much bigger the safety margins on these jumps are, and increase our risk-exposure disproportionally.

Not immune, but if you use BASE gear, are exceptionally paranoid about your static-line jumps, and don't put a pull-up cord or rubber-band around your pilotchute, the fatality list may indicate that short delay slider-down freefalls from low cliffs are the least dangerous jumps. To me that is, from a technical point of view, somewhat surprising. Remember that there are still many skydivers out there that want to get into BASE but only so they can go to Norway and make "a skydive". If anything, it shows that BASE is still by and large a human endeavor, with plenty of room for pilot error. Decrease the pilot time, and you decrease your risk exposure.

The latest fatality made me peruse the list once again, and I realized how relatively few slider-down accidents there are. Just estimating the numbers, I'd say that about 80% of accidents are slider up cliff jumps, 17% are total mals (static-line, PC issue, skydiving gear), and the remaining 3% is the type of jumping that makes up my home-turf. Europe is getting really scary these days, maybe I should just stay at home and stick to the safe slider-down jumps... Just like Faber, that other Dane.

Don't wish. Be. You have every reason to.

What part of "consider yourself lucky" and "let sleeping dogs lie" did you not understand? If your government's tax and healthcare system allows for BASE help, by all means use it. After all, that is what you pay taxes for. But don't be surprised if non-BASE jumpers feel their part of those taxes can be spent better elsewhere. I don't think you're interested in paying more taxes, are you? If you knew me, you'd know that my mom would be the last person I asked for. Furthermore, the last time BASE got me stuck I didn't cry. I called my groundcrew, asked them about if a rescue was possible, and gave them a message for some close friends in case anything should go wrong.

N/A

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801 That's pretty sad.

Good point, I should call the NPS on his ass...

Although it does "work" that way, you're right that it doesn't "work out" that way. What I mean is that although the logic behind predictability holds, insurance covers more than just BASE jumping. You give the example yourself; instead of limiting it to just BASE jumpers you take a slightly larger group (those that have rescue insurance). My original statement translated to this group still holds: Those people that put themselves in places where they might need a rescue will require a rescue more often than those people that do no go there to begin with. I never said anything to that extent. It's precisely why I wrote (emphasized): " BASE jumpers will be hurt on a BASE jump (this is important) more often than non-BASE jumpers. This is what makes insurance work. The math along a single line. Of course you are totally right that most insurance policies don't just cover X, they cover X, Y, and Z. As such, it becomes much harder to speak about who suffers increased risk and who doesn't. That's why we have discussions about such things, instead of black-and-white obvious absolutes. But I think you and I will both agree that on average BASE jumpers are more taxing on the healthcare system (from wherever it is funded) than my healthy-eating exercising philatelizing neighbour. Which of course could put us on a slope where we discuss the societal merits of BASE jumping and how we are pioneers of human flight inspiring millions around us. Or the other slope where we condemn all smokers and grease-eating lazy television addicts. Bah... All I'm trying to say is that people should take responsibility for their own actions, and only consider it a bonus if somebody else jumps in and helps. Last time I checked, the universe didn't owe me anything.

It continues to baffle me that so few people understand how insurance works. I tried to resist, but I'm afraid I have to take this speaker's corner. Insurance works on a premise; that in a group of people only a fraction will suffer from X but that it is difficult to impossible to predict the distribution of said fraction.. Two points need stressing: Only a fraction will run into X. If everybody would suffer from X, it would be impossible to buy insurance for it. The reason is economical; insurance companies would go bankrupt. To illustrate, let X be hair growth. Imagine a completely bald species where one in every hundred individuals can suddenly develop some sort of rapid hair growth. I guarantee you, there would be an insurance company that supplies razor blades. In our world, everybody grows hair. So we pay for our own visits to the barber shop. Second point; it is difficult to impossible to predict who will suffer from X. If X were entirely predictable, non-carriers of X would have a problem sharing the cost. Let X be menstruation. Wonder why there is no insurance for tampons? It's too obvious what part of the population will need them at some point. For the logic inclined; the previous point about fractions is just a consequence of this one. If the fraction is equal to the whole population, predictability is trivial. Next, it is important to realize that social healthcare through taxes is just a form of government regulated insurance. I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad thing (that's outside of this discussion) but it's important to realize that social healthcare works on the premise outlined above, just like insurance companies do. Let us look at some scenarios: The plane crash in Kansas. Insurance makes sense here (for most countries, that would be through government regulated taxing) because not every plane that takes off is guaranteed to crash, nor is it predictable (a priori) that this plane headed for Kansas would crash. A baby born with severe handicaps. Insurance makes sense here, since we can not accurately predict which babies will or won't be affected. But it gets interesting now. What about the mother who smokes, drinks and uses drugs during her pregnancy? Suddenly we tweak the predictability factor, and insurance starts making less sense. What about a life-long smoker developing lung cancer? Predictability becomes easier yet again, and insurance gets complicated. Already we see countries toy with the idea of giving non-smokers priority on waiting lists. What about BASE jumping? Depending on the group, predictability can be easy or difficult. Take the entire population as the group and it's very easy to predict that BASE jumpers will be hurt on a BASE jump (this is important) more often than non-BASE jumpers. In other words, predictability is high so insurance makes less sense. Take only the subgroup of BASE jumpers and it becomes harder to predict who will get hurt badly and who will only hurt his pinky finger. Predictability goes down significantly, and suddenly insurance becomes a useful tool again. Anybody who still agrees at this point that BASE jumpers need to be saved at all cost fall for a stubborn myth; that unconditional support for fellow human beings is a moral necessity and practical possibility. Let me attack the moral necessity first... You can save a life today by donating hundred dollars to your nearest third-world-country charitable organization. Perhaps some of those organizations are inefficient or corrupt, but it is easily provable that a hundred dollars can save a life somewhere with relative ease. I'm also convinced that you don't need that hundred dollar to stay alive for the next little while. So why don't you? If you think government regulated insurance (through social healthcare) makes sense, then why doesn't this argument extrapolate to a worldwide insurance? After all, you couldn't predict where you were born. Perhaps unconditional support is a moral obligation on some ethical scale (Peter Singer has some interesting articles about this), but not on mine per se, and I don't see the world around me disagree. Now let us consider the practical reality of such unconditional support. The fact of the matter is, our healthcare systems are already under enormous amounts of economic stress. But hear the outcry of the tax-payer if the goverment asks for more to boost healthcare. I predict this will only get worse. We have no other options but to transition to a world in which healthcare is applied conditionally. Additional support will have to come from more and more privatized insurance. And unless you send a hundred dollars to Africa (with apologies to the continent) and agree to pay more taxes, you'll have to come to terms with this. ...including making sure that you have appropriate insurance for BASE. If you live in a country where social healthcare takes care of you, congratulations. Let sleeping dogs lie and consider yourself lucky. But please don't judge other countries; insurance (including the one your goverment supplies) has no emotion, and justly so.

I probably would, yes. Whatever happens, I would face the consequences. Isn't that what BASE is about? Part of that is having the opportunity to live in a society that foots the bill for my stupidity. I'll let sleeping dogs lie, but if one day they'll awake I'll find insurance elsewhere.

Is that the same piece as in Masters Of Stone 5?

Come to think of it, I think I knew this but forgot. Maybe it's because typically the wingsuit community permeates a police-like image when it comes to minimum requirements. The UK comes to mind (although my understanding of their regulation may be wrong or out-of-date). I stand corrected. Regulation aside, I believe the standing advice made sense when the sport was younger, but as wingsuiting matures I think we'll see the recommended requirements come down.

Will you buy a plane ticket to Vancouver? I'll supply the beer. Damn holidays, everybody is out own town and the weather is nice for the first time in ages... Guess I'll have to dust off my old hands-free set again for some virtual groundcrew.

Congratulations! Did you go out on your own? No judgement, just curious. Or did you take BMI/PFI/other instruction? I'd like to think that an instructor would have caught such a thing. And you lived through it. Would you say it was more stressful (relatively speaking) than a standard emergency procedure would be for somebody with only ten skydives (no wingsuit)? I doubt it... I've met people with 300 skydives that shouldn't be skydiving (let alone wingsuiting). I've met people with 20 skydives that could comfortably fly a wingsuit. The problem is in who decides when a person is fit to make a first wingsuit jump. To mitigate this, picking some random number as a minimum is not a terrible solution. However, I think the number as it stands today is too high. Let's lower the bar, and leave it up to instructors and DZOs to install more stringent rules when they believe a person isn't ready yet (similar to how canopy downsizing works in North America). Skydiving appears to be on the decline (BASE being one of many threats), and wingsuiting may very well be a great way to keep more people in the sport.

I have, in a personal message.

Yeah, you'd better be worried. The last bachelor's party I helped organize we broke into the victim's house at 5:00am, forced him into a pink dress and kidnapped his sorry ass all the way to Mexico. Be afraid, be very afraid... Oh by the way, you don't sleep with a gun under your pillow, do you? Just checking.

170 skydives and 100 BASE (not relevant for technique, but for stress-management to some extent). I predict and hope the minimum number of skydives required for first wingsuit flights will come down in the future. 200 jumps for a first Prodigy flight seems heavy. Conversely, it may not be enough for a V2. Adaptable and individual progression seems desirable to me.

Merry Christmas from a real Santa Claus!

Something I haven't seen mentioned in the riser-versus-toggle debate (except in passing by) is the difference between canopies. I've noticed significant differences in the rear-riser characteristics of the two BASE canopies I've flown the most, to the point where it would affect my choice. So advice that works well for one canopy may not apply for another. Though a discussion in general terms is still valuable, the bottom-line remains: "Get to know your canopy!"

Woohoo! I got myself completely piss drunk after I got the news last night. Congratulations Russel and Amy!

I met Anne H. this week. Had the grand pleasure of doing four hop-and-pops, drop cargo loads from 250 feet, and hike through the desert for two days with a great group of people. I think I have a crush on her. Thanks Anne; you're a rockstar! Grab your sunnies and chapstick, let's go to the jungle...

Geez, do you ever not travel and jump? I think I saw you in Eloy only two days ago. Nice going mate! And congratulations on getting your riggers ticket!