Basejumper.com - archive

I have read the forum rules and written this post in a manner that I believe follows them to the letter. This is not a personal attack. This is not a troll. The questions and statements herein are shared by many. They warrant discussion and transparency whether the reader has been in the sport for decades or is just thinking of taking the first step—especially the latter. Some tough questions follow. You will correctly infer disagreement and differing of opinions. That’s natural in any discussion and this is an attempt at an objective one.

There are a number of issues we feel should be raised to the surface and discussed, statements we feel strongly about, answers we believe the BASE community deserves, and actions we feel should be taken moving forward. BASE jumping is an inherently dangerous sport and runs by “big boy and big girl rules”. Everyone makes their own decisions. Self-regulated. We do, however, need to look out for each-other and anyone entering the sport. These are grave concerns about some teaching methods and what is/is not appropriate, rigging instruction, judgment in general, and representation of the greater BASE community for the purposes of promoting yourself and your school.

In that, I am talking about and raising concerns with the practices and teachings of Snake River BASE Academy and it’s owner and lead instructor, Tom Aiello. For the purposes of this post, “you”, “your”, and “school” should be equally interpreted to mean Tom Aiello and SRBA, interchangeably. Everything that follows is either fact or educated speculation based on information shared amongst many of us; second-hand at times, but in enough volume to warrant what follows. We hope you will make the effort to respond. I’ve tried to exclude rumors, but can’t be certain beyond reasonable and educated speculation in some cases. This is your chance to respond, on your forum.

There have been three fatalities in Twin Falls related to BASE in under a year. Each of these three have somehow been attributed to your or your school’s involvement. I am speaking of the low cliff strike on 1 August 2014; the floating pin/container lock malfunction from the Perrine on 9 March 2015; and the flaming cutaway attempt to impact from the Perrine on 7 May 2015.

In the first, we’ve heard both that the deceased was in your Object Avoidance course at the time of the cliff-strike, and that he wasn’t—simply that he was with you or your instructors who were teaching at the time. In the latter two, you explicitly claim that your school was not involved in any way, yet you release incident reports on school letterhead. That position and those actions conflict and there are issues with how they are conducted and reported.

1 Aug 2014 cliff strike
It is widely agreed that the cliff in question is one of the poorest objects for lower or lesser-experienced jumpers, and certainly not something for teaching.
Was the deceased part of your course, either as a paid student or “auditing” or sitting in in some form or fashion?
Is this object or other similar low cliffs in the Twin Falls area still a part of your curriculum?
Why do you feel they are appropriate for jumpers with even basic experience?
Were you asked by anyone in the city or county to not teach from those low cliffs? (It’s rumored you were.)

9 March 2015 container lock
It is widely believed—with evidence to support it—that the floating pin bridle used on the fatal jump was in fact built by the deceased during a course of yours in June 2014. Is this true?
This floating pin bridle was introduced to a container (Morpheus Helium) never intended or designed to use a floating pin bridle according to the manufacturer. Would you agree?
On what other makes and models of rigs did you introduce floating pin bridles as you indicated in this Sept 2014 post? Custom floating pin bridle
In this case, it wasn’t solving a problem. It wasn’t innovation. It possibly introduced a problem. Do you believe that the reason behind your decision is wise and does not set a bad example for students?
When exactly did you introduce them and when did you stop using them?

It is also widely believed that at or before this time, you began including more than just basic rigging skills (gear inspection, changing components, finger-trapping, brake settings, etc) in your instruction. While no one would disagree that rigging is a valuable skill for all BASE jumper to know, are you qualified to be teaching to the level that you are? I offer the included attachments of bridles built by respected manufacturers and in contrast examples of what was built by a student in your course, under your supervision. In the case of the red floating pin bridle, your suggestion of the design itself (pin threaded on bridle, S-folded, zig-zag stitching), obvious lack of quality control/inspection, and to approve and have a student use such a bridle raises serious questions on its own.

Did you suggest the S-fold design in this bridle as it’s been reported?
Do you understand why no other respected manufacturer makes bridles with this method?
Do you believe that there was no risk in any of the guidance or decision that led to the creation and use of this bridle?
Would you agree that little or no quality control in this example sends the wrong message and sets a bad example under which students learn?

7 May 2015 flaming cutaway attempt
The planning and testing that went into it and was detailed in your report did not point to anything that approximated how the real attempt would go down.
The circumstances surrounding how this entire incident unfolded and was handled leaves a lot of questions.
I haven’t talked to one jumper who isn’t at least shaking their head in disbelief. I do hope that you consider your actions and statements about and against other jumpers who may have done things you didn’t like in the past, and weigh what you've said about them with your decision to assist in this one.
I’m sorry about your friend, but this one never should have occurred. The testing never came close to how this was ultimately executed.

Incident Reports
Finally, your incident reports. At least in the last two (9 March and 7 May 2015), you claim that your school and instruction was neither a factor nor involved, yet you release incident reports on your letterhead. This has been brought up before and I can’t leave it out. It is widely viewed as opportunistic and taking advantage of an incident to promote your business. This is an opinion, but it’s a strong one. Your statements and actions contradict. You should consider this.

More so than your motivations regarding how your incident reports are published is how they are conducted. In no other investigation of an incident—certainly no other investigations in any aviation or aeronautical activities—do those directly involved perform the assessment and deliver the final report; and certainly not solely on their own. Many of us take issue with the way the gear used in the 9 March incident was rapidly—reportedly within 48 hours—repaired and back in rotation for student use at your school.
First, is this correct? How rapidly was the gear repaired after the fatality and put back in use? Please clear this up.
Second, however long, why the rush to repair it?

Third—and most importantly—why is it that your assessments are performed and reports published as a conclusive account of the incident without third-party input, or discussion?

Your handling of an assessment or investigation leaves something to be desired and calls to question the credibility of the final report. An assessment or investigation should allow time and opportunity for question and discussion involving multiple parties. From all appearances, no one other than yourself—or maybe others associated with your school—have the opportunity to review the gear/evidence/video and provide input. You have no shortage of experienced jumpers and riggers in Twin Falls and owe it to the greater BASE community to allow more eyes to be put on the gear, information, and video (when available). We hope you will consider this going forward. It truly could save lives.

I’ve tried to be objective and hope you will take the time to consider and respond to the questions and statements. A lot of experienced jumpers are interested in your responses.

That is a legit post which merits real answers in a civilized manner.

Looking forward to the moderator's response....

Solid.

Deleted in 3-2-1...

Colsco, just to level the playing field. Who exactly are you?

To preface this, I have first hand information about the first two incidents, so everything I'm going to share is fact, and not speculation. I'm not affiliated with Tom's school in any way (never been paid by him, though I have taken his course). I just want to provide some (apparently little known) facts into the rumor mill.



You took the time to define "you" but you aren't defining "we"? Who is "we"?


Adam wasn't a lesser experienced jumper, so I don't see why this is relevant. He had taken 3 courses, two taught by Tom and one taught by Chuma. He had also been actively jumping in and around Twin Falls all summer, and had about 100 BASE jumps. He also focused on CRW jumps while skydiving, lending further argument to his proficiency. A high level of currency and formal training doesn't sound "less-experienced" to me.


Considering I was with Tom, back at the school, when this incident happened, while he was teaching an FJC, no I don't think Adam was auditing or that Tom was really involved for that matter. It's hard to impact events that you aren't physically present for.


I'm sure that depends on which curriculum you are referring to. Tom doesn't give people the option to go off cliffs during his FJC. He does have an Object Avoidance course, where people make most of their jumps off of the bridge and have the option to jump cliffs at the end if they want to. When I did it, no one in my class even jumped any of them.


Now you're speculating on how he feels?...


If you're going to the length of labeling and attaching pictures, why wouldn't you be providing this evidence? I'd like to see it, personally.


I know this. You know this. Tom knows this. Bryan knew this. I think you are making some assumptions here that are probably inaccurate. Bryan was a pretty intelligent guy, and I can tell you that because I talked to him a couple of times in the weeks leading up to him going to Twin Falls. You are painting him as the aloof student who was blindly following the instructors advice, and I think you don't really have the place to do that because (and this is my one bit of speculation, maybe you can clarify) you didn't even know him.


How do you know it was built under Tom's supervision? Any evidence for that?


Could you provide any evidence of these incident reports being provided as the "final report". I don't see many other people taking the time to publish such detailed reports on incidents (save one wingsuit incident in the last year). I would say publishing detailed incident reports in this fashion is a good way to get as much knowledge out in an unregulated community such as this in a quick fashion.


No one is stopping you from publishing your own incident report. No one is stopping any of the Twin Falls residents from publishing an incident report. If someone shows the dedication to gather as much information as they can on their own, by contacting the parties involved, they are 100% capable of doing the same thing.

I'm not going to respond to your assessment of the most recent incident because, like you, I can only provide rumor.

Collin, you can call me a sheep and you can tell me I'm not experienced enough to know what I'm talking about (you and others already have), but you can't deny facts when all you have is speculation. In the case that you think everything I said is bullshit, if you aren't going to have an intelligent, fact based discussion, the only thing I really want you to answer is: why pose these questions in the first place?

Solid rebuttal.

Continue...

(Steals MJ's motherfuckin Popcorn)

I'd appreciate it if you provided some evidence for this as well. Again, rumors don't count. Usually people who are high (like the person I first heard this from) don't count as reliable testimony. This guy also asked me if Tom made me sign a paper turning my gear over to him if I died, which is totally and completely false.

Nick,
My name is Collin Scott. I have been jumping for almost 11 years. I have approximately 450 jumps in that time.

Ian,
I see no need to call you a sheep. I’m not calling you inexperienced or devaluing your interpretation based on your experience. However, I think it’s clear to anyone who has been jumping for more than a few years that there’s reason to ask these questions. It is only in that that I challenge you. Not in your practical experience, but your time in and exposure to the sport and the BASE community and relative history.

If you disagree, I invite you to reach out to anyone who has been jumping for more than a few years and get their opinions, independent of mine. Similarly, I invite any of them to contact you directly if they feel so inclined.

In the spirit of the original post and discussion, I’d prefer to wait to see if and how Tom responds to my claims and questions before diverging and engaging in a separate debate. If I am incorrect in my speculation, assumption, or accusations, Tom has the ability to correct me. A debate between you and I is rather futile at this point.

I would invite them to reach out to me as well. I'm already talking to other jumpers who strongly disagree with me to get other opinions. Are you doing the same?


I'm not having a debate here. I am providing facts to answer your questions. I am asking you questions. I'm not arguing with you. The beautiful thing about facts is you don't have to argue it, it is already true.

If you're waiting on Tom, and my facts aren't good enough, then you're obviously just waiting for an opportunity to have a conflict with an individual, and don't really care about the truth.

If that's the case, do your accusations merit response?

I have and continue to speak with and hear from people with varied and diverse opinions on these matters.


As you question my interpretation of available information, I question yours.


Again, we differ in the interpretation of information as "facts". Beyond that, I'll let Tom's response stand for what it is. Any further discussion of my experience or opinions in response to your accusations that I "really don't care about the truth" would violate the forum rules I'm trying very hard to stay within.

I'm not going to respond to any of this yet, I'm just going to call you out on the fact that you posted it as Jello about 2 minutes ago, and quickly deleted it, rookie.

Total Bush League

Mistakes happen and you have to have a spare account when censorship runs rampant and people don't like what you have to say. Whoops. Doesn't change anything I've said.

A couple of thoughts on rigging.

I have no room to throw stones here. I designed and built my first base rig from scratch before my first base jump and did the first jump on it from a bridge as my first ever base jump. For me it was just a part of the learning process. I had no instruction on it's design or construction. I did have the opportunity to finger fuck another base rig a few months earlier and basically copied it from memory. I had to get some one to teach me how to pack the rig I'd built when I showed up at bridge day for my first jump. So that is basically my perspective on learning to rig in base jumping.

I could take issue with the floating pin design. Or the workman ship. But I do not see an issue with people being taught basic rigging including construction in their training. My personal opinion is that we would be better off if they were required to build their own gear from scratch before their first jump. It's kind of a weeding out thing. And if they are not ready to do that... They're not ready to jump.

Damn good thing I'm not running a school. I'd be one bastard of an instructor.

Lee

No it doesn't change anything you've said, but it does change the apparent number of people who agree with you. I'm starting to wonder if "we" is just the other forum accounts you have.

So this thread is going to be deleted how soon, Tom? That's what I read in your own words, at least...

Don't worry. We grabbed screenshots.

That would be a shame because this is a valid thread with valid questions. But if you're not going to accept into the discussion responses from those with direct first hand knowledge of the events simply because the facts they present do not fit your narrative then it will just degrade like all the rest of the threads here.

Lee

I agree it's valid, and I'm not saying that they don't fit my narrative at all, Lee. I said I'd prefer to wait and have a discussion and see responses to the questions and speculations from Tom, himself. So far, all I'm seeing is private messages accusing myself and many others of libel, when we're asking for clarification and answers.

Collin,

I noticed that you've edited your post to take things out before I could respond to your allegations.

I will post a response to your original allegations, regardless of your decision to remove them before I respond.

What was it that I removed, Tom?

I made clarifications to dates, grammar, and punctuation. I have records of it all, so please be sure to include what it is that I "removed".

1 Aug 2014 cliff strike
Was the deceased part of your course, either as a paid student or “auditing” or sitting in in some form or fashion?

No. This incident did not occur as part of a course. The deceased was not a student or auditor in the course I was teaching at the time.


Is this object or other similar low cliffs in the Twin Falls area still a part of your curriculum?

Yes. We give students the opportunity to jump a number of different objects, and students make their own decisions about which jumps to make.

Collin, I understand that you took one of your students to this same cliff during his second weekend of BASE jumping. What is your view on the appropriateness of taking him there? And is this cliff still a part of your curriculum?



Why do you feel they are appropriate for jumpers with even basic experience?

Your question presumes that you know how I feel. Your presumption is incorrect. I do not feel that any slider down solid object is appropriate for a beginner. I am very clear about that at all times.


Were you asked by anyone in the city or county to not teach from those low cliffs? (It’s rumored you were.)

No. I had a conversation with Dennis Bramon, whose son was an instructor for a competing training provider, about this specific object sometime in the Fall of 2014 (months after the incident you are referring to). Dennis works for Idaho Power and is not an official in city or county government.


9 March 2015 container lock
It is widely believed—with evidence to support it—that the floating pin bridle used on the fatal jump was in fact built by the deceased during a course of yours in June 2014. Is this true?

No. That is not true. I believe he built that bridle at the school, but not during a course. I cannot prove exactly when and where he built it, but I can say with certainty that it was not during a course.


This floating pin bridle was introduced to a container (Morpheus Helium) never intended or designed to use a floating pin bridle according to the manufacturer. Would you agree?

Yes. Bryan built his floating pin bridle for a rig that the manufacturer had never built floating pin bridles for. That was his decision, which he made on his own.


On what other makes and models of rigs did you introduce floating pin bridles as you indicated in this Sept 2014 post?

I used a floating pin bridle on my personal rig (a Gargoyle) for several years.


Do you believe that the reason behind your decision is wise and does not set a bad example for students?

I believe that the best example I can set for students is to carefully consider various points of view, and then formulate my own best opinion and proceed from there. I encourage all students to consider various viewpoints and make their own decisions. I discuss this at length in the introduction of the Fundamentals course. I re-iterate it several times, and I do not believe that any students have ever taken a course with me and not heard this message.


When exactly did you introduce them and when did you stop using them?

I honestly don’t remember when I built the floating pin bridle for my rig. I discontinued the use of floating pins at the school after I was able to create two unique malfunction modes on them, while investigating Bryan’s accident.


It is also widely believed that at or before this time, you began including more than just basic rigging skills (gear inspection, changing components, finger-trapping, brake settings, etc) in your instruction.

That’s not really a question, but I will note that the rigging skills taught in the Fundamentals course are fingertrapping, tailgate construction, and construction of static line carry on cords. We also cover the actual rigging of static line systems. We cover the construction of lower control lines during the Object Avoidance course. Gear inspection and assembly of components are covered in the Fundamentals course, but I consider those foundational BASE skills, rather than rigging skills.

Do you understand why no other respected manufacturer makes bridles with this method?

I own multiple Morpheus bridles made in that way, actually.

Despite your label on the photo, I do not know that I have ever seen that bridle before. Can you provide me with the name of the student who I supervised in its construction?


Incident Reports
Finally, your incident reports. At least in the last two (9 March and 7 May 2015), you claim that your school and instruction was neither a factor nor involved, yet you release incident reports on your letterhead. This has been brought up before and I can’t leave it out. It is widely viewed as opportunistic and taking advantage of an incident to promote your business. This is an opinion, but it’s a strong one. Your statements and actions contradict. You should consider this.

Although that’s also not a question, I would like to respond to that.

I write incident reports on letterhead, and with my name and contact information attached to them because I believe that it’s important that (a) everyone knows who wrote the incident report, (b) anyone with questions has a way to contact the generator of the report to ask those questions, and (c) I want to stand behind the opinions I offer, rather than just throwing things out there anonymously (with or without a clever alias). That’s true in the incident reports you’ve cited, but also in several other reports—for example my report on the Pete Certain accident here.



Many of us take issue with the way the gear used in the 9 March incident was rapidly—reportedly within 48 hours—repaired and back in rotation for student use at your school.
First, is this correct? How rapidly was the gear repaired after the fatality and put back in use? Please clear this up.
Second, however long, why the rush to repair it?

Although you have repeated those accusations in several places, they are completely false. I returned Bryan’s gear to his family when they visited Twin Falls, in the exact condition it was in after his accident. The system was damaged heavily and was certainly not airworthy. It was Bryan’s personal gear, and was not school gear.




Third—and most importantly—why is it that your assessments are performed and reports published as a conclusive account of the incident without third-party input, or discussion?

Anyone who wants to is free to conduct their own investigation and generate a report. I am happy to share any data I have with them. In fact, in the Bryan Turner accident, another rigger did examine his gear and work on creating container lock modes with it. I cannot control whether anyone else chooses to generate a report though. I produce and generate my report because I think it’s my duty to the BASE community to do my best to explain what happened for general knowledge.

All, please note:

I will not respond to this thread again soon, because I have many other things I need to do in my life. I may be able to check in on these threads in a few days, but I cannot guarantee that.

I have asked Sangiro to read through this and Colin's other two threads ("Valid Question" and "Modding the Mods") and moderate them as necessary. I have no control over whatever decision he makes in that regard.

Thank you for your answers. It conflicts with information provided by other people, but it's good that you decided to answer and remove speculation.

I do take issue with two specific responses of yours, the first of which I'll assume is rhetorical and your effort to make a point.


I have only ever taught one student. He did not jump any cliffs in Twin Falls or around Twin Falls. Nor have I.


It's good to hear this, I hope it is not necessary in the future, but if it is, I truly hope you're sincere.

"Modding the Mods" was not mine. "A Valid Question" was.

Lock the accounts, delete whatever you want.

you sure modding the mods wasn't yours? you have so many fake accounts its hard to tell...in my view makes your credibility close to zero. by the way this is my one and only account...

I'm positive. In fact, I'm more certain of this than Tom is about some of his answers. I had this account and Jello after this account was banned from some portions of the site. But whatever, Tom answered my questions as best as he saw fit and that's enough for me.

Here's the answer to all of your questions: You don't like Tom, and never will, ever, no matter what.

Him answering your questions is truly a waste of his time and you should be very grateful he even attempted.

Let's just lock the thread and move on. You're an adult, you don't have to like everyone. Move past it. It makes life much, much easier.

(Like)

+10!! double like:)

Well said.

LOL!
i couldnt even read your STUPID fucking post, you had me laughing at "we NEED to police each other"

I dont NEED to do jack shit, except make good choices in jumps and with whom i choose to associate with.

SHOULD we police each other? yes. do I? absofuckinglutely.

"It is widely agreed that the cliff in question is one of the poorest objects for lower or lesser-experienced jumpers, and certainly not something for teaching. "

Guess what? Dont jump those cliffs, noone is putting a gun to Toms students heads and forcing them off those objects. If you truly dont understand the severity of those types of choices, take up something else. I plan on taking Toms avoidance course at some point because its good practice and theory for me to do with what i please. Will i jump those snake river cliffs? not even close, im not fond of low solid objects shaped like cheese graders.

the MOMENT you step off that object, your life is in your hands. period. We are all students, no matter what, and this is what happens when popularity takes over and noone goes the old school route and puts in the effort to seek out a real mentor.

im LOVING how this website has become an all out entertainment-site!

continue the hilariousness now please!....................

hello mr. colsco,

for your edification the definition of objective:

1.(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

it's raining today and I have nothing better to do but dissect your objectivity.


this is a bold statement and i must call into question your own credentials when determining if an assessment is inaccurate. what is your background in assessment analysis?


are you implying that the local authorities were not involved in the investigative process? if this is the case perhaps you should bring up your concerns to the local chamber of commerce. if the local authorities aren't doing their job, they should definitely be made aware. perhaps this could be a future project for you, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands.


absolutely! he should bring you and your like minded cronies expertise into the loop.


this gives me pause. are you suggesting that BASE should become regulated? i'm sure this could be achieved if you squeak loud enough. you seem to think that outside entities are required in order to have detailed, unbiased assessments of BASE fatalities, why do you assume they weren't involved? perhaps I am not understanding you correctly but be careful what you ask for.


yes, this has been brought up before. petty semantics. if he wrote it, why wouldn't he publish it on his letterhead?

thank you,

teresa

There are only a few things I feel like responding to you from your post. And I stand comfortable in that. In stark contrast to my questioning of his credibility, there's not a decade-plus history of a significant a number of experienced jumpers questioning mine as there are his.

On assessments, I'm not talking about my "cronies", but it would be refreshing to see Tom engaged and cooperative with the broader group of experienced jumpers in Twin Falls instead of bad-mouthing them to his students and course alumni. Otherwise, I was not aware that local authorities--or the Chamber of Commerce--was staffed by individuals with jumping or rigging experience.

No, I don't feel that BASE needs a governing body. You are really stretching if that's what you interpreted from my comments.

As to the letterhead, I'll beat this horse one more time. A commercial entity providing an assessment and report on an incident in which their involvement has been questioned but which they deny… Suspect.

And hey, Tom did take time to respond and answer my questions. But the people above are right. The truth is, I just don't believe him. So, unless it's a discussion with Tom who is in his right not to respond any further, I will leave it at that.

But hey, I'm so happy to see Tom's defense team coming out of the woodwork. Most of you certainly do seem to have at least a thing or two in common.

Cactus Mary reprimanded someone for leaving another jumper on top who had lower jumps.

She then plowed face first into a cactus!

So why would you continue the discussion if you don't believe what he says?

I'm not a part of any defense team I just think you are an idiot. But keep posting that's what idiots do:)

Wait who should I reply to colsco jello dellogello doodoo... I just don't know:)

Dude, you certainly have an agenda and throw shit around pretending you want answers, but in reality you seem to simply want something to continue throw shit and disagree. I don't know you, I know Tom - took his class 5 years ago. If there is one thing I remember he always stated both sides (pros/cons) of using certain modifications, so students could be aware when making decisions for themselves. I don't remember any student rigs having the floating pin that were used by students but I remember him mentioning it. I also visited his school last year and he specifically said he wasn't recommending floating pin for anyone to use, but he still explained pros/cons.
I certainly don't have gripe with any jumpers, and I'm sure Tom may have some negative side to his personality (don't we all?) but I have not experienced him leading his students down the bad path like you are suggesting.
Additionally, I think you make a clown out of yourself with the way you post (allegedly) objective line of questioning. But hey, you can do whatever you please. And no, I'm not a fanboy of Tom, but I do appreciate his point of view and dedication to BASE, just like I do with many other jumpers in the sport.

edited: so who is 'we' you refer to? are you not comfortable naming names?

I usually steer clear of these tribal conflicts but thought you might appreciate a genuinely objective opinion on this, since that seems to be the intent of the post.

I have never met you Colin, I have never met Tom. I have no affiliation or personal history with either of you and as such I bear neither of you any ill-will whatsoever. I have, of course, heard of Tom and I have read many of his posts as Moderator over the years, some of which I have agreed with wholeheartedly, some of which i have not. I have been to TF and jumped your bridge, completing an FJC in 2002 with Marty from Consolidated Rigging, but the only people I had any notable interaction with whilst there were Marty, Tom Manship, Spence and some dancers in a bikini bar.

So as someone with no inherent bias or self-interest in this matter, and having read all three cases studies you present, I can only come to the conclusion that you have, without any doubt in my mind, a confirmation bias. I think the following link pretty much specifies the fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...sharpshooter_fallacy

For those not keen on clickys here's the essential summary


What you have done is search for the similarities in the three fatalities and arrived at Tom when in fact the differences in all three fatalities indicate that there is no pattern of causation. If testimony is to be believed Tom was not present at all three fatalities, Tom was not the mentor/tutor for all three jumpers, the causes for all three fatalities are entirely different: off heading object strike; gear config causing pin lock; high risk stunt gone wrong.

Your inference and implication is that these 3 incidents do however illustrate that Tom is somehow imbuing poor judgement on the people he interacts with, whether students of his or not. This could (possibly) be true....but surely to get a better idea we'd have to look outside of the circled 'sharpshooter' cluster and take into account all of the other people he's ever taught. If it transpires that the vast majority of people who have been taught, mentored, advised or simply interacted with Tom over the years have (by and large) displayed no significant lack of judgement as to be fatal then maybe what we have here is a cluster of random, unfortunate and yes, avoidable events which you have attached a significance to (in the form of Tom) because you wish that to be the case.

If we want to start linking fatalities purely by their historical association with individuals and organisations, then I fear for Stavanger BASE club, the Swiss BASE association, Bridgeday organisers, every single BASE manufacturer and indeed, every single person who has ever taught or mentored over the years.

And if we want to point accusatory fingers at those who have stood at exit points with jumpers and not spoken out, or indeed advised against what are clearly high risk endeavours, then we might find ourselves building a case against BASE in its entirety.

Thank you for your well thought out post.

What you didnt see after that echo experience, is how hard i hate-fucked cactus mary after that one!

Not cool.

I understand that you could come to that conclusion given the limited information here.

180 on a shitty wall with a new jumper who was told he was the top 90+%, best of the best, false confidence inducing nonsense who was trained to do his first cliffs on nasty, underhung exits near Twin Falls. Where did he train?

According to multiple sources, Bryan built his floating pin bridle during his SRBA fundamental course... I hope the guys with actual evidence and who were there will just come forward. Denying direct involvement is misdirection and deceit at best.

Tom lit the canopy on fire and then denied it and attempted to cover it up and then immediately misled multiple journalists and authorities with which the BASE community has had a positive relationship with for years.

So there is a common link.

Attacking my motivations or intentions by pointing out something which hurts us all is just another level of deceit and lying. And yes, I teach... and the total number of people I am willing to take on in one year is less than the size of one of Tom's last courses. But hey, when you are the best and everyone is just jealous, 12 or 18 students at once is still better than actual face time with an instructor.

But why address the situation honestly when you can just attack the individuals who lodge the complain? I think there is a named logical fallacy associated with that as well.

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.
Argumentum ergo decedo – where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.

I hope more people--regardless of experience--read this post and really, really think about what Matt's saying.

12-18 Students?!?! WOW

Where are the multiple sources from? If they were the guys who were there, telling you, what is stopping them from coming forward now? If they weren't the guys who were there, what authority are they speaking on?


Then why did he post it on a public forum for everyone to see? I'll agree he made a poor decision, but if he's trying to cover it up, he's not doing a very good job.

http://www.basejumper.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;


Where are you getting this 12-18 figure from? Have you seen this personally? If you have, do you know how many instructors were teaching?

I was in Bryan Turners Fundamentals of BASE class at SRBA along with one other jumper, one instructor and Tom in November of 2013. He did not build the floating pin bridle while we were in that class. I do not know when or where he built it. I'm still way new to the scene, but isn't it widely agreed upon that we, as BASE jumpers, assume the risk, that on every jump shit could hit the fan?

Just for perspective, if you reference this thread, you'll find this quote.

http://www.basejumper.com/...out%20there;#2975874


That day, the one that you were talking about, there were 9 students there (and yes, I can prove that from my logbook). I'm not faulting you for miscounting, I'm sure that was a fair estimate, but it wasn't accurate, and I don't think your 12-18 figure is either.

So if we look at the incident report furnished by the SRBA, nowhere does it say who ignited the accelerant filled canopy. If this is the report disseminated to the media then this assertion is correct. Being that the Owner of SRBA was not only the one responsible for lighting the canopy but also for writing the incident report, I say we have a conflict of interests.

There are a lot of people crowing about leave it alone and just go jump something, and, BASE jumping is dangerous and we all know the risks but at what point does someone become a culpable factor in decision making process that ends a human life.

The practice jumps were obviously not performed in a way that adequately recreated what would actually be experienced by the jumper and the end result was a ball of burning flaming messy shit. Hard to tell from the video but did he actually manage a cutaway at all?

Now if we are able to remove the person providing the ignition source and replace him with someone else, then how does it play? Say the guy igniting the canopy isn't a TF local. Let's say he doesn't write the incident report. Then what? How as a community do we as a "Self Regulating" group control what is essentially a case of criminally negligent manslaughter. Sure, Jim was the one who jumped but had the canopy not been lit then he would have only been responsible for jumping a gasoline/kerosene soaked canopy into the Snake River. But it took two willing participants to concoct this massive fuck up.

People are held accountable on a daily basis for being involved in stupid fucked up shit that gets people killed. Even if the deceased was a willing participant.

So as this "Self Regulating" group, are we to just brush it off as one of those "Oh shit...well better luck next time...let's go huck something" moments? Are we that devoid of empathy that being party to mortal stunts means we can just move on with barely a care for the departed?

This wasn't one of those moments that we could look back on and say
"Well this jump had worked out thousands of times before and this time it didn't." This isn't a PCA that turned into a line over/rock pile splatter. This was a one off, never been tried, extremely high probability of failure, incident where one party dies. From a mile away this looks just moronic. Does it advance the sport of BASE? Well if it stops someone from trying this again at the Perrine, then I guess so. But that is it. If it had worked out I would still be saying what a stupid idea. And as for He who has not sinned cast the first stone...well I've never done anything as remotely fucking stupid as this.

As a group of people that live on the fringe of society, as renegades and morons (as viewed by 99.999% of everyone else out there), we sure are not doing ourselves any favors when it comes to seeking legitimacy by acting as if this is just business as usual. And I don't fucking care who lit the goddamn canopy. That was and is, as fucked up as you can get when it comes to being part of the most ill conceived jump ever to take place in Twin Falls.

As opposed to the guys with misinformation, incorrect rumours, and lies? This is mainly what we've seen so far in this attack on Tom.

Matt

Being objective means I take the argument as it's presented. If there's stacks of other information i'm not privy to, and if the information presented here is 'limited', then the fault lies with the person who omitted it.

I never denied there was a common link in Tom. Re-read what i wrote, but this time read it without imagining a snarling voice that's attacking your very person.

You accused me of ad-hominem: an attack on the person rather than the argument. How could i attack you when my reply was addressing the original poster Colin. Again reread my post. Nowhere are you mentioned. In fact very little of my post even addressed Colin but rather the conclusion he had drawn based on what i believe is fallacious reasoning.

At no point did i dismiss Colin's argument on the basis that he has conflicting interests, I merely pointed out that I am more in a position to be objective. I even conceded that it is possible Colin is correct that Tom is imbuing poor judgement upon his students, but that surely you ought to look at the bigger picture to determine that rather than this 'sharpshooter' cluster.

You can't trip me up here Matt. I have no self-interest in this. If the axe comes down on the block or on Tom's neck....it makes very little difference to me. I am not invested in the outcome.

If you want to make the case that Tom was a dick for lighting the canopy and facilitating the stunt...i think you'll find very few who will disagree... but trying to aggregate these three incidents to try and embolden a case against him.....there's little substance to it.

Thank you for being a rare first person witness in this. In full disclosure, Collin and Matt are friends, and so is Tom, although it has been many years since we have talked, so I am challenging myself to keep an open mind and review all the facts.... Seeing friends fighting friends is difficult.

So to be clear, you and Bryan were in the same FJC, and with your own eyes and ears can report first person knowledge, Bryan did not make the floating pin in that class? Can you speak at all about if Tom advocated its use and/or recommend it?

(edit grammar)

Correct, I did not see Bryan make the floating pin in our Fundamentals class. The only gear we made during that class were tailgates, static line assembly and we learned how to finger trap. I'm sure we discussed pros and cons of floating pin bridles vs regular attached pin bridles the way all BASE gear and performance options are discussed in the class (I.e. Rears vs toggles, Velcro vs dual pin, large mesh vs small mesh etc). I cannot say with certainty if Tom recommended it because it has been a long time since the class, but does that even matter? There are recommendations made every night at the bar between jumpers, but ultimately it's up to that particular jumper to make his decision on what he's gonna jump and why.

Sorry, I misspoke. I was told by someone who was there that it was built during an SRBA object avoidance course (not a fundamentals course) later on. Hopefully they will chime in with more details soon.

Sabre210, the logical fallacy was not directed at you. It was applied to the situation as a whole.

Matt-
You are probably a nice guy and you certainly seem to have done a lot for this sport. But please be really careful when making public accusations. The more inflammatory the accusation, the more damn sure one better be about the quality of the information you base it on. Not directed at you specifically but at the general throwing of monkey shit that tends to be engulfing the forums lately.

Am I the only one who really misses maggot's posts right now??

I had to attach that picture sorry

I took SRBA's Object Avoidance course in April of 2014 with four other guys.

In the middle of the course when we were at the school we had a few hours to do some rigging. Different gear components were discussed in greater detail and floating pin bridles were brought up as something that was used in the past and was thought to potentially reduce the chance of having a pin hesitation when doing aerials or with an overstuffed container compared to a regular fixed pin bridle.

It was suggested that we could make our own bridles from scratch, copying the general dimensions of our stock bridles.

Two students were senior riggers and knew how to operate a bartacker, the others were shown how to use it. The type IV webbing (bright red for safety) and a box of curved pins was supplied, and we were shown how to S-fold the bridle when securing the top fixed pin.

Three of us made floating pin bridles, played with them a bit, and began using them immediately.

Thanks for the info.

I also have learned one tidbit while chatting with folks in the last week or so. A respected rigger (who is not friends with TA) had been making floating pin bridles (and perhaps still is) and a local active jumper has been jumping one that rigger made for him. It seems looking back, there is a bit of hindsight is 20/20 as they were not marked widespread "Blackdeath" until the fatality...

One note, being objective... The photo of one S-folded bridle made allegedly in a Twin Falls loft attached to the 1st post of this thread... I have no clue who the owner is, nor if it was made under anyone's supervision, Tom says he does not recognize it and asked for information on the owner...

It is very sloppy, but sloppy does not mean dangerous... Sloppy means sloppy uneven uncentered workmanship.

However the way it is stitched worries me as a rigger, and something I would not personally jump. After the pins are popped, the bridle has to take the full force of the canopy extraction, and on a SL jump, it has to take the shock of a SL cord break. (And if you don't think that is high, I have video of a friend leaving 1/2 his bridle and PC on the TF railing when the bridle broke before the SL loop)

In the photo attached, there are 3 zig-zags or bartacks going with the warp, and one going with the weft. When a bartack or row of stitching is loaded the same direction as the stitching, the 1st most stitch takes all the load, and if it breaks, then the next stitch takes the load, and the entire row of stitching can zipper apart. However if the row of stitching is loaded across the entire row, then each stitch takes only a fraction of the total load.

This is why the direction of the stitch matters so much - and when harness manufactures are concerned with two webbings pealing apart, they wrap the webbing assembly with a material before stitching.

In the attached photo, I dislike the stitch pattern because I feel the bottom of the three bartacks that go with the warp are subject to a zipper type loading force. I don't have such a bridle in my possession to test to make a conclusive opinion, however on my "factory built" bridle, all 10 bartacks are with the weft and none are with the warp... (3 on each end, and 2 holding each pin).

In the attached photo I would have felt much more comfortable if there was a 5th bartack at, one at the bottom, making the pattern more of a box than an a three legged table.


If you are jumping an s-folded bridle as shown in the opening post by Collin, inspect your bartacks and perhaps run it by some riggers for 2nd opinions... Or perhaps do a destructive strength test to see what forces it takes to zipper open the s-fold...

If the S-fold opens, then you have a dual-floating-pin bridle, which I see as nothing but problems. ;-)

All that being said, I am intrigued by the concept of the S-Fold... The pin is truly captive by the webbing, which does remove one very unlikely failure point of the pin being torn off the webbing and staying locked in the container, which is pretty much "game over".

That is actually my bridle that I had posted on a previous thread (http://www.basejumper.com/...nt;postatt_id=87742;). I copied a bridle I had and then added the one weft stitch ("just in case"). It was sloppy but functional and I noticed no wear to the S-fold stitching over ~80 jumps.

That was entirely on me though. Curiously, I've posted that bridle several times on here in discussions about FP bridles and no one has mentioned that before.

Cool, so it was your bridle. Sorry if I offended you on my comments about being sloppy... ;-)

Well, I may be barking up the wrong tree on my concerns on warp/weft bartack directions... As I said, I don't have one to test, however how stitching is loaded is definitely a concern of riggers and builders of components. If you google "Climbing Runner" images you will see that every webbing component has the bartacks going with the weft no matter the brand. And so does every bridle I own. So when yours is so different, it stuck out like a sore thumb and made me ask the question. ;-)

I understand the concern about the bridle unzipping like a Yates Screamer. I have seen newer Gargoyles manufactured with the bartacks connecting the pin to the bridle oriented in the warp-wise direction. I am curious as to why they made the change from the weft-wise bartacks we see almost everywhere else.

Attached screenshot from www.watchthybridle.com to help give a better visual of what we're talking about.

Was Bryan one of those four guys? I thought he took the Object Avoidance Course in July.

I knew Bryan well, was present on the bridge for his accident and was one of a handful of people that examined his gear. I am also one of Tom's students, and have a lot of respect for him.

Here is my input on all of this:

Bryan was present at the time of the cliff strike fatality at Twin Falls, and had discussed it with me several times. While to the best of my knowledge everyone on the load had learned of the cliff through SRBA, the jump was in no other way associated with the school. Just a bunch of BASE jumpers jumping off a cliff.

I think the assessment that Bryan built his floating pin as a result of training and opinions he received at SRBA is a fair one. Having also discussed this a number of times with him directly, it is clear to me that he himself felt that way and

a)the bridle was initially constructed as a result of a strong, logical argument from Tom in what Bryan himself considered part of school curriculum (I think the exact time of construction is not necessarily relevant - his bridle was well constructed and examined by at least one SRBA instructor in my presence)
b)multiple people have questioned/challenged him on whether or not it is wise to jump with a floating pin bridle, including one notably comically irate Italian at Brento whose words now unfortunately seem prophetic
c)Bryan continued to use a floating pin bridle because he believed it to be the safety-conscious choice.
d)Not every student of Tom's uses floating pin bridles. They always irked me, so I avoided them. It is a personal decision on the part of the individual.

The thing is - many people told him it was a bad idea. But none were capable of forming a cohesive logical argument as to why it was a bad idea. So Bryan was left with Tom's well founded opinion that it was a good idea versus a number of people shaking their heads and saying "no, no, NO!". Bryan, being an analytically-minded individual, was better swayed by solid logical arguments.

Now, that having been said, when I took Tom's classes I never regarded what he taught me as the word of God and do not adhere to all of his opinions. There is noone in the BASE community not capable of providing bad advice. If you believe that whoever taught you to BASE jump taught you had no incorrect opinions that he taught you, you are delusional. This is a Big Boy sport, put your big boy pants on. You're jumping off shit. You may not survive.

I believe that prior to Bryan's death Tom sincerely felt that floating pins were a good thing, and jumped one himself. There are people with hundreds of successful jumps with them, including one of the largest providers of rental rigs at Bridge Day (which were purportedly largely floating pin), whose personal opinion of Tom is not necessarily favorable and who stopped just short of calling me a "12 clamp faggot" when I met him there - clearly zero affiliation. So I cannot find issue with Tom recommending a friend of mine jump with one. Do I feel it was ultimately bad advice? Yes. Do I blame Tom for having an opinion that post-fact I consider incorrect? No.

edit: sorry for the number of edits. It's 6 AM.

This is one of the most well constructed arguments I've seen. I think a lot of people who had never heard of Bryan think that he was unaware of what he was doing. He was actually an incredibly smart, intellectually curious person. It makes complete sense that he would choose the gear which stood up to a fact based argument.

Agreed, Bryan was a very smart and analytical person. He gave speeches at Harvard and worked at the UN fighting poverty and world hunger. He was highly academic and analytical in his work and he took the same approach to BASE gear. Some in this forum seem to be assuming that he hadn't given much consideration to his choice to jump a floating pin. He emailed me with random questions from time to time that showed the level of thought and consideration that he put into his gear choices. Below is a direct quote from Bryan re: tension knots.

Also, Bryan took Rammi's tracking course in Brento in October 2014. Afterwards he emailed me some video asking for my analysis and saying that the course was great and he learned a lot. At the end he added this.

I am pretty sure Bryan meant by that his 50th Base jump which we did together ( I was filming his jump from air). His previous jump was his best performance so far and he was very thrilled as "he got it" in his mind how it´s should be done.... so of course for his 50th he put little too much expectation and naturally it went all to hell so to speak
Nothing too bad. Just unstable exit rotated little with mandatory kicking... we were laughing at the landing area as he told that it was a good experience for him

Rami (with 1 m )