Basejumper.com - archive

Like the title says. I am ignorant in this.
Thanks,
take care,space :(

Here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pZDmtyar1A

It happens when people are learning to wing suit or a new wing suit when it takes them a few tries to pull.
It happens in base jumps when people don't know their suit able to pull in any position at any speed before they should be base jumping the suit and causes deaths

improper fitting rigs and suits are a big factor too

I don't think that's fair at all.

Without digging them all up, I believe there are multiple examples of "no pull find" fatalities on the BFL involving a range of experience levels in BASE, in wingsuiting, and in WS BASE.

I have a close friend who had hundreds of skydives on his suit, hundreds of BASE jumps on his gear, and at least a couple dozen WS BASE jumps on that exact gear combination nearly go in on a "no pull find." (Eventually found the PC while on his back. Canopy ride was around 5-6 seconds if memory serves.)

It's easy for us to point at incidents and pick them apart..."not enough experience"..."too big of a suit"..."wrong arm foam"...whatever. But seeing the footage of my friend who was more than qualified and jumping appropriate gear changed my view. His incident in addition to a clear upward trend in "no pull finds" suggests that it is worth a deeper understanding, I believe.

Personally I think the race for more performance has allowed suit designs with more "technical" pulls to become common as people accept certain trade-offs for gains in speed/flare/etc. I wonder how many BASE jumpers think about a suits "performance" when it comes to safety:

How easy is the pull?
How about in a sub-optimal body position?
How forgiving is the suit of mistakes?
How easy is it to regain control if lost?
Etc.

Then again, I understand the argument that "performance = safety" as speed and flare can contribute to larger margins when flying. So maybe this is all an exercise to find that optimal balance of "traditional safety" and "traditional performance."

It can definitely happen to anyone.

I have friends who have 1000+ wingsuit BASE jumps (see the linked video, for example) and unforeseen situations still happen.

The lesson (again, see the video) is to always build in a margin so that a fumble at deployment doesn't become a fatal accident.

It's not just wing suits either. I've seen fumbles at pull time on tracking jumps and also slider down jumps.

Bad shit happens. It happens unexpectedly. And it can turn fatal in a hurry if we're not building in a margin for error.

Jumper behavior (planning pull height with a margin for repeated attempts, for example, in this case) is always going to be the key factor in our outcomes.

100% agree. Ultimately we all have the ability to give ourselves a second, third, or fourth shot at that PC. That's step #1 in preventing "no pull finds."

I guess sitting next to Todd for the past couple years has shifted my thinking a bit. At first my thinking was always, "How can I behave to give myself more margin?" This still applies, of course.

Now, thanks to Todd's influence, I also think "How can the gear design give the jumper more margin as well?"

BASE is a big boy game and I don't think anyone in BASE wants to be protected from themselves, but we can all appreciate little design improvements that provide safety margin. I think some of that "easy pull no matter what" margin has shrunk on WS designs as the focus turns more and more towards "performance."

Again, it's a balancing act. I can see the other side of the argument where the more technical pull is worth the extra speed and flare. For me personally though, I've found that taking the biggest and fastest WS into BASE for "speed and flare" was a mistake. Now I gravitate more towards intermediate sized suits that are easier to fly, given my experience level and skill (or lack thereof).

Factors:
- no enough training, no muscle memory
- no the good gear, longer container makes the gesture easier
- more and more suit rigidity (which is safer when flying close to the terrain). Pressure is part of the problem, but not being able to get the air ou of the wing because of the air-lock efficiency is the main problem
- more muscle fatigue than expected, not able to get to the PC
- frozen hands
- any combination of the above factors

For me the main factor is the BOC. This system is not adapted to wingsuiting, it is wingsuiting that is trying to stay compatible to BOC
And I think that we are getting closer and closer to an incompatibility.


P.S.: personal message, if you want to debate about it please open a new thread.
One system, the Wingtip Pouch, is an alternative, it is the best one we got for now.
Everybody who's finding weakness in this system can share it so we can make this system better and better, safer and safer.
Everybody who has an other idea is welcome to share it, I'm always looking for a new one without success.

The manufacturers (and other industry players, like instructors) can have a very large influence on jumper's attitudes and behaviors (which can ultimately shift the overall environment of the sport).

A manufacturer can prioritize safety over performance (or vice versa) in their product designs, or can prioritize judgement over youtube fame in their sponsorship decisions, for example. Different manufacturers obviously have very different approaches to these questions.

Joe, your analysis of Robbies incident in Lauterbrunnen is flawed and innacurate. It was a 2 way, with me following him, btw.
Robbie struggled to find his handle because he jumped a container that he was not current on for that trip...and was super short...
The wingsuit he was jumping is quite possibly one of the easiest large suits ever made to pull.

This is a serious recurring problem. Manufacturers have and will continue to make changes to improve safety of gear for ease of use. But to blame wingsuit manufacturers entirely and not the persons lack of training or poor decison making is silly.

A consistent theme of the many no pull finds recently seems to be enviromental factors and un-currency on container system...as well as poor pull procedures.

Yes but none of the above was a factor in the case of the recent fatality at Brento. Experienced and current jumper, familiar with the suit... would never have expected it to happen to him. Inexplicable and scary.
Like #321 and #350.

Ruling out some random occurrence like a shoulder dislocation in freefall or bird strike that incapacitated the arm, I do wonder if there is a suit/gear configuration that we're not conscious of that could contribute to this. There is a lot of talk about pressurisation but I remember a couple of years back there was one where it was mentioned that when the suit was less pressurised (like in a arched/student type position) it folded around the BOC and made it harder to access.

Personally (and I am not jumping big WS as yet) I will keep using the BOC but I do think the wingtip pouch makes a lot of sense.

Scotty,

First of all, you're great and I like you. So let's start off on a nice note. =)

Robbie and I have spent a lot of time talking about that incident. And watching the video. And trying to replicate it on the ground. I know you were flying with him, and spoke about it with him afterwards...but believe me when I tell you that Robbie and I have beaten this horse to death. A few notes:

1. Robbie had two setups on that trip, nearly identical. The first was a new TL with a new Aura 2. The second was his Summit, his primary rig for over 200 jumps, and an identical Aura 2. Robbie had been jumping his TL/A2 for the first two weeks of his trip, and this jump was his first jump on the Summit/A2 combo. It is true that he was more current on the TL/A2 combo than the Summit/A2 combo...but I don't think it's entirely accurate to characterize him as "not current" on any of that gear. Certainly not to the point where he wouldn't be able to find his PC.

2. Robbie had a decent amount of jumps on his Summit/A2 combo in the past, and hundreds of skydives on that A2. When asked if he felt the Summit is "super short," his answer was "no." The difference in length between the two containers is around 1 inch.

3. He agrees that the A2 has an easy pull.

4. I never blamed any WS manufacturer, or named any company, or suggested that jumpers are not responsible for their own decisions. I think it is objectively true that there are some direct conflicts between improving performance and increasing safety. Things like adding surface area, adding stiffness to the leading edge, adding internal pressure...all of these things can improve performance while making a suit more "technical" to fly. This is true regardless of make or model, and this trend is true across the entire industry. No one company is alone in this trend...and I think it's fair to say that the bar for what constitutes a "technical" suit has continued to be raised, if not by the manufacturers, by the jumping community.

5. Robbie believes the most significant causal factors were: his method of deployment, his decision to leave his legstraps "very very loose" for comfort in flight allowing the rig to move on his back, and the fact that he has a fused right wrist giving him minimal flexibility at that joint. Could the one inch in tray length have been a factor? Maybe. Could the floating zippers allowing the rig to move have been a factor? Also maybe. Robbie and I have discussed both at length. But both of those are further down the chain than things like his body position and fused wrist, in the opinion of the jumper who lived through it.

This isn't a brand war. All suits are getting more technical. I don't think I'm out of line when suggesting that the following should important considerations for every jumper:

How easy is the pull?
How about in a sub-optimal body position?
How forgiving is the suit of mistakes?
How easy is it to regain control if lost?
Etc.

Last, and certainly not least, you are a better BASE jumper, WS pilot, and WS BASE jumper than I could ever hope to be. I have tremendous respect for you as a jumper and as a human.

If I may, using words like "technical pull" instead of "harder pull" is already minimizing the problem

I totally agree with Tom input.

Is always nice to have some more altitude to cope with this situation.

I believe the safest way is:

1) Skydive your new wingsuit in order to get familiar with pull procedure.
2) Skydive your wingsuit from a Balloon or Paratrike using your base rig in order to get familiar with pull and pilotchute location on your base rig (maybe is in different location than your skydive rig)
3) Always start pull procedure in a wingsuit base jump higher than normal, in order to have time to correct a miss pull...

I haven’t wingsuit base yet, but I have done 7 wingsuit jumps from a paratrike using my base rig and I had a close call(my last paratrike wingsuit jump)…. check below video…:

https://www.youtube.com/...amp;feature=youtu.be

I was using an old S-Fly wingsuit that I had skydive before many times. At the last moment decide to change the configuration setting of wingsuit tip handle (no gripper) in order to increase pressure on the suit…. I did 1 jump from airplane and even I had increase the performance of the wingsuit I had difficulty to find the pilotchute..then I thought that I was tired and the jump from Paratrike would be uneventful….I was wrong………………..then again The only I can say from my little experience is never try new things on low altitude…………..always try everything new in skydiving environment..

The difference is a technical's pull is how the pc is grabbed and a hard pull is how the pc is removed from the BOC.

Spacey Tracey doesn't understand... because it's impossible.

Pilot Chutes No Pull Find, HIM.

That is all :)

The part I don´t understand is the process of decision making that allows one to jump a set up that one isn´t sure works, that if it doesn´t work, is fatal.
Where do you get the word "Impossible" from? It is disappointing that you read what you want into what I wrote rather what I wrote, but whatever.
Back to the topic.
I know that most people are not stupid. And none would purposely put themselves in this position. There is a glitch some where in the decision making process.
What is this glitch? How do we spot it? What do we do to remedy it? Is the problem is that the set up is untestable? Or testing isn´t viable? Is it a logic process mistake like "Task Substitution"? What do you think?
Take care,
space

This forum is for technical discussions. Please respect that. Thanks!

The problem is that we all think we're infallible, and that this kind of thing can't possibly happen to us. Overconfidence is a killer, but in the real world pretty much all BASE jumpers are overconfident--it's almost a prerequisite for participation in the sport.

These are such great questions. Could ask the same thing about many aspects of regular BASE.

Can you say more about "Task Substitution?"
Thanks,
Colm

"Task substitution" is where one substitutes a task in the sequence in lieu of adding it. It will fill the goal psychologically the same. Like "I am good to go" even though the task substituted is something mandatory for survival. Would you like examples?

I suspect what you mean is someone saying that phrase, yet they didn't perform a gear/pin check prior to flight. They said the words, yet the actions prior to that were not completed?

There really should be an interest in the aviation world with BASE when it comes to a proper pre-flight check (rigging up) and sterile cockpit during the final phases of departure. (stepping off). During those phases, mental, physical, emotional and technical assessment should be performed. If the risk > benefit the jump should be aborted.

We have an FRMS: (Fatigue Risk Mitigation Score). After each mission, each crew submits a number. Over 5 the crew has to time out. Pilots are a different issue, subject to the FAA regulations. But collectively if the RN, Medic, and pilot have a score greater than 8 combined, the mission is aborted/declined.

No. I was speaking levels above this.
There is a sequence of events that one accepts as true. But when one changes the sequence (that has worked xn amount of times) the flow goes it´s own way. Regardless of the old sequence. The sequence has no interest if you are correct and will say NOTHING to you but that you have completed gearing up. This means substituting/adding anything to the tasks sequence, will not effect the end of the sequence go or nogo decision. Although, It has the possibilities to help one die due to unthought out decisions. Be aware of not asking " What's next?". That is the NUMBER 1 killer. Not asking this question to one's self.
Second killer is overestimate of one's skillz. 3rd is following the wrong person and 4th is Scrap happens. But killer NUMBER ! covers 1 through 3. Scrap happens is very rare.

So how can we talk about a pull that is hard to perform even if you got the technical skill for it, when the problem is the strenght to reach th PC ?

That makes a ton of sense.

It would be great if we could conduct ourselves in the same way BASE jumping, but I rather suspect that BASE jumpers are too overconfident to figure that out.

Create force and direction tables. In "force" I mean with time constants of course. How long and far it takes to go from position #1 to > for example.

On their own, so are pilots and aircrew.

To implement a solution (or risk management system) across the population you need a controlling body with authority over the flight and pilots. Otherwise the only people you help are the sensible ones. Which is still better than nothing, but nothing like as effective.

It would be a technical pull because the suit must be collapsed first. Hard pull, has historically been used to describe difficulty removing the PC from the BOC so we need a new term that describes the action of grasping the PC.

Agreed a 'hard pull' and a 'technical pull' strictly speaking are two different things.

However I thought what Antoine was saying is that the words we use make it sound better than it is, they 'minimise the problem'.

Let's say a particular suit design characteristic makes it difficult (or 'harder') to reach the PC. That's a problem. But if I start saying the pull is 'technical' instead of 'more difficult' or 'harder', it makes it sound better than it actually is.

I believe that is what Antoine was saying as well. As long as everyone involved in the conversation knows that technical refers to the difficulty in reaching the PC it's fine. If not, and someone wants to be clear they should simply spell it out by saying that is difficult to reach the PC. A technical pull is just as dangerous as a hard pull because both can result in a no-pull find.

But debating the nuances of the English language, while important, is a bit off topic.

Technical pull means that with the right technique it's easy.

Hard pull means that even with the right technique, it's still not easy.

That said, there may be suits with hard pull. I have jumped many small and big suits from PF and SQ - all with the right technique had an easy pull.

Can't say about other manufacturers' suits, but if the pull is hard, then you need more practice. If we talk about BASE, then to the point that when panic strikes, you pull without thinking.

With the right technique AND the right conditions AND the right material (rig).
I really have a problem with that kind of statment you got because in theory everything will go find, but we are not living in theroy unfortunatly.
Is it easy to pull is you slip at the exit even if you got the "right technique" ?
Is it still easy if you got frozen fingers even "with the right technique" ?
Is it still easy if you have less energy than usual when you have to pull even "with the right technique" ?
Is it still easy to do an emergency pull even "with the right technique" ?

Accidents do not happend when everything is going well. If this "right technique" is to do a good flare to reduce the air speed and the pressure in the wings AND to stay stable AND to have kept enough muscular energy to collapse the wing with the remaining pressure it is not the "right" technique, it is the "in therory" technique.

If you happen to find yourself in these situations, you have fucked up way before the exit point and shouldn't be jumping at all.

Same question can be asked if you should be jumping a demanding exit in slippery weather exit, being fatigued and with frozen fingers - No you definitely should not! With, or without wingsuit.

If you are not able to understand basics of the sport - adding another variable to equation like wingsuit is not the right way to go.

No. No. No.

It is this attitude that has killed BASE jumpers in the past, and will continue to do so.

Are you really so perfect that you'll never slip on an exit?

Are you so physically tough that your fingers never get cold?

Is your fitness at a level where you'll never be fatigued?

Are you so skilled and clever that you'll never need an emergency pull?

There are a lot of jumpers, a lot of skilled, qualified, smart jumpers who have died because they made a mistake. It's so easy to look at them and say, "How stupid, I'm way too smart/clever/conservative to ever be in situation like that." But you're wrong. How many jumpers on the BFL were a total shock to the community? Heads up jumpers, conservative, etc...and still made a mistake because they're human, just like the rest of us?

No matter how awesome you are, each of us should EXPECT to find ourselves in trouble one day. No matter how smart we think our choices are and how much we "stack the odds in our favor."

So, when you find yourself in trouble, what will be most important to you? Of course gear weight matters, and speed matters, and flare is sweet. But I again encourage people to consider the following questions:

How easy is the pull?
How about in a sub-optimal body position?
How forgiving is the suit of mistakes?
How easy is it to regain control if lost?
Etc.

It's fun and easy to compare numbers that we can easily measure (e.g. speed) when picking a suit. It's a lot harder to produce numerical answers to the questions above. But these are the factors that may save your life one day, and just because we can't measure them with a Flysight doesn't mean they aren't important.

I never said I was perfect. I did my share of stupid stuff and will continue to do some. I did have a mispull once and was lucky enough to survive and tell the story and the reasons why I fucked up.

The point is, if the conditions are not good - you are taking additional risk. And you should be taking the responsibility. Not blame the WS manufacturer that the don't make wingsuits that make up for slippery weather, frozen fingers etc.

It's not about blaming the manufacturer for the actual product, you and I know the risks.
What I would like to see it that manufacturers are as much concern by safety than by performances when is comes to sell stuff.

I'm blaming you for saying that a "pulling is easy with the right technique" without saying "AND no unexpected problem".
You do not take in consideration the fact that you will make again some mistakes if you don't add this statment.

The point is you are taking risks without knowing it like a bird impact for example, even if conditions are good.
Even the "conditions are good" is not existing, this is what you think maybe, but you might make mistake also on that point.

I definitely agree with you that there are unexpected things, that even with perfect weather, physical shape etc. can make your jump a nightmare. This is a risk, that exists in this sport on every jump, with wingsuit or without - and everybody should be able to realise that.
To minimize the risk, we should train as much as possible before taking WS to BASE environment, or before progressing in WS BASE to quickly.

"Unexpected problem" - may cause panic, which as a result can make you act in different way than you regularly do. In this particular case, make your pull technique not right, thus as a result, make the pull hard.

This is however you (not particularly you Antoine, but general you as a jumper) acting incorrectly, not the suit behaving any differently in slippery/cold weather, or close to the ground/object.

Still, in panic or not, if you use the right technique, the pull will be easy.
(To be clear, in no way I claim that I am nowhere near the point, where I would act properly in every panic situation)

100% yes. If our equipment requires perfect performance then that is a problem. One day, for some reason, we will all be less than perfect.

Practice...obviously. Know the risks...obviously. Choose good conditions...obviously. But also consider that one day all of these things might not matter if you can't execute your perfect technique for some unforeseen reason.

Oooold, but still good: https://youtu.be/8sFv52GeJNc

That is totally true for big and small wingsuits, one-piece and two-piece tracking suits and people have even died not finding the PC in panic jumping slick.

I don't fully get the point. Are you saying that some WSs have that much easier pull, that in panic situation you would always reach the PC?

Even with systems like Antoine is developing, WS introduces additional complexity which makes the whole jump much more demanding (dealing with line twists, weaker push on exit etc.). In panic situation your brain can freeze and you may not act properly, even with easiest of movements.

I don't think there's a way around it, except for not jumping WS.

Not "always," but perhaps "more easily." My point is that when we discuss a WS with a "technical pull" are are also talking about a WS which is "reducing margin for error." As we've seen in the past this error is, in some cases, having to reach the PC in a sub optimal manner. I think some suits are more forgiving of a sub optimal reach than others.

If we agree that giving ourselves more margin is something that helps us survive in BASE, then we should be mindful of every area where we chose to add/subtract margin.

I think we're already seeing WS manufacturers tailoring the suits for specific applications. The big suits with "more technical" pull techniques are great for competition and such, but we've definitely seen an increase in "easy" suits with performance far beyond what we used to think of as normal for such a suit.

Now we just need to convince jumpers to pick a suit that's more appropriate--if you aren't in a max glide competition, why pick the giant suit?

Unfortunately, the current publicized event formats all call for maximum performance. Maybe we need a new kind of competition that focuses more on safety (and gear/technique optimized for safety) rather than total performance.

I call it "staying alive and unbroken."

I've found that the new mid-range suits are a great balance in that regard. I've downsized from a Venom Power to a Freak, and now a Rafale and I get better performance out of a smaller and easier to manage suit.

I think for most average BASE jumpers like myself, the new big suits are more motorcycle than I can really ride. Just give me a mid range suit and it will be far more capable than I will ever be. And if it's not enough suit for a particular jump, then I've got no business being at that exit.

There is one in Europe every year over the summer. It's elimination-format, if you get knocked out you go on a list.
First prize is some likes for your Facebook post at the end.

Hahahaha, you did a much better job describing this contest. Well played.

Like the "with the right technique it's easy to pull" it is the kind of sentence that I hate.

For me it's the same as saying "you can die crossing the street and basejumping". It is true, but not the it at the same time it is not enough.
I'm 100% sure that there is A LOT more miss pull with wingsuits than without, even if it can happend with both.

I'm 99.9% that with my wingtip pouch I have a better chance to pull that anybody with a BOC because I do not have to reach my PC to pull.

Seems to me that you are basically saying the exact same thing I have wrote, but in different words. However it has nothing to do with the topic, so let's just leave it.

About the wingtip pouch. I think it is great that you are thinking about innovations and how to make the pull safer.

I personally believe that in my case it's not the way to go - simply because it is in totally different place. People have used base pouch on wingsuits and have died because the PC was few inches lower than normally, and couldn't reach it in panic situations.

I'd rather use the same system that I have used for hundreds of WS skydives and base jumps, because when shit hits the fan, my brain and muscle memory will be looking for PC in the same place where it has always been.

However, again, if some day it would become a standard in skydive and base, I'd definitely reconsider.

Sorry but to compare the wingtip pouch system and the leg pouches or any other BOC placement is not relevant.
I think you absolutly don't know what it is, with the wingtip pouch you do not have to reach your PC, the "trigger" is always in your hand.
For example with the version I used for my "big" wingsuit the pulling gesture was to close my hand, nothing else.
The most used "trigger" now is a "glove", the pulling gesture is to raise your thumb.
Both require no arm movement, no wing deflation. Wingtip pouch also has the same gesture whatever the gear (container or wingsuit) you are using.

I think there's either a language barrier, or you don't really try to understand what I'm saying.

In any case, let's leave this be. If you want we can continue in private conversation.

Me or you ?
What did you think I misunderstood ?

I just want to point out that it's very entertaining to see you guys trying to discuss this in each of your second (third?) language.

If president Trump would just hurry up and invade Europe, we could institute a standard global language and make everyone speak English. We would definitely get rid of the metric system too. Talk about improving efficiency!

Freedom units for everyone!

But I agree, there is some serious language barriers going on in this thread.