Fatal 'Swooper' Accident May Lead To New Parachute Rules

[2fat2fly 0]

I hate to see "FAA" and "Skydive" in the same article

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=7e63fe08-663b-4103-8f8a-a67b9a8db5a0&

I am not the man. But the man knows my name...and he's worried

[Mostly_Harmless 0]

It says Kramers chute wasn't deployed. Didn't she cutaway from her main?

_________________________________________
www.myspace.com/termvelocity

[Peej 0]

Agreed.

But this statement kinda bothers me: "For some reason, she did not deploy her main parachute." She was in a swooping competition, i'm pretty sure she would have had to at least try to deploy her main in order to compete (?) *shaking head*

Advertisio Rodriguez / Sky

[BIGUN 1,486]

The ramblings of an anonymous author that can't even get the facts straight and then references another article as the source doesn't lend much credence with me.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[2fat2fly 0]

What bothered me is that it's an aviation news site and the line about the "FAA considering". I used to have a friend there that would at least give me a call and ask if the info sounded right but he's gone.

I am not the man. But the man knows my name...and he's worried

[ntacfreefly 0]

Quote

It says Kramers chute wasn't deployed. Didn't she cutaway from her main?

Yes, she had a malfunction on the main (a spinner I believe but I dont know if it was attributed to tension knots or a line over, or simple linetwists) and deployed her reserve.

That article only really got one thing right (that she passed away), the rest about not deploying the main or unusually small reserve is utter BS.

Blues,
Ian

To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders. ~ Lao-Tzu

It's all good, they're my brothers ~ Mariann Kramer

[phoenixlpr 0]

That is not a primary source of information. To Be Ignored.

[Spizzzarko 0]

All of you should provide feedback to the editor of the article telling him or her to get their facts straight before printing dis-information such as this.

[BIGUN 1,486]

Quote

What bothered me is that it's an aviation news site and the line about the "FAA considering".

If you have genuine concerns about the "FAA considering" or as the article reads; placing regulations on swoopers, our best resource for information regarding the FAA has been the USPA. They do a great job of interfacing with the FAA. In fact, it was their efforts that got us the TSA letter regarding parachutes on aircraft.

My suggestion would be to fire off an email with the link to the article and let them determine if there's any validity to the statements.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Airgump 1]

below is a response from the editor of the AV rag that posted the article. The editor didn't even have the couth to sign his or her name. i really like how the press can work off these 'imperfect' wire reports and pass along the disinformation that they know nothing about.

editor's e-mail is editor@aero-news.net
------------------------------------------------------------

Dave.

We're working off wire reports, as imperfect as they may be. but before you get REALLY insulting and truly create a negative issue rather than a conduit
for info, why don't you give me a call. if you can be polite about it. I've gotten three notes about this story. a fairly low number for any story, all
from jumpers and they've been nasty, threatening and insulting - one was threatening. hardly a proper endorsement for rationality and sensibility for
the skydiving community.
-----------------------------------------------------------

forrest, forrest gump

[Spizzzarko 0]

To whom it may concern,

I am writing you to inform you that your article on the death of Marianne Kramer is grossly mis-informative. You have several facts of the matter blatantly wrong. The main parachute was deployed and malfunctioned. The reserve parachute was subsequently deployed and there was a malfunction of it causing her death. Please get your facts straight before speculating on issues such as this.


//Signed//
Grant S. Adams


Above is what I sent the editor. I do not think this is nasty threatening or insulting.

[PhreeZone 20]

See, this is EXACTLY why you should step away from your keyboard before sending an email to the press for anything. This is a very small article and they only had a small portion of the story wrong but people still went off the deep end over it.

If you ever need to send a letter to the press its a good idea to have it reviewed first and go for the most calm tone possible.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[2fat2fly 0]

Play nice, this is the same group who's articles on Gold Coast Skydiving's issues with the airport were fair and unbiased. We don't get much support from the GA community-try not to alienate those that are willing to hear our side.

I am not the man. But the man knows my name...and he's worried

[billvon 3,118]

>I do not think this is nasty threatening or insulting.

It was pretty insulting; if you received a similar email I suspect you would think it was as well.

[Samurai136 0]

Half-Cocked is fun though...

Interesting that the original link to the Aviation Mag article has a tiny clicky link on the bottom to canopypiloting dot com.

Click on that link and see November first article "Wet parachute blamed in death" ,on CP dot com, which is a copy of a separate article. The aviation magazine appears to be using as a source.

Quote

FAA Investigator Bob Hoffer said Kramer had splashed into the water during her previous landings, soaking her equipment – a possible catalyst for equipment malfunction.

Parachute manufacturers go nuts when they hear ‘wet chute,’ ” Hoffer said.

Swoopers intentionally use smaller chutes for competitiveness, Hoffer said, but Kramer’s reserve was woefully inadequate for her weight. He has recommended that competitive events establish standards to prevent a similar mishap, something a FAA panel in Washington is considering.

Maybe we should give a shout out to USPA BOD and see if they know anything about this?

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[ryoder 1,590]

I have had the misfortune of having had personal experience with the editor of that site. He formerly ran a hardcopy aviation rag. Rather than elaborate, I will point you to the websites about him authored by two others who have also had encounters with him:

http://www.wanttaja.com/zguide.htm

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html

Edited to add: You can also pull up Usenet articles about him by searching the group rec.aviation.homebuilt for any article with a string of Z's in the Subject line. (e.g "ZZZ"). That is their way of flagging a thread so people only interested in homebuilt aircraft can filter it out.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[sundevil777 102]

He's the editor of that whole site?

That sucks!

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Vectracide 0]

Quote

It was pretty insulting; if you received a similar email I suspect you would think it was as well.

Are you friggin serious? If you are, that would be taking political correctness to a WHOLE new level, considering the inaccuracies at hand.

------------------------------

Controlled and Deliberate.....

[Vectracide 0]

What absolutely blows me away, is that if you are a jumper yourself, and had ANY idea on the fact surrounding her death (IE THIS SITE), and you ALLOWED this misinformation to be published..........you are not a skydiver in my logbook any day of the week.

Yeah, working off wire reports.....great resource that is huh. Why don't you just start a rumor at one end of the trailer park and publish what comes out the end.

------------------------------

Controlled and Deliberate.....

[billvon 3,118]

>Are you friggin serious? If you are, that would be taking political
> correctness to a WHOLE new level, considering the inaccuracies at
> hand.

Geez, I didn't say it should be illegal, just that it was insulting. You can say exactly the same thing in a more civilized manner - and thus increase the odds of it being listened to.

If you accidentally spray your hose over your neighbor's fence, and get his wife wet, and he comes over and says "Hey, fuckhead, why the fuck don't you take some lessons in how to aim a hose before you hurt yourself with a watergun?" I suspect you'd be less likely to listen to him than if he said "hey, you got us wet, please try to avoid that."

[riggerrob 643]

Maybe we should give a shout out to USPA BOD and see if they know anything about this?

[llkenziell 0]

Thats so frustrating that they're turning this whole ordeal into an issue with the reserve and canopy when it clearly stated that the just didn't open her main. I can understand if something occured because she deployed and the canopy messed up... but by going into this whole regulation thing just because she simply did not pull.... that's not a good thing to base this argument on.

"Living like fallen angels who lost their halos" - Unknown Prophets

-Love Life-

[Spizzzarko 0]

Allright there Bill. You need to ask yourself if you actually wanted to read my response to teh editor as being negative or not. If you had any thoughts that my response was going to be insulting or threatening before you read the thing then I'm sure you could have construed what I wrote to be so. What i wrote was very simple and to the point, and not meant to be insulting threatening, or any of that other jibberish. This post is not insulting threatening either, so don't look at it as such. Would you suggest I use more smileys from now on?
I hope you are not insulted...

Kisses

[billvon 3,118]

OK, let's look at this from a different angle. Let's say you personally witnessed someone have a heart attack under canopy, and watched them die during the resulting uncontrolled landing. You then sent USPA what you considered to be an accurate account of what happened. Then USPA replied with:

------------------
I am writing you to inform you that your report on the incident of Oct 10th is grossly mis-informative. You have several facts of the matter blatantly wrong. The jumper had paroxysmal atrial tachycardia, not a "heart attack.". There was no ischemia or infarction as there would be during a true MI. Please get your facts straight before speculating on issues such as this.
--------------

How would you take that?

If you would take that as a friendly constructive note, then my bad - ignore my reply.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

Thats so frustrating that they're turning this whole ordeal into an issue with the reserve and canopy when it clearly stated that the just didn't open her main. I can understand if something occured because she deployed and the canopy messed up... but by going into this whole regulation thing just because she simply did not pull.... that's not a good thing to base this argument on.

The statement that she didn't deploy anything is false. Witnesses reported watching her main canopy fall away, so clearly she did deploy her main. I haven't seen the actual FAA report, but there have been media reports which refer to it which talk about the following points:

Kramer was conscious just after impact and spoke of tension knots in her reserve

The FAA report mentions a number of entangled lines on the reserve

They were unable to determine the cause of malfunction of her main

At least one FAA official has been quoted in the media as saying that her "reserve also was inadequate for her weight. "

Before you go commenting further, you may wish to read about the incident in the incident thread. It includes a number of comments from people who were actually there, as well as information from the FAA report. Your statement contains exactly the kind of confusion resulting from misinformation that earlier posters were worried about.