base736

The term, more specifically, is circumstantial ad hominem. For example: The original poster's lack of BASE experience, or the age of his child, has no direct bearing on the truth of his statements. If you want to question what he has said, question what he has said. Attacking only his qualifications is tacky.

Been faced with some of them, and still don't think risk to oneself and extent of preparation are the sorts of things that make an act ethical or not. I also understand that ethics is one of those things that's just different for different people. So....

And, on the flipside, a 16-year-old is definitely more mature than a 5-year-old. The 16-year-old owns his or her decisions about as much as anybody does, while the 5-year-old likely wouldn't have given dirtbikes a second thought if Mom and Dad didn't like 'em. I expect, too, that your average 16-year-old has a better understanding of the risks of falling hundreds of feet without a functional parachute than your average 5-year-old has of the risks inherent in supercross. As my first witnesses, I call the dozens of little snots who have flown by me on the ski hill -- like I was standing still -- when I figured I had some good speed going.

Which, for the vast majority of skydivers, would be to start kicking out of them. I'm guessing that, except on the really tall stuff where you're a mile and a half from the face, "start kicking out" is not what the folks here are going to suggest as a first response to line twists. Skydiving teaches responses. Some good, some bad for the BASE environment. I've seen a lot of BD video that would argue that the response for line twists is solidly among the latter. I think skydiving can be valuable preparation for BASE, but one should understand its limitations.

Perhaps "Getting your panties in a wad" should be a separate forum under "Related Sports"?

Not if what the other guy/gal is doing is actually wrong, whereas what I'm doing is merely misunderstood. I agree with you 100%. I would find it ironic that BASE jumpers so frequently feel they have a right to set danger standards for others (age, experience, and "the good of the sport" being irrelevant in my opinion) if I weren't profoundly disappointed instead.

Aren't you watching? I think Clair's been corroborating like crazy.

I'm big on owning my decisions, both the good and the bad. It's a pet peeve for me, then, when I feel that people are taking that ownership away from others. It's an even bigger pet peeve when it's done in the guise of being charitable or looking out for the little guy. Without defending this particular case (about which I know very little), then... Sometimes people (particularly the very young, though I'd hardly call 16 "very young") have decisions made for them. Do you believe that's the case here? There was a time when you knew less than you know now about the risks of BASE jumping. Certainly, when you got into the sport, you knew less than you know now. Even then, you probably had a hunch that there were some excellent reasons not to throw yourself off of very large objects. Do you have reason to believe that this person doesn't have the benefit of that basic intuition?

Thanks!

Therefore the family should not fight what they feel is a very dangerous and correctable situation with no intrinsic value to the climbing community? The NPS may do a lot of things. Can you cite a history of banning climbing in the Yosemite valley?

Absolutely. Those are the sorts of similarities that made me pretty skeptical. That, and the fact that I was previously of the opinion that rock slides when it slides, and there's just no predicting objective hazard. That said, I suspect that in this case as in the other, the family's actions are motivated by the need to direct their grief. And while I worry that that could hurt the sport their children loved -- and perhaps more importantly, that it posthumously steals from their own children "ownership" of their choices both good and bad -- I respect that need. Certainly more than I respect a desire to make a quick buck from a tragedy, which I really don't expect is at play here (but what do I know...). The family, in this case, is not suggesting that the sport be regulated. They're suggesting that a leachfield be moved from a location which evidence suggests is endangering the climbers below. Could be (as Rhonda Lea has suggested) that they're using the lawsuit to turn heads that need to be turned, and otherwise would not be. I'm not against giving people the benefit of the doubt...

Thanks for the links. Watts' slide show, in particular, makes me significantly less sceptical of his claims. Very interesting, anyway.

They were, I assume, canopies of similar size and performance? I remember flying my Velocity 96 (before I sold it for a BASE trip) through some pretty choppy conditions, and watching other canopies (mostly larger and slower -- which, I'm certain, was the key) breathe big. The Velocity, meanwhile, behaved like I was running over small speedbumps or something. All speed and pressurization, in that case. I recall reading an article (perhaps even by Brian, though I'm not certain that makes sense) which claimed that the "temporary loss of lift" which you noted was, in fact, the more important part of why a canopy becomes dangerous in poor conditions, and that the breathing itself was a comparatively minor issue. Perhaps somebody else remembers it and can link to it? While I'm no expert, this theory made a good deal of sense to me -- some of my scariest moments flying a BASE canopy in turbulence corresponded to nothing more than a 5-10% change in surface area in the canopy, and (unless I'm horribly mistaken) not enough deformation to account for the "oh sh*t" feeling.

I was going to say the same thing. Looking at the video, and at the damage to my canopy, I'd say that the vents managed to keep all but the front foot or so inflated the entire time I was nose-in to the object. Furthermore, they kept enough canopy inflated that the thing pulled back from the wall within a second of my applying the correct input. What more could one ask by adding airlocks? Factor in the thought that the same cliff that was dragging at the nose of the canopy would have been clawing at said airlocks, opening them and closing them... I'm quite certain that airlocks would offer no advantage at all in the event of object strike. I'm also quite certain that they would add complexity to the system.

They're wrong, though not far wrong. I can sit fine, but will never walk. I train hard, and with the help of the cash I'd saved for new gear, become one of the fastest motherf*ckers on wheels. And though I never get back into skydiving and BASE, having directed my energy elsewhere, I go on to live a long and fulfilling life doing a lot of the stuff you might expect from a guy in a wheelchair, and a few things you didn't see coming at all.

Absolutely. This is my biggest "lesson learned". Both risers down pulled me away from the wall after I'd hit it; I'm sure it would have worked before, too, if I'd done that.

Abigale?

Just finished a full inspection of the fabric. Two L-shaped tears maybe three inches on a side, both near the nose (one on the topskin, one on the bottomskin) on the left end cell. Maybe five or ten quarter-sized snags there and elsewhere, all within a foot or so of the nose of the canopy on the topskin, except for a couple on the side of the left end cell. Mostly away from seams, though I was less lucky in a couple of cases. I'll be visiting my local Rigger B to pick up some fabric, and spending some quality time with Poynter's Manual and my sewing machine. All told, I don't expect the repairs will take me more than a couple of weeks in my spare time.

Maybe I should clarify. By "headwind" I mean perhaps 3 km/h. Can't feel it at the exit point, but just barely there with a spit test. And (IMHO) to call a 650-foot cliff "low" would be misleading. 587's "gnarly" comment was in reference to the rock itself, which looks evil, rather than in reference to the jump, which is entirely suitable for a first 'E'.

Video is up.

Could you elaborate on how the pins might lock? I can't figure it out myself. I jump velcro right now, but if I had a pin rig I certainly wouldn't hesitate to prime the pins for low stuff...

I haven't managed a full inspection yet. I did, however, inspect the thing from below while flying it, to see what I had to land. There's a tear in the left end cell near the nose; I'm pretty certain it's something I can patch easily.

Thought I'd share with you all a jump I made today, since there's a good deal to be learned from it... Things felt good initially; I was second off the cliff, and the exit seemed promising. As I turned 45 degrees right in freefall, it occurred to me that the right off-heading would be bad; I was watching for that. I pitched after 2 seconds, and was treated to a further 70-80 degrees right on opening. Together with the slight wind into the face, it took me about a second to close the distance to the cliff. I had tried for a left riser correction, but that wasn't particularly effective. I saw the cliff coming and got my legs out there. Was stunned that I didn't break them on the first hit, but also found that I hit slower than I had expected. Rattled down the cliff for a bit trying to turn the canopy away, and as I was coming up on a small ledge decided it was better just to back the canopy away. Hit the ledge with my legs (which I was stunned, once again, to find intact afterward) and pushed out to clear my body. Hauled down on both rear risers and was ecstatic to find myself flying backward away from the cliff. Spun it around as soon as I was a wingspan or so back. ... And found I had plenty of altitude left. Made a pretty amateurish but stand-up landing in the scree to the west. Unhurt. I did a bunch of things right, and I think that plays heavily into how this turned out. I've also pulled some unknown quantity from the good ol' luck bucket. Lessons learned... 1. Careful with those exits. I've been getting pretty relaxed, and mostly intend to stay that way. But a little horizontal rotation can take away a lot of your leeway, and probably doesn't help with putting distance between you and the object. 2. Watch headwinds on cliffs. Mostly not a big deal, but if you've got your deep brakes dialed in, a little headwind can push you back toward the object, or make an off-heading a bunch worse. 3. Both rear risers FIRST for an off-heading. At least from a high-ish object, you've got the time. It'll give you space, and space is your friend. Two seconds to impact is better than one when you're making your turn. Deep brakes rule. My closing speed was SUPER low, and not once did I feel that the situation was anything but survivable. I expected to get busted up, but not to die. VTec also rules. Thank you BR -- my canopy stayed inflated through the entire ordeal. You'll find first-person video on skydivingmovies very soon (just waiting for the upload to show) under "YamStrike.mov". High-quality audio, again, so if you're not wearing headphones you're really missing out. Edit to add: Closer inspection of the video reveals that, after the wallstrike, I was on the front right riser for about a second where I thought I was on the rear. The risers were all over the place after the strike.

What Zenister said. But less succinctly. Edit to add: What I think is productive about this paper is that much of what I've said above isn't something I'd really thought about before. As always, your mileage may vary.

Absolutely it is. You don't need to enjoy video yourself to understand that its use has made a significant impact on the sport. Perhaps equivalently, the fact that some jumpers have no interest in video does not change its importance to both BASE jumping and skydiving. For instance... I remember a time (as I'm sure many do -- heck, I haven't been to a dropzone in a while; this might still be the case) when cameras were found predominantly on freeflyers. I find that tremendously interesting. Why is that the case? How does it change the way freeflyers and bellyflyers identify themselves as subgroups? Sure, at the end of the day, we're all jumpers, but there's a subtler dynamic here. Or, consider the fact that if my video malfunctions on a jump, I'm a little bummed about that. Why? Because part of the jump, for me, is the bit where you sit down and relive the bits and pieces, or BS about it with friends. Video can be a part of that. Would I jump without? Absolutely, and I have even since I started flying video. Consider the safety aspect, which is tied in intimately with what Lyng et al call "negotiat[ing] individual and collective status". Ever watch a piece of carnage tape repeatedly, before setting it aside, to see what you might learn? Ever see a cocky skydiver go ass-over-teakettle at NRGB and give the guy shit from your living room? How many people know that Jeb is the man despite never having met him personally, having seen him do thirty-seven back layouts from 300 feet, or something silly like that? Video changes many things, among them the social dynamic in BASE. Video is absolutely relevant to the nature of the sport. Which is why publishing a similar article about skydiving in a criminology journal would have been foolish. "Theoretical Criminology" is an interdisciplinary journal. I suspect they publish many articles with only a little relevance to mainstream criminology. Where you, unless I'm mistaken, believe that the authors manipulated the article to marginally suit the journal, I believe that they chose a journal which only marginally suited their article. You suggest what amounts to minor academic misconduct; I suggest a productive sharing of ideas. The difference is in intent, and neither you nor I know the authors' intent.