TomAiello

Check it out here. This looks like it might be the ideal suit for lowish stuff, where you need to be on the opening immediately. I realize that it's billed as a beginner suit, and it probably will be great for that, but I bet it finds it's own on some really wicked, nasty BASE sites. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You are correct. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

To clarify, for those that have asked: This means that if you have sent me an email applying, I will not respond until April 15th at the earliest. On the 15th, I'll start sending out acceptance emails. If for some reason you are not certain I have received your email, you can send me another requesting confirmation, if you like. Just for general information, I have received 6 applications so far. If you want to come to this class, your odds will be significantly better if you apply by April 15th. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Tree, These are personal attacks. I've banned you from this forum for 7 days. Note that the "normal" ban period for a PA is 14 days, but given the way that JT was obviously trying to bait people, we'll go with 7 for this one. Even though JT is essentially posting flame bait, in the effort (apparently) to get a rise out of people, there are still rules we have to play by in these forums. JT, What is the point of posting things like this? Are you just hoping to get people fired up, and angry with you? Why would you want to do that? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

All; I'm assuming that the banter in here is friendly, and that you know each other (and that I'm not following it too well due to my absolute lack of slavic languages). Remember that if you want to rehash the late unpleasantness in your part of the world, we've always got the Speaker's Corner forum for that. Robert, my knowledge of the geography down there is sketchy. Can you PM me if any of this discussion would get people too close to objects that can be jumped, so that I can edit posts? Thanks! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yep. Pretty much. Unfortunately, you can't answer this question without actually seeing the object, and it's surroundings. Postulating a theoretical building, which is a perfect cube, 300' on a side, situated on a perfect north-south axis, with no other obstructions or turbulence generators of any kind (i.e. this building sits alone in a flat field that extends to infinity in all directions)? With wind coming exactly from the east, you'd want to exit either the northwest or southwest corner, exiting toward the northwest (or southwest) at approximately a 45 degree angle. Obviously, there are way too many variables involved in evaluating a real building for us to try to do such a thing via internet postings. If you're really interested in sorting through these kinds of winds, I'd recommend two things. First, read a couple textbooks on fluid dynamics--especially the kinds with pictures. Second, go find a real building, and bring a long a pack of helium balloons and a couple bottles of talcum powder. Stand on the roof and have a friend release the balloons at intervals from a series of locations below you, and watch them. When this gets dull, start squeezing the talcum powder over the edge from a variety of locations, in a steady stream. Even the people who have Ph.D.'s in this kind of stuff, and work in turbulence laboratories, don't have an exact handle on it. The best we can hope for, at this point, is to develop a good feel for the general principles. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If you are on the far downwind side or corner of the building, and there is sufficient wind, the downwind rotor (think of it as the buildings "burble") can actually create a push back against the building at opening altitude. In these (general--I can't speak to any specific case without knowing a lot more about it) conditions, it's better to jump the side corner, so that your deployment happens in cleaner air (i.e. not in the buildings "burble"). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The only B jumps I've not done so are those in which I got to see previous jumpers. Even then, I usually did so (the most notable exception being organized events where there was a large string of jumpers to observe). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Always. The concrete canyons channel wind around. If you walk around a block in a big city and note the wind direction and intensity at each corner, it's quite educational. That's why we drop WDI's of whatever kind. I'm assuming that the jumper in this incident did so because I can't imagine jumping a building without doing so. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Bright, sunny and warm today. Jeb, Iiro, Ted and I did a couple loads this morning, with more loads set for the afternoon/evening. Winds are calm and Don is out with the boat. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Be aware that this week, the Shiloh asked two jumpers staying there not to pack in the halls, and told them they would no longer open their conference room for packing. Apparently they had some problems with jumpers at some point this winter. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Ok, now that I've spent a bunch of my time doing the babysitting chores, let me try to form some real thoughts on the actual topic. I see several issues that might be related, but not necessarily. The issues that don't really relate to this incident so much (I'll leave those for now, but I think they might be interesting topics of discussion for other threads): 1) Effect of sponsorship and high profile jumps, and specifically the influence of Red Bull on BASE. 2) Preparation of non-skydivers (specifically paragliders) for BASE 3) Overall effect on BASE of an influx of non-skydivers into the sport, as a result of a commercial operation aimed at this end Issues that may be related to this incident, but semi-independent of each other: Relating to the jumper: 1) The jumpers level of skill and preparation at the time of the accident I have no idea what the jumper's overall skill set was like prior to the accident. Had he properly set his DBS? Had he practiced object avoidance? We don't have the answers to these questions (and won't, until and unless he provides them). I won't speculate on whether or not he was adequately prepared for this jump, but will say that I expect his level of canopy skill would have been higher than that of most BASE jumpers at his relative level of BASE experience (due to his extensive paragliding experience). Perhaps if anyone knows whether or not he had drilled object avoidance, they can shed some light on this. 2) The jumpers level of skill and experience relative to the jump In general, I'd say that a jumper with less than 100 jumps is unlikely to have adequate low, solid object experience to be soloing (with ground crew, in this case) a building. While I can't say for certain, I'd suspect that this particular jump may have been an over-reaching of the jumpers skill set at the time. 3) The jumpers judgment in undertaking the jump This relates to (3), above. If the jumpers skill set was inadequate to the technical demands of the jump, did he exercise poor judgment in making the decision to exit? Again, it's hard to say without a better idea of the jumpers skill set. Relating to the jumpers formal BASE training and education: 1) The FJC instructor's teaching of technical skills to the jumper Honestly, I don't think this was a problem. As far as I can tell (both from observation and gathering information from others), the FJC teaching of this jumper on the technical aspects of BASE was fully up to the accepted level of first jump courses standard in the industry. I don't think that there was any inadequacy in the jumper's FJC preparation, or at least no more so than is the case with anyone else passing through our current FJC system (my thoughts on the adequacy of our dominant training scheme are another matter, for another discussion). Whatever the level of the jumpers skill at the time of the accident, his technical BASE skils when completing his formal instruction were at least on par with those of any other beginning jumper at that level. 2) The ethical and "approach to BASE" transfer (conscious or unconscious) from student to teacher I think this is a greatly overlooked aspect of BASE training. We all carry around attitudes imparted by our interactions with others. Our attitudes about BASE are often greatly formed by the attitudes of our initial instructor. Instructors who push the limits, ignore the evolved ethical standards, or whatever, are more likely to teach students who do the same (note that I personally believe this works in reverse, too). In this case, the student was taught in a setting that encouraged pushing the limits (some students in this FJC have, for example, performed unpacked jumps as early as their 3rd jump, and students have also been encouraged to make some relatively poor ethical choices in their selection of jumps during the FJC). I do believe that these factors may have contributed to this incident, although to what extent is unclear. Every student will be pre-disposed to various behaviors, and influences imparted by their instructor only go so far. From all reports (and from my personal observations), this was a case of the pre-disposition and the imparted attitudes reinforcing each other to help shape the new jumpers approach to, and path forward in, the sport. 3) Actual specifics of this accident: Truthfully, I don't think these are particularly important to the underlying issues, but it is my understanding that the 20-30 mph winds reported in this thread disagree with the report of the jumper. I believe that the jumper reported wind had died off prior to exit, and that it was light enough to most likely not be a factor in causing the 180. At any rate, real discussion of the mechanics of the accident probably ought to wait until the jumper can give us an actual firsthand account of the accident (should he choose to do so). I'll try to write more later. I've just noticed that this thread looks like it needs more moderating, which reduces the amount of time I can actually spend communicating. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Shane, If you persist in creating additional logins to bypass the forum ban, I will delete all of your logins. I have banned your IP address from posting in this forum for 14 days. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think this is a very important point that hasn't really been considered enough. Paragliding can teach canopy skills. But the most important (read: dangerous) part of a BASE jump is during and immediately after opening. Is skydiving the best way to learn to deal with deployments? Or is it really a "must learn by doing in BASE" kind of thing? I also wonder how a paraglider's experience dealing with collapses and the like can translate. There are obviously skills developed there that may have some transfer value into managing a canopy during deployment. But how much transfer value I don't know. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

http://calgary.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ca-base-jumper20050404 The really worrisome thing here is the charge of "mischief causing danger to life." Under the applicable criminal code, this carries a potential penalty of life imprisonment: -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Your memory appears to be faulty, actually. There are several factual inaccuracies there. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Actually, they are remarkably productive when people actually have mature discussions. I can see why you don't ever find the threads you participate in productive. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Everything you've posted here is personal attacks and flames. What's the point of trying to side track the discussion into that? I see a lot of people here trying to have an adult conversation. You're not one of them. I've banned you from this forum for 14 days. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Othar, You've got good thoughts and points to make. Interjecting silly comments and slinging turds (in your words) doesn't help. When it looks like other people are degenerating into flames, throwing yourself into the fire is pointless. Why not stand back and continue the real discussion with those who are interested. As with Tree, consider this your last warning in this thread. There are lots of good things being said and discussed here. Let's try to have that discussion without the turd slinging. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Tree, The fact that Shane is trying to draw you into a flame war is no reason to degenerate to that level. You are contributing real discussion here, so I won't ban you. But consider this your last warning in this thread. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Shane, This thread was actually looking like a useful, productive discussion with a minimum of name calling. Then you began posting a string of name calling, innuendo, and general silliness. None of your posts included any relevant information, useful discussion, or mature thoughts. Perhaps if you think that there is no effective communication here, you ought to go elsewhere. Personally, I think it's posts like the one's you've made in this thread that reduce or eliminate effective communication. Accordingly, I've banned you from this forum for 14 days. If and when you come back, try to contribute to the communication signal, rather than the static noise. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

All, This is obviously a very contentious thread, and resorting to name calling is not going to help. I'm very disposed to let this discussion run it's course, and make it as productive as possible. I will not stand for (a) people making personal jabs at Scott (as I think he's down enough without being kicked by a bunch of folks on the internet), or (b) people making random personal attacks that don't contribute to the discussion. Please, calm down. Feel free to discuss the incident. Do not call each other names, or make useless, trivial comments. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm not sure of crwper's technique. But what I do is bring the toggles all the way down to the level of the brake setting immediately, then slowly ease them up. Generally, I flare before they get all the way up. The idea is to build speed gradually into the flare, without letting the canopy dive forward (potentially into the ground). This way, you can flare effectively at any point (i.e. whenever you reach the ground). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

With a vented canopy, the traditional method results in noticeable backsurge. The best method I've found is progressive trial and error off a safe span. There was some discussion about this in this forum and on BLiNC a while back. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Usually, if I chew up the lines sorting out the right brake setting, I just replace the lower control lines once I find the right setting. In practice, this is because of the openings, though, not the resetting of the line. If you are careful about the stitch removal, I think you could probably change the brakes an awful lot without any problems. On the other hand, you could just leave the old settings in without really creating any problems. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com