BASE injury - Don Swayze
Bill Von Novak
Bill Von Novak
popular BASE site in san diego. from today's san diego union-tribune:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The brother of actor Patrick Swayze was injured yesterday when
he jumped from a 600-foor-tall Navy tower and his parachute did not
open, police said.
Donald Carl Swayze, 36, was reported in good condition after
surgery for a fractured right pelvis, leg and ankle after the 4:20 am
fall from one of three Navy radio towers near Chollas Lake.
Donald Swayze is a stunt man who has appeared in minor roles in
movies, police said. He reported his own accident with a cellular phone,
said San Diego police spokesman Bill Robinson.
"He told us that he had jumped from the top of the southernmost
towers and that his parachute did not deploy," Robinson said. "Whatever,
it is a foolish and dangerous stunt."
Swayze told officers he was in extreme pain and thought he had
severe back injuries. As he was wheeled into the hospital emergency
room, he told reporters he felt very sore.
Police said Swayze got to the landmark towers, which are to be
torn down this year to make room for Navy housing, by climbing a fence
and ignoring no-trespassing signs. The towers are off College Grove
Drive just north of the Chollas Park and Recreation Center.
It was not known if his chute partially opened or whether his
descent was slowed by contact with the tower, saving him from more
serious injury.
Police Lt. Bill Maheu said Swayze, who listed his home in
Reseda, is on probation for a similar act elsewhere. Police believe he
may have jumped from the same tower in the past.
"We have had reports of people jumping from the towers,"
Robinson said. In October, neigbors reported seeing someone parachute
from one of the towers, but the report could not be confirmed by police
or Navy officials.
timi...@netaxs.com
> don swayze was injured this morning while jumping at a
>popular BASE site in san diego. from today's san diego union-tribune:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
When i heard about this on the news, they said "Skydiving accident"!
How typical...
Tim
Charles Thomas
>When i heard about this on the news, they said "Skydiving accident"!
>
>How typical...
>
>Tim
>
What's even more typical is the "His chute did not open." statement.
While it may be true in this case, it usually isn't. I also have my
doubts about a person falling 600 feet without a chute and not getting
killed.
Whatever the case, this whole "Chute didn't open" thing really pisses me
off. No matter what the cause of the injury, whuffos still think we have
unreliable equipment.
BODYFLYR
" No matter what the cause of the injury, whuffos still think we have
unreliable equipment."
Gee go figure, reliability exists in your own perceived criteria. Your
average skydiver considers one malfunction in 300 jumps as an acceptable
criteria for reliability.
A whuffo may consider reliability to mean 0 chance of failure (absurd,
but there are also people who are afraid of leaving the house)
I think it's kind of silly to slam an entire group of people i.e.-
everyone who doesn't skydive because you feel that only your sense of
reliability should be the criteria for all mankind.
John Goscinski
> >average skydiver considers one malfunction in 300 jumps as an acceptable
> >criteria for reliability.
Are you kidding??? more like 3000. Yikes.
John
kevin_birkholz
> " No matter what the cause of the injury, whuffos still think we have
> unreliable equipment."
> average skydiver considers one malfunction in 300 jumps as an acceptable
> criteria for reliability.
> but there are also people who are afraid of leaving the house)
Well, I happen to be one of those whuffos who consider reliability to mean 0
chance of failure. However, I also consider my equipment to refer to everything
on my back, NOT just my main. And I have never, to my knowledge, SEEN
any (by my own definition) unreliable equipment.
I do not know *anyone* who has experienced total equipment failure.
Please also realize that many accidents are caused by human error, lack of
sufficient equipment (AAD, Dytter, 2 altimeters, or whatever is neccessary), or
sheer stupidity, not equipment failure.
This would lead me to believe that by almost anyone's definition of reliability,
skydivers generally have reliable equipment.
Just the humble opinion of a newbie.
Bill Von Novak
>Last guy wrote:
>" No matter what the cause of the injury, whuffos still think we have
>unreliable equipment."
>Gee go figure, reliability exists in your own perceived criteria. Your
>average skydiver considers one malfunction in 300 jumps as an acceptable
>criteria for reliability.
> . . .
> I think it's kind of silly to slam an entire group of people i.e.-
>everyone who doesn't skydive because you feel that only your sense of
>reliability should be the criteria for all mankind.
i don't think he's slamming whuffos for their standards of
reliability. i think he's pointing out that if someone goes in because
of a no-pull, the press generally reports it as "skydiver plummets to
his death when his parachute fails to open." based on reporting like
that it's understandable that whuffos often have misconceptions about
the sport.
-bill von novak D16479 AFF/SL I95
Barry Chase-D9545/AFF I'94/Tandem Instructor
= And of course, we won't even mention the 'Spanish Fly' harnesses. I
= still get cold chills about those, and it's been over fifteen years
= since they were around.
Is that the old Green Star Expresss rig?
I thought it was more than fifteen years old, if it's the same one.
--
If it wasn't for us skydivers having so much fun,
the rest of the people wouldn't know
how much their lives sucked.
-----
_..-'( ba...@gate.net )`-.._
./'. '||\\. (\_/) .//||` .`\.
./'.|'.'||||\\|.. )o o( ..|//||||`.`|.`\.
./'..|'.|| |||||\`````` '`"'` ''''''/||||| ||.`|..`\.
./'.||'.|||| ||||||||||||. .|||||||||||| ||||.`||.`\.
/'|||'.|||||| ||||||||||||{ }|||||||||||| ||||||.`|||`\
'.|||'.||||||| ||||||||||||{ }|||||||||||| |||||||.`|||.`
'.||| ||||||||| |/' ``\||`` ''||/'' `\| ||||||||| |||.`
|/' \./' `\./ \!|\ /|!/ \./' `\./ `\|
V V V }' `\ /' `{ V V V
` ` ` V ' ' '
.....
Bob Church
ba...@news.gate.net (Barry Chase-D9545/AFF I'94/Tandem Instructor)
writes:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:00:06 GMT, Bob Church (chu...@art.ohiou.edu) wrote:
>
> = And of course, we won't even mention the 'Spanish Fly' harnesses. I
> = still get cold chills about those, and it's been over fifteen years
> = since they were around.
>
> Is that the old Green Star Expresss rig?
>
> I thought it was more than fifteen years old, if it's the same one.
>
No, the Green Star Express incidents and the Spanish Fly ones happened
about the same time though. I jumped a Green Star for years. There was
nothing inherently wrong with them. They were good rigs. However, a
couple of jumpers decided to make them even lighter by removing the
"excess" covers on the front of the harness. The stitching went all the
way through. These individuals were actually cutting the stitching that
held the harness together, with the obvious results.
The Spanish Fly bragged about having no metal hardware, or something
like that. Instead of regular fasteners on the leg straps, they had
stiffeners inside the webbing. You routed the leg strap through a
series of loops and slid the stiffener into place. On two occasions
these stiffeners shifted around in freefall, probably due to leg
movements, and gave the jumpers an extra 11 seconds or so of freefall,
sans gear.
Pretty scary stuff.
The DZ where I started was really small, and most of the JMs were dirt
poor. The only way I, as a student, could jump is if another student
would show up. The JMs didn't have enough money to actually pay for a
jump and needed the free ride from taking up two students.
Anyway, this left me *LOTS* of time for reading. There was a big
collection of old Parachutists and some other mags, and I practically
memorized them all.
Bob Church
Bob Church
Kevin Birkholz writes:
>
> I do not know *anyone* who has experienced total equipment failure.
>
I remember a young lady who bounced when the swedge on her reserve
handle failed. This was long before the Cypres, but would have been a
good argument for one.
And of course, we won't even mention the 'Spanish Fly' harnesses. I
still get cold chills about those, and it's been over fifteen years
since they were around.
Bob Church
BODYFLYR
"Well, I happen to be one of those whuffos who consider reliability to
mean 0
chance of failure."
{deleted stuff}
"This would lead me to believe that by almost anyone's definition of
reliability,
skydivers generally have reliable equipment."
I hate to stir the fire, but parachutes can and have failed. In your
previous post you imply that parachutes are perfect. i.e.
"I have never, to my knowledge, SEEN
any (by my own definition) unreliable equipment.
I do not know *anyone* who has experienced total equipment failure."
I read the 1 in 300 statistic for mains somehwere, if I remember, I will
post it. But even with the best rigger and gear on the planet, sometimes
"life drops a terd on ya." If you have ever gambled on anything you will
notice that sometimes you just roll the dice and crap out regardless of
your strategies. Another example could be, that two complete malfunctions
can be referred to as points which are greater than 3 standard deviations
away from the mean. The probabilities are slim, but possible. I would
expect that your belief in the existance of "perfect functioning of man
made equipment) reveals a fear of death that you repress by assuming you
will never fail and neither will your equipment.
I could be wrong......
Never guessed a post with "Swayze" in the title could be so interesting.
Johan Conroy
>What's even more typical is the "His chute did not open." statement.
>While it may be true in this case, it usually isn't. I also have my
>doubts about a person falling 600 feet without a chute and not getting
>killed.
>Whatever the case, this whole "Chute didn't open" thing really pisses me
>off. No matter what the cause of the injury, whuffos still think we have
>unreliable equipment.
Yesterday I saw something in the paper along the lines of
_SKYDIVER SURVIVES NIGHTMARE JUMP_
A parabat [read airborne ranger] was injured yesterday when both his
parachutes failed to open. After opening at 2500m, he had trouble opening
his main parachute. He opened his reserve before he had released his main
parachute and the two parachutes became entangled. He then hit the ground
as he was taught, at exactly the right angle and suffered only a broken
angle and a hurt back. Paramedics on the scene said that he would probably
have been killed if he had landed any other way.
--- Snip ---
It sounds like there is about nothing that is correct.
The way I read it, the guy did a S/L exit at 2500 feet. He had a snivel,
panicked and pulled his reserve without doing a cut-away. The lines
became slightly entangled and the guy made a mess of the PLF.
How the hell can the two "parachutes become entangled" when "both his
parachutes failed to open" ???
The press has this way of publishing blatant lies.
The RAG queen at our varsity won a FJC as one of her prizes. After the
jump, she said something like:
"It was fantastic and I got a real adrenaline rush, but I would lie if I
said I wasn't scared. I don't think I'll have the guts to do it again."
and the paper published something like:
_ NEVER AGAIN, SAYS RAG QUEEN_
... Miss. X said that the skydive was one of the worse experiences she has
ever had. "It was horrible and I'll never, ever do that again" ...
etc.
And to think that people form opinions based on what they read in papers ...
SCARY!!!
Blue skies and soft landings.
Johan
Philip Yzarn de Louraille
>Well, I happen to be one of those whuffos who consider reliability to mean 0
You cannot be a whuffo if you jump.
>
>I do not know *anyone* who has experienced total equipment failure.
I did. He dead now...
>
>Please also realize that many accidents are caused by human error, lack of
>sufficient equipment (AAD, Dytter, 2 altimeters, or whatever is neccessary), or
>sheer stupidity, not equipment failure.
>
>This would lead me to believe that by almost anyone's definition of reliability,
>skydivers generally have reliable equipment.
I agree that the most unreliable part of the skydiving equation is the human.
--
#include <disclaimer.h> Philip Yzarn de Louraille yz...@chevron.com
Barry Chase-D9545/AFF I'94/Tandem Instructor
= Kevin Birkholz wrote:
= >I do not know *anyone* who has experienced total equipment failure.
= I did. He dead now...
Well, don't just tease us, tell us the circumstances surrounfing the incident.
--
My concern for the aircraft diminishes RADICALLY upon my exit.
Bob Church
con...@babel.ee.up.ac.za (Johan Conroy) writes:
>
> The press has this way of publishing blatant lies.
About twelve years ago (or more) there was a story about a fatality in
the Columbus Ohio paper. It said
"Her parents told her it was too windy to jump."
"Her friends said it was too windy to jump."
"She jumped anyway."
"She died."
"{I forget the name} was doing a controlled freefall jump yesterday in
which she would fall {forgot again} seconds and then pull her ripcord.
Despite numerous warnings from her parents about the high winds, she
jumped anyway. While in freefall, the wind dislodged the ripcord handle
from her harness, causing her to not be able to pull her parachute, and
she died. The ground winds were reported to be gusting up to 30 miles
per hour."
Bob Church
Chris Jenkins
>>And of course, we won't even mention the 'Spanish Fly' harnesses. I
>>still get cold chills about those, and it's been over fifteen years
>>since they were around.
Not having been in the sport 15 years ago - although I could have been if
I'd only known :-) - I would appreciate some info on the "Spanish Fly"
harness, just for info purposes you understand!
-- ***************************************************
Chris Jenkins *Planes only crash when they reach the ground. To *
*promote my personal safety I have removed myself *
*from the loop. *
***************************************************
B 10511 (UK)
Keep smiling
Tom "Lance" Kirwin
>
> In article <3scjpa$8...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
> Kevin Birkholz writes:
>
> >
> >
>
Don't forget the Green Star Express, with comfort pads removed. At
least one, and possible two went in on that gear. The Reserve risers
had a bad habit of separating from the harness, when deployed.
Cheers,
Lance
qx0...@inet.d48.lilly.com
> jump, she said something like:
> "It was fantastic and I got a real adrenaline rush, but I would lie if I
> said I wasn't scared. I don't think I'll have the guts to do it again."
>
> and the paper published something like:
> _ NEVER AGAIN, SAYS RAG QUEEN_
>
> ... Miss. X said that the skydive was one of the worse experiences she has
> ever had. "It was horrible and I'll never, ever do that again" ...
>
> etc.
>
>
> And to think that people form opinions based on what they read in papers ...
> SCARY!!!
>
> Blue skies and soft landings.
> Johan
Sorry, but I can't hold back any longer.
WHAT THE FUCK DOES ALL THIS BULLSHIT HAVE TO DO WITH DON'S INCIDENT?
CHANGE THE THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
kleggo
Rhonda Lea
>CHANGE THE THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your wish is my command, Kleggo.
:)
kevin_birkholz
> previous post you imply that parachutes are perfect. i.e.
>
unreliable equipment.
>
> post it. But even with the best rigger and gear on the planet, sometimes
> "life drops a terd on ya." If you have ever gambled on anything you will
> notice that sometimes you just roll the dice and crap out regardless of
> your strategies. Another example could be, that two complete
malfunctions
> can be referred to as points which are greater than 3 standard deviations
> away from the mean. The probabilities are slim, but possible. I would
> expect that your belief in the existance of "perfect functioning of man
> made equipment) reveals a fear of death that you repress by assuming
you
> will never fail and neither will your equipment.
First, let me relieve some of my own embarrasement by taking back one
thing I said in my original post. I incorrectly called myself a whuffo, and have
since been kicking myself for looking so stupid. This error was the result of
being a newbie, not lurking this base long enough, and not thinking. (It
makes perfect sence *now*). Anyway, I just started into the sport last year
and did my 12th jump last weekend.
Now, on to the controversial topics:
First, recall my qualified statements. "I have never, *to my knowledge*,
*SEEN* any ... unreliable equipment." Just because I haven't seen any
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
also, "I do not *KNOW* anyone who has experienced *total equipment
failure*."
You seem to be talking about main canopies. I did originally post that I
referred to an equipment failure as when *all* equipment fails. i.e. a) main
canopy fails to open properly. b) reserve IS pulled and fails to deploy (I don't
mean fails to deploy in time, I mean fails to deploy.) and/or c) AAD (which I
consider, and I know this is the subject of some contention, to be part of
standard equipment nowadays) fails to deploy reserve.
I did not mean to imply that total equipment failures do not happen, because
I know they do. I was simply saying that *I* have never encountered one
except through vague, second hand stories (this is, I'm sure, partly due to my
own inexperience). The more common case is a main canopy malfunction
and the failure of the human on the other end to take the neccessary steps
to rectify the situation.
Sorry if I sound argumentative, these are my own opinions and I just wanted
to clear up the fact that I do have a high standard of reliability, but still
consider *most* equipment to be reliable.
- Kev.