Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!brolga!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!lance!ptcburp!michi From: michi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au (Michael Henning) Newsgroups: rec.skydiving Subject: Re: malfunctions Message-ID: <224@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au> Date: 27 Nov 90 02:32:19 GMT References: <3812@mindlink.UUCP> <2524@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> <8412@adobe.UUCP> <2609@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation Lines: 106 bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) writes: >In article <8412@adobe.UUCP>, jackson@adobe.COM (Curtis Jackson) writes: >> In article <209@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au> michi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au (Michael Henning) writes: >> }I have to agree with Bob. I believe that it is safest (on average) to >> }*always* cut away on a mal. >> >> NEVER say ALWAYS in skydiving, particularly wrt malfunctions. >That's true, each situation must be evaluated individually. The BSR's aren't >going to mean a rats rear-end when you impact the earth. Guidelines are >important but I think that too many people have gotten into the habit of >accepting them without question. For instance, the oft repeated bit about >always looking at your cutaway handle, reserve handle, etc. This is an >excellent way to die. I have had three instances in which I found myself [ Stuff deleted ] Hmmm... I think the main problem with this is that usually you do not have much time trying to evaluate the situation. It is always hard to tell exactly *why* someone bounced, since they can't tell you what happened. But if you read the incidence reports, there are quite a few fatalities where there is a strong suspicion that the jumper spent too much time trying to figure out what is happening, or trying to fix a problem, and then ends up going in. At least for straightforward malfunctions, such as bag lock, line over, pilot chute in tow and streamer, I think the best thing is to count to six, and if it isn't flying by then, go for the cutaway and the reserve handle. Especially if the mal is a high speed one, I will probably realize that something isn't right between a count of two and three. If I then start looking around to analyze the situation, it will take me at least two seconds (maybe more) to figure out what is going on. Then I have to decide on a course of action. By the time I get to that stage, I will be at approximately 1500 feet... Not much time left to actually do something. Sure, people have got away with openings as low as 300 feet, but I don't think I'd like to try that... Given the quality and reliability of containers and reserves, you have to be very unlucky to bounce if you go through with the standard emergency procedures, that is, count to six, and if it doesn't look good by then, get rid of it. I have to agree with Bob again though, there *are* situations where the standard approach won't work. Horseshoes and bits of canopy/bridle wrapped around limbs are probably the most critical ones. The question is, if you *do* find yourself in such a situation, does thinking about the problem and trying to find a better course of action actually improve your chances ? Are you not much more likely to make matters worse by losing time ? How experienced does a jumper have to be before an instructor can safely suggest alternatives ? I don't think there is a good answer to these questions. We are now talking about the inevitable risk every skydiver takes, that sometimes even very experienced jumpers die, because they get involved in a situation that cannot be dealt with in the time available. The very best jumpers can probably deal with non-standard situations in non-standard ways, and manage to save themselves where the standard emergency procedures would not have helped. However, I suspect that these people do the right thing at the time *instinctively*, without rational thought. In other words, they don't remember some piece of advice they have been given about the particular problem, and they don't look at what is happening and then consciously decide on a best course of action. Rather, analyzing the problem, deciding what needs to be done, and carrying it out are all one inseparable, instinctive process. The subconscious taking over and doing the right thing... Unfortunately, it is very difficult to teach that kind of thing. And it is probably impossible to recognize the jumpers who are capable of reacting in such a way. So what do you do ? The next best thing is to train jumpers to use emergency procedures that give the best average chances of surviving the mal. Sometimes those procedures are inappropriate, and then a jumper dies, or may decide to try something new that is not in the book, and lives. If the jumper did do something new, and lived, does that mean it should be entered into the book ? Not necessarily, I think. What works for one jumper may not work for another, and the fact that a different course of action worked does not necessarily imply that the standard approach would have failed... The whole problem is that different persons' ability to deal with new, unexpected situations varies greatly, especially when the right decision has to be made in a matter of seconds. Only when the situation actually arises can it be known how well a *particular* person can deal with it. Not exactly the kind of stuff that can be taught to students, or even to experienced jumpers, simply because the subject matter is intrinsically non-teachable... So, after all this, my opinion still stands: The safest thing to do, statistically, is to *always* cut away and deploy the reserve if the thing isn't flying by a count of six. Of course, there are situation where that may kill me. So be it. That is the risk I am taking. If I ever end up in a situation myself that isn't covered by the book, I *may* try something new. If I die, then standard emergency procedures *may* have saved me, but no one will know. If I live, it doesn't mean that I'll do the same non-standard thing again next time, or that I go and teach it to my students. All it means is that I did the right thing once, that next time it happens, the same right thing may not work again. Michi. -- -m------- Michael Henning +61 75 950255 ---mmm----- Pyramid Technology +61 75 522475 FAX -----mmmmm--- Research Park, Bond University michi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au -------mmmmmmm- Gold Coast, Q 4229, AUSTRALIA uunet!munnari!ptcburp.oz!michi