In a situation like WTC, the super heated air that was evident would like fry you as you passed thru it in FF and would torch the canopy if you tried to fly thru it, so maybe heat resistant kevlar suit and chute, goggles etc.....
space:7
Tom, I think that you should take out your words about lives saved or lost on the poll. Yes, that is probably the most important point but there many other issues that you would take into consideration to vote on this.
C'mon, you must be kidding us. On the subject of burning
buildings, the ONLY POINT would be saving lives. I voted no.
Why'd you vote no if the point is to save lives? I bet any one of the jumpers would have been willing to take their chances with a round in a liteweight harness over the demise they chose instead of burning where they might have.
Well jon593, I guess irony and cynicism when mixed, are too potent a concoction, and in your intoxication, you missed my joke. After careful thought, my conclusion is that the negative ramifications of such use of BASE equipment are far worse than the benefit of, perhaps, saving a few lives.
My vote is in support of the preservation of the sport, not human life.
How's that?
For me, BASE is about personal freedom.
The humans are on their own, imho.
I still don't get what you're on about PK &-)
Agreed. Maybe yer the one who's like, so smart and stuff.
I got your point Tom. If you work in a high rise and are worried, go sign up for your 1st jump class, jump your ass off and then call BR or CR. Take the course, buy the gear and keep it by your desk.
The alternative, a zillion wuffos with "building escape" rigs whispering to them while they work is a scary idea for those trying to limit the ratio of idiots to jumpers in the sport.
I can see it now...a post from the baseboard next year some time:
"I am not a base jumper but my boss just got a bunch of these building escape thingies and I saw bridge day on TV. I was wondering..."
I've got a question...let's assume rigs were put in high-rise buildings, people trained, etc., etc. There's a huge fire in a high-rise building...people who can't get down (or can) grab rigs and start jumping. Let's say there's a survival rate of 90% (MUCH better than what I'd expect, but to prevent deviation from the original question). So what's gonna be plastered all over the news..."90 people escaped death by parachuting to safety, BUT there were 10 fatalities among the workers who parachuted to their deaths. Several injuries also occurred among the 'parachutists.'" The next week on "Real TV," they'll be showing extreme close-ups of the people bouncing, slamming into buildings, and the canopies on fire. BASE jumping is gonna look dangerous as hell!! Would it save a few lives? Sure. Will it make BASE jumping look bad? I think so. Is there a BETTER solution? Absolutely. How about...the people below the fire run down the stairs. The people above it run to the roof and get rescued by helicopters. So my question is...how is this going to make our sport look when whuffos start bouncing? I know, I know, the point is to save lives...but isn't there a better way? Just something to think about.
Blue Skies,
Josh
I don't think anyone is recommending these chutes as an alternative to the fire escape--It's an alternative to jumping to your death. If some overzealous BASE jumping executive had, on a whim, stocked his World Trade Center office with large round parachutes in lightweight containers with quick-release buckles, and 90% of his employees had used them to jump to safety (we'll assume 10% put the rigs on incorrectly or wrapped with other jumpers or were just too scared to jump), and everyone in the offices around them either burned to death or leapt to their deaths, do you really think anyone would be condemning the executive or the gear manufacturer for the death of 10% of his employees? As to maintaining the sport, I guess it's good to have priorities. I mean, in this time of war and terrorism, people are loosing their lives, their family members, their assets, their jobs, and more, but God forbid anything have even the remotest chance of coming between you and your ability to jump off tall objects (most often illegally, I might add). Do you honestly think most people are going to equate escape chutes with sport BASE jumping? Most whuffos who are even familiar with the sport think it is insane. Heck, half the skydivers I know think it is insane. If anything, those chutes would probably legitimatize the sport. I doubt whuffos would be anymore inclined to spend $1000 on an emergency escape rig and jump off a building than they would be to spend $1000 on a used BASE rig and jump off a building. Keep them in easily breakable glass cases next to the windows or the roof exit, and you don't have to worry about idiots taking them home for a little learn-as-you-go BASE jumping. You mention helicopter rescues, but as we saw with the World Trade Center, once a fire reaches a certain temperature, you have only about thirty minutes before support beams melt, thereby creating a pile driver effect and collapsing the building. Thirty minutes is pretty fast to run an organized helicopter rescue for several thousand people. If I were on that roof waiting for a helicopter, and I felt the building starting to shake, I'd really appreciate having on an escape parachute right about then. Just something to think about.
Blue skies and God bless,
Douva
lewdouva@aol.com
>I've got a question...let's assume rigs were put
>in high-rise buildings, people trained, etc.,
>etc. There's a huge fire in a high-rise
>building...people who can't get down (or can)
>grab rigs and start jumping. Let's say there's
>a survival rate of 90% (MUCH better than what
>I'd expect, but to prevent deviation from the
>original question). So what's gonna be
>plastered all over the news..."90 people escaped
>death by parachuting to safety, BUT there were
>10 fatalities among the workers who parachuted
>to their deaths. Several injuries also occurred
>among the 'parachutists.'" The next week on
>"Real TV," they'll be showing extreme close-ups
>of the people bouncing, slamming into buildings,
>and the canopies on fire. BASE jumping is gonna
>look dangerous as hell!! Would it save a few
>lives? Sure. Will it make BASE jumping look
>bad? I think so. Is there a BETTER solution?
>Absolutely. How about...the people below the
>fire run down the stairs. The people above it
>run to the roof and get rescued by helicopters.
>So my question is...how is this going to make
>our sport look when whuffos start bouncing? I
>know, I know, the point is to save lives...but
>isn't there a better way? Just something to
>think about.
>
>Blue Skies,
>Josh
Um, yes, I do think people are going to equate using emergency escape parachutes to the sport of BASE jumping. You're leaving an object above the ground with hopes of surviving by means of a parachute. One week, a bunch of people die trying to escape a fire by parachuting. The next week, someone makes a BASE jump from an illegal object...that's gotta be pretty dangerous, a bunch of people just died jumping off of a building with parachutes last week!! Tougher penalties. Example...how much does the general public know about skydiving? Not very much...pretty much what they see on the news and these tv shows that show nothing but accidents. So what do I get asked all of the time by whuffos? "Do you ever jump out with one of those snowboards? Has your parachute ever malfunctioned? How many accidents have you had?" When let's face it, these are rarities in skydiving...which is why they are shown on tv in the first place. How much coverage does BASE jumping get? Not that much. But when people start parachuting from burning buildings and bouncing, there'll be plenty...and the public's outlook will be "that's dangerous!!" And if 90% use the rigs and don't put them on incorrectly, I can assure you 90% aren't going to live. And don't start attacking me because you think I'm trying to keep something from coming between me and BASE jumping...I just think it's a sh*tty idea, and an unrealistic one at that. Are we going to put individual parachute rigs in all planes in the event a plane is going to crash, so all of the passengers can bail out instead of a certain death? No...pretty unrealistic, isn't it? So why would I support something that I don't think will work, something that's unrealistic, and something that's gonna make BASE jumping harder for me, when I know there are better ideas out there? Just something else to think about.
Blue Skies,
Josh
If the idea is so unfeasible, how is it going to hurt BASE jumping? Somebody actually has to leap from a burning building with a parachute before it can have any affect on BASE jumping. If that happens, then it was feasible, and the miniscule chance that it might have some minor adverse affect on BASE jumping is inconsequential. If it's really unfeasible and nobody ever gets the chance to jump from a burning building with a parachute, it will have no affect on BASE jumping, either positive or negative, and should therefore be of no concern to you.
--Douva
PS. I'm not suggesting some sort of "lifeboat law" that makes escape parachutes mandatory for all skyscrapers--I'm just saying it should be an option.
>Um, yes, I do think people are going to equate
>using emergency escape parachutes to the sport
>of BASE jumping. You're leaving an object above
>the ground with hopes of surviving by means of a
>parachute. One week, a bunch of people die
>trying to escape a fire by parachuting. The
>next week, someone makes a BASE jump from an
>illegal object...that's gotta be pretty
>dangerous, a bunch of people just died jumping
>off of a building with parachutes last week!!
>Tougher penalties. Example...how much does the
>general public know about skydiving? Not very
>much...pretty much what they see on the news and
>these tv shows that show nothing but accidents.
>So what do I get asked all of the time by
>whuffos? "Do you ever jump out with one of
>those snowboards? Has your parachute ever
>malfunctioned? How many accidents have you
>had?" When let's face it, these are rarities in
>skydiving...which is why they are shown on tv in
>the first place. How much coverage does BASE
>jumping get? Not that much. But when people
>start parachuting from burning buildings and
>bouncing, there'll be plenty...and the public's
>outlook will be "that's dangerous!!" And if 90%
>use the rigs and don't put them on incorrectly,
>I can assure you 90% aren't going to live. And
>don't start attacking me because you think I'm
>trying to keep something from coming between me
>and BASE jumping...I just think it's a sh*tty
>idea, and an unrealistic one at that. Are we
>going to put individual parachute rigs in all
>planes in the event a plane is going to crash,
>so all of the passengers can bail out instead of
>a certain death? No...pretty unrealistic, isn't
>it? So why would I support something that I
>don't think will work, something that's
>unrealistic, and something that's gonna make
>BASE jumping harder for me, when I know there
>are better ideas out there? Just something else
>to think about.
>
>Blue Skies,
>Josh
Sorry to keep harping on this, but I'd like to make one more point. You seem to be under the misconception that most people think parachuting (in any form) is relatively safe. On the contrary, most people think that parachuting (in any form) is about as dangerous as any activity gets. I don't think the death of someone jumping from a building with an escape parachute would come as any big shock to the general public, nor do I believe the public would think that victim was any worse off than if they had died jumping without a chute or been burned alive in the building. If there were any survivors, I'm sure THEY, and not the victims, would be the focus of the media's attention. If there were no survivors, the program would almost certainly be scrapped, but I don't think anybody would suddenly awaken to the startling conclusion that--surprise, surprise--jumping from a building with a parachute is dangerous. Heck, if it wasn't dangerous, they'd offer it as an attraction at theme parks. And, again, I seriously doubt anyone would put enough thought into the risks involved to decide that not only aren't escape parachutes a good idea, but we also need stricter BASE jumping restrictions. And, again, I think the minute chance of further restrictions being placed on an already illegal activity, despite how you or any of the rest of us may feel about that activity, is a very selfish argument against a potentialy lifesaving device.
--Douva
lewdouva@aol.com
>Um, yes, I do think people are going to equate
>using emergency escape parachutes to the sport
>of BASE jumping. You're leaving an object above
>the ground with hopes of surviving by means of a
>parachute. One week, a bunch of people die
>trying to escape a fire by parachuting. The
>next week, someone makes a BASE jump from an
>illegal object...that's gotta be pretty
>dangerous, a bunch of people just died jumping
>off of a building with parachutes last week!!
>Tougher penalties. Example...how much does the
>general public know about skydiving? Not very
>much...pretty much what they see on the news and
>these tv shows that show nothing but accidents.
>So what do I get asked all of the time by
>whuffos? "Do you ever jump out with one of
>those snowboards? Has your parachute ever
>malfunctioned? How many accidents have you
>had?" When let's face it, these are rarities in
>skydiving...which is why they are shown on tv in
>the first place. How much coverage does BASE
>jumping get? Not that much. But when people
>start parachuting from burning buildings and
>bouncing, there'll be plenty...and the public's
>outlook will be "that's dangerous!!" And if 90%
>use the rigs and don't put them on incorrectly,
>I can assure you 90% aren't going to live. And
>don't start attacking me because you think I'm
>trying to keep something from coming between me
>and BASE jumping...I just think it's a sh*tty
>idea, and an unrealistic one at that. Are we
>going to put individual parachute rigs in all
>planes in the event a plane is going to crash,
>so all of the passengers can bail out instead of
>a certain death? No...pretty unrealistic, isn't
>it? So why would I support something that I
>don't think will work, something that's
>unrealistic, and something that's gonna make
>BASE jumping harder for me, when I know there
>are better ideas out there? Just something else
>to think about.
>
>Blue Skies,
>Josh
No...if you read what whuffos ask me all of the time, you'll know that I'm very well aware that the public views skydiving and BASE jumping as very dangerous sports. I think that's quite obvious. My point is that the general public knows very little about the sports...pretty much what they see on tv. Therefore, their beliefs are based on the thought of the sport..."Jumping out of a plane or off of a building is crazy!! It's gotta be dangerous." And, what they see on Real TV, When Good Times Go Bad, and You've Gotta See This. When they see high-rise workers bouncing after jumping from a building to escape a fire, yes, it will be viewed as even more dangerous.
Read the post below...it makes some very good points. Everybody is just in shock right now. When people started shooting up schools, tougher security was enforced. When deaths by means of guns started going up, people wanted to outlaw guns. And I'm sure after major plane crashes, people whined on skydiving message boards to surrender their gear to the airlines. But let's face it...major tragedies in high-rise buildings don't happen very often. Just let the shock wear off, and people will quit worrying. I'm not gonna keep "harping" on this, because people are finally posting some stuff on real BASE jumping. This is very simple...the idea is unrealistic, it's not needed, and it's not going to happen.
And if you think I'm selfish because I'm not supporting an idea because it's unrealistic and not needed, and it's something that would coincidently affect the sport of BASE jumping, then you've got a few things to work on. Would outlawing guns save a few lives? Probably, but I'm not gonna give up my guns. When tougher security was enforced at schools to save lives, and my rights were violated by having my bags searched, locker searched, and drug dogs sniffing me all of the time, you bet I through a fit. But I'm not selfish because I don't support this idea. Keep "harping" all you want...I'm gonna stick to the real BASE messages.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks