Accident

[guest]

138ft seems like an advanced object for a first-time jumper. Or was the news story misinformed?

CATSLE ROCK, Wash. (KPTV) -- The extreme sport of base jumping landed a 22-year-old Tacoma man in the hospital after his parachute allegedly failed to safely deploy off a bridge along the Toutle River east of Castle Rock.

Apparently 138 feet was not enough height to open Todd Pelisser's chute properly when he attempted his jump around 5 a.m. on Sunday. Pelisser suffered a punctured lung, spine and head injuries from the fall. There are conflicting reports about whether the parachute fully deployed.

A LifeFlight helicopter responded to scene and took Pelisser to Legacy Emanuel Hospital after his girlfriend called authorities. The first time base-jumper was upgraded Monday from critical to serious condition. Officials say the bicycle helmet Pelisser wore during the jump probably saved his life.

According to Pelisser's friends, he was actually supposed to jump off higher bridge farther up the river.

http://www.kptv.com/news/local/story...ent_id=1277306

Video: 28k
http://www.kptv.com/media/video/basej.asf

Video: 56k
http://www.kptv.com/media/video/basej_high.asf

[imported_mknutson]

1. Who knew this guy? How did he get the stupid idea that this could be good first jump?

2. Who the hell sold a rig to someone without knowing if they were an accident waiting to happen or not?

3. At least he was wearing a helmet! I make an ass out of myself everytime I am on a jump and see anyone without a helmet. There have been countless accidents I have seen or heard about first hand that a helmet has saved a live. I have also heard of several accidents, and been witness to ones where having no helmet ment a serious hospitol stay, and permenant head injury/loss of sight because of not wearing a helmet.

4. How can the BASE community stop new jumpers like this from continueing to injur/kill themselves and make the whole community look bad?

[3ringheathen]

I don't have first hand knowledge of the jump itself but conversed with him via e-mail 4-6 months ago.
With that caveat, here's what I know and think so far:

He had just started skydiving, I don't believe he'd yet earned an A license, and had no BASE jumps IIRC. I strongly encouraged him to make a couple hundred skydives, to focus on packing technique and canopy control, and in the mean time to come out to my DZ and introduce himself. I made it clear that he wasn't ready to BASE jump yet, as did another friend of mine in a separate conversation.
He e-mailed back that he'd gotten essentially the same advice from others and that he'd work on those skills and wait a while. I never heard from him again...until I saw the news report.

1) It is my *tentative* belief that he had vague knowledge of a jumpable bridge in the general area and mistakenly assumed that this was it when he drove accross it. A little knowledge is dangerous.
*If* this is correct, then he may have attempted to free fall based upon the fact that other people were taking 1-2 second delays off the bridge he presumably thought he was jumping.

2) I think he bought the rig on e-bay, and word is that it had a patch on the shrivel flap that rendered it non shrivelable (sp?). This was replaced so it wasn't a factor in the accident, but is indicative of the level of knowledge (or lack thereof) of the seller. Of course, he may very well have promised the seller that he'd get appropriate instruction before using the gear.

3) I like helmets, too.

4) Good question. I'd like to hear ideas on this, too.
I don't know what else I could have done. I offered the best advice and help I could and he chose to ignore it. I fear that the types of people drawn to BASE are sometimes also going to be the types of people that dismiss constructive criticism.

I hope he heals quickly and learns even quicker.
-Josh

[guest]

Yet another reason we should think about what we write on the BASE Board. We've said it time and time again, but hundreds, if not thousands, read this board every day and any advice that you give may be taken to heart by prospective jumpers out there.

I am going to give an example or two. I AM NOT trying to bash on the individuals that I am going to use in this example, so please do not get all fired up and off track from this thread.

Example #1: In a recent post, a relatively inexperienced jumper recomended taking a solid 4 second delay from a 500 +/- antenna. He gave this advice freely with nothing added on to it. As if it were standard to take this kind of delay from an antenna of that altitude. That advice can kill.

Example #2: A certain waterfall in a popular jumping spot is ok to jump and that it is not that advanced. "One man's oh **** is another's Oh Yea!" What happens when our 5 jump wonder who was just taught by his 20 jump wonder friend wants to get his "E" while he is there and decides to go for it? That advice can kill.

If you don't think it happens, history is proving you wrong.

Remember 4 or 5 years ago when a man went out in AZ and decided to try his first jump from a 350ft antenna with his sabre and a BUNGEE COLLAPSIBLE pilot chute? He was dead when he left the antenna. Someone that knew him said he was inspired to BASE jump after reading several posts on this Board.

How about the guy in Alaska several months ago that hucked a 110 to 120 ft building in Alaska for his very first jump?

And now this guy who had heard of an object somewhere in the area and decided to huck a 138ft bridge thinking it was it.

In any and every case, I'm not placing any blame whatsoever on any person or anything to do with this Board. Each person is responsible for his or her actions and as sad as it is to say, Darwinism usually has it's way. But we must be careful with what we say and how we say it on this Board. When I furst started reading this Board 6 years ago, people tried to give solid, sound advice...as if the person you were talking to was the guy standing next to you on the edge.

Let's think about what we say and how it may effect those that are reading it.

[Iiro]

My vote for the Darwin award!

Injured or not, he is an idiot.

[Rigalo]

Sorry mate, but I would not call him an idiot. A lot of the people who made ground breaking contributions to BASE, paid a price. We don't call them idiots. I was just watching a video of a dude doing an A, and going through the cables. Stupid stunt, and I ask myself why he should walk away. He is the idiot. Showing it on a video, and we call him a hero. Just because he walked away. Or just because he has a lot of jumps, and can propagate foolishness, and put it on video. Add some music, and if walks away, he is a hero. Bull!
The question still stands: "What to do to make BASE safer?" Frankly, you did not contribute much, and is not contributing to the future ones who will go his route. Instead, understand, and see why. What is wrong with the "Holy grail of sky diving?" You wont like this, but this is the truth, as seen from outside. To me, 200 jumps to enter BASE, is the worst, and maybe, the most damaging rule there is to BASE. The second fact of BASE is that there is a very few BASE jumpers, who would be willing to take in a newbie. Does not matter what his orientation is like. Newbie's are rarely welcome. To send someone of, and tell him to be back after he has done 200+ dives, is bad news. (Every BASE jumper to date has told me this. Full stop. No further input. Good bye.) BASE has so many breakable links in the chain, that the 200 jump rule over shadows it, and usually one of the other links break. Like a 138ft for first BASE. 500 jumps would probably not have saved his ass. Why? The weakest link breaks.
Proper instruction to newbie's, packing, canopy control, exit, jump conditions, locations, etc. should be carried over to the next generation, without the need to reinvent the wheel. Who will do it? The rare few? Take the one chap on this site. Mac. Done his course in USA, back in UK, and can't find a lot people to help him stay in it. He even post a frustrated message. Response? Go out and just do it. People just does not give a damn. Until...

[imported_Tom Aiello]

The idea behind a minimum recommended canopy experience before starting BASE is to make people train properly, and gain proper experience, before getting into the unforgiving BASE environment.

I don't think that scrapping that rule is a very good solution. I've seen several injuries created by poor canopy control on the part of a new BASE jumper with insufficient skydiving and hence, canopy control, experience.

200 jumps is supposed to be a pre-requisite, not a qualification. Certainly 500 jumps wouldn't have helped this guy. But if he had 200, he probably could have found instruction and that instruction would probably have prevented this mishap.

The problem appears to be:

1) People wanting to get into BASE are very eager.

2) Some people wanting to get into BASE have insufficient patience and self-control to meet the minimum pre-requisite requirements.

3) Experienced BASE instructors are unwilling to take on students who have not yet met the minimum pre-requisites.

There are reasons for (3) above, and they are good ones. Simply scrapping the pre-requisites would be a huge step backward.

Perhaps a better solution would be to offer to take the eager young prospective jumper along as ground crew whenever possible. This would put the experienced jumpers in closer supervision, and give them a chance to "encourage" further canopy practice. It would also constantly show the "rewards" of that practice (BASE) to the eager young jumper. It might however, create a number of problems such as: (a) eager young jumpers who know where the objects are and won't wait for their instructors ok, (b) soft-hearted instructors putting their inexperienced ground crew off objects.

What kind of further information were you looking for when the BASE jumpers told you to demonstrate your resolve and dedication by developing sufficient canopy skills? Send me an email, and maybe I can help answer some questions for you.

--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com

[Iiro]

Dude, are you're talking about Dwayne's flying trough antenna guy-wires. In my opinion that was pretty cool, and "yes!" he is my hero! :-)

He is one of the most experienced jumpers in the world and he KNEW he was able to pull it off.

That injured dude had no experience and he THOUGHT he could do a really low base-jump. Well, reality bites!

I agree with

"A lot of the people who made ground breaking contributions to BASE, paid a price."

, but i really see nothing "ground breaking contribution" in this. Just stupidity. Sorry!

[d-dog]

This guy, to my knowledge, never contacted anyone from the Portland BASE community prior to his unfortunate first jump attempt. He just happens to have a very welcoming and notoriously newbie-friendly group of jumpers less than three hours drive from his home town, and he simply didn't bother to contact us prior to jumping.

What this means is that he wasn't just told (by the Portland crew, anyway) "get 200 skydives and call me in the morning." While I do not disagree that this minimum number has a logical foundation in that it helps to inculcate minimal canopy control and gear awareness, I also want to make clear that the reason for this incident was NOT that he was turned away by his "local" jumping community - in this case, "local" meaning anything within a reasonable drive.

On the one hand, it could be argued that the Portland crew is so unassuming and modest that nobody's ever heard of us and a newbie would never be able to contact any of us on his/her own. On the other hand, there's the reality that we are loudmouth snots that are know the world over for being easier to contact than a low-level crack dealer. Ten minutes on the web would have put him in contact with half a dozen experienced jumpers ready to highlight the proper path for his introduction to BASE.

I, the least experienced member of the crew in Portland, field questions from newbies around the country (and sometimes the globe) on a weekly basis. Most often, my responses are "contact xxx, he is local and a good contact for you but contact me again if that doesn't work out," or "BASE is really dangerous think about it before you take the next step and here's some grisly stories to get you thinking and contact me when you want to talk more." However, I've NEVER just said "get 200 skydives or I won't waste my time talking with you. I think this is true for everyone in my crew down here, in fact I know it to be true from firsthand experience.

If someone doesn't do baseline research to identify his local jumping community, and gets hurt 'cause he goes out without proper mentorship (and doesn't even jump his intended object, fer chrissakes), it is hard to blame the "200 jump" rule for the incident.

The cause of this incident, my my mind, was a first-time jumper who was so careless about his jump that he didn't even find the right object - an object that happens to have a friggin' SIGN on it that says its name for all the world to see. That level of carelesness, frankly, is unlikely to be accompanied by otherwise sound judgment when it comes to BASE.

That's my four paws' worth, anyway.

Peace,

D-d0g
ddog@wrinko.com
www.wrinko.com

[imported_mknutson]

I totally agree with you Tom.

And I have more additional comments Rigalo:

First off, when new jumpers come to me to learn to jump, no matter how many jumps they have, I tell them to go to the DZ and get to a minimum of 200 jumps.

But, whether they have 200 or more jumps already, I still tell them to stop jumping s rice rocket and get on a big 7-cell.
Then I tell them to focus 100% on accuracy, canopy skills as defined by Consolidated Rigging's website. Then AFTER they finish that, I will take them on ground crew missions.

[h3]GUESS HOW MANY PEOPLE I HAVE ASKED TO PERFORM CANOPY SKILLS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BASE-JUMP, THAT HAVE ACTUALLY DONE THEM???????????[/H3]
[H1]ONE!!!!!!![/H1]
That would be Brian Stokes. I have had dozens and dozens of people asking me to help them get into it, and none that actually wanted to do any work to get there.

So the anxious jumpers are mostly lazy as well.

Not only that, but how the ##### do you tie "Ground Breaking" jumps, with just stupidity?

I have an email from someone who this guy asked advice from, and then nver kept asking.
There are 5,000+ documents and a user base of 15,000+ people just on this website alone.
Not to mention that there have been 22 years of ground breaking research. So the knowledge that 138' is ##### low is not a new discovery.

The fact that there is Bridge Day, 3+ manufacturer led first jump coarses and tens of thousands of reasources to ask real questions about, just denounces this crap about him being a pioneer.

Everyone I have known over the past 20 years that "I" consider a pioneer, was actually very intelligent and experienced in parachuting, rigging, flying etc...
Your example of pioneers are way off. A pioneer is someone who has the knowledge of what is currently possible, and the knowledge to calculate the unkown possibilities.

[3ringheathen]

You may not be comfortable with the same level of risk that the Aussie is, but that's completely different than doing something that is equally if not more dangerous without having a clue as to how or why it's dangerous. It's one thing to push the envelope with a thorough understanding of the skills required and the consequences of fu(cking up. It's quite another to just flick your self of some object at random without any real knowledge or experience with which to judge the relative risks and rewards.

I grant that 200 jumps is an arbitrary line, but you've got to draw the line *somewhere* unless you've got some compelling reason to make an exception.

You are absolutely correct when you say that there are few jumpers willing to take in a newbie.

This is as it should be.

The risks are managable with the proper approach, but you can't get around the fact that BASE jumping is extremely dangerous. For both legal and moral reasons, it's prudent to insist on some sort of standards before one takes on such an awsome responsibility.

> To send
>someone of, and tell him to be back after he has
>done 200+ dives, is bad news.

That's not what happened. Regardless, if someone can't do the most fundamental research, make a couple hundred jumps, or otherwise make some tangible effort to convey they're serious and ready, are you actually suggesting that one take them under your wing anyway? Thanks, but no thanks.

> Take the one chap on this
>site. Mac. Done his course in USA, back in UK,
>and can't find a lot people to help him stay in
>it. He even post a frustrated message. Response?
>Go out and just do it.

Apples and oranges. If TP had taken a course we'd have happily jumped with him. If he'd bothered to come to the dz, or follow up in any way, I'd have helped in any way I could, though that would have included recommending more skydiving first.
Hell, if he'd talked to me for 15 minutes he could have learned enough to avoid this mistake.
-Josh

[Rigalo]

1. I have no intention to scrap the 200 rule. What I am trying to say, is there should be a better guideline. If this was sufficient enough (and I know this is not the only requirement), then the question following would not have been asked wether there is 5000+ docs on this site or not: "How can the BASE community stop new jumpers like this from continuing to injur/kill themselves and make the whole community look bad?"

It was not me who asked this question.

2. People claims that they would have been willing to take him on, had he done the course. But, I gave you an example of a dude, on this board, who went the way to do the course, and does not find any body to help him. So it is easy to say we all would have, but current live data on this site shows otherwise.

3. The statements has no intent to anyone of you personal. But to enhance the course of BASE, as the initial question that was posted on this board, also tried to address. There are flaws. Your question verifies this.

4. What now? I believe, regardless of weather any of you take this personal or not, is that we can lay out more and better guidelines, to adhere to. Take for instance the "BASE Oriented Canopy Control" on CR's site. Very good. But a small guide line. And yes, there are a lot of doc's around. But this adds to the problem. They are all the places around.

5. Another problem, as one of you stated, is responsibility. I do feel that taking them with as a ground crew, is not the solution. But, as one said, it creates more problems. People turning soft and let unskilled people jump. With proper guidelines, help them to achieve these step by step goals.

Why can't we start to setup a comprehensive guideline, to get into base, regardless of how many jumps you have? A set "coarse". RAPS has done it with success, and enabled people to take responsibility for others.

Example. If I want to get into BASE, I then can approach an old timer, and he can safely help me to achieve intermediate, set goals to achieve, step by step, the same as RAPS is doing, at a DZ, and not half way around the globe. If I fail one of those, I simply do it over, till satisfied that I am able to comply the test.

To my amazement, I found some people on the RAPS course on jump 43, still on dumy rip pulls. Does the system allow them to progress. No. Not until they pass 3 dummy pulls in after each other. Simple. All people does not have the same abilities. Once such a comprehensive, all inclusive document has been set up, responsibility would be easier to take on for old timers.

Is it to hard, to try to find an answer to the question, that high-lighted an existing and life problem?

[imported_Tom Aiello]

>Example. If I want to get into BASE, I then can
>approach an old timer, and he can safely help me
>to achieve intermediate, set goals to achieve,
>step by step, the same as RAPS is doing, at a
>DZ, and not half way around the globe. If I fail
>one of those, I simply do it over, till
>satisfied that I am able to comply the test.
>
>To my amazement, I found some people on the RAPS
>course on jump 43, still on dumy rip pulls. Does
>the system allow them to progress. No. Not until
>they pass 3 dummy pulls in after each other.
>Simple. All people does not have the same
>abilities. Once such a comprehensive, all
>inclusive document has been set up,
>responsibility would be easier to take on for
>old timers.

Um. I'm sorry. What's RAPS? I'd guess it's some kind of all-inclusive international training program that's recognized and used by skydivers around the world? I've never heard of it before. Can you elaborate?

--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com

[imported_Tom Aiello]

>2. People claims that they would have been
>willing to take him on, had he done the course.
>But, I gave you an example of a dude, on this
>board, who went the way to do the course, and
>does not find any body to help him. So it is
>easy to say we all would have, but current live
>data on this site shows otherwise.

Problem: There is not a qualified BASE mentor available at every Drop Zone.

I don't really see a way to fix this. Eventually, I think the sport will grow and spread to the point where there are qualified people everywhere. But, it's not like there is some "BASE Command" that can deploy jumpers to insure adequate global coverage. Still, in most of the accidents, we are not dealing with this problem. Of three of the "no instruction" type accidents mentioned in this thread (Arizona, Washington, Alaska), two occured in localities which had available qualified instructors (Arizona and Washington). The third I am uncertain about (anyone know where that guy in Alaska was from?).

>4. What now? I believe, regardless of weather
>any of you take this personal or not, is that we
>can lay out more and better guidelines, to
>adhere to. Take for instance the "BASE Oriented
>Canopy Control" on CR's site. Very good. But a
>small guide line. And yes, there are a lot of
>doc's around. But this adds to the problem. They
>are all the places around.

Problem: No standardized curriculum.

Agreed. Several people, notably Mick (take a bow, Mr. Knutson) have tried to work up an instructional curriculum for international use. Unfortunately, BASE just isn't organized enough to make this an easy (some would say possible) task. The best efforts at a standardized curriculum, with a central organization referring to local instructors, are in Australia (where the A.B.A. is decades ahead of the rest of the world's BASE organizations, thanks to the tremendous efforts of many Australian jumpers). And still, pretty much anyone could bypass all their safeguards and do exactly what this guy in Washington did.

Problem: No organized training body.

Before we can have a standardized curriculum, we need an organized training body. And while there have been some efforts made in that direction, they are not far enough along, in my opinion, to make the imposition of a standardized curriculum feasible. Even further ahead is the training and certification of instructors (outside Australia, again) who can take the curriculum back to other places.

>5. Another problem, as one of you stated, is
>responsibility. I do feel that taking them with
>as a ground crew, is not the solution. But, as
>one said, it creates more problems. People
>turning soft and let unskilled people jump. With
>proper guidelines, help them to achieve these
>step by step goals.

Problem: No institutional support for instructors.

I think the training and certification of instructors is needed to address these issues. But before that can happen, we need more buy in from more jumpers to a central organization. This cannot be achieved overnight, or automatically. The nature of our sport is such that getting jumpers to buy in to an organization will require that the leadership of the organization be dynamic, well known, and respected enough to draw other jumpers. As of yet, we have not achieved this on an international level. It is, in fact, quite rare to achieve this in any large area (so, we have yet to see an E.U. wide BASE organization, for example, and attempts at a U.S. organization have been ongoing for years--and greatly hampered by our government's generally hostile position on the sport).

>Why can't we start to setup a comprehensive
>guideline, to get into base, regardless of how
>many jumps you have?

I'd love to. I know that Mick has tried to, and that many people have helped work on his curriculum. But, in short, the answer is: because we don't have the organization to make that guideline go anywhere.

Before we can create a comprehensive guideline, we need to have better organization of the experienced jumpers. So in that sense, we have failed (so far). Lots of good people have spent a great deal of time working on this, many to the point of burn out. I think we will achieve it sometime in the future. But it will be a long, hard, winding road leading all the way back to Carl Boenish, and going through many people's stewardship. And we are not there yet.

>Is it to hard, to try to find an answer to the
>question, that high-lighted an existing and life
>problem?

It's not too hard. But it is very hard. And it will take time. In my opinion, to (mis-)quote Martian Bob, we need our Martin Luther King. It's going to take someone (or a small group of people) who is incredibly dedicated, known and respected to jumpers in a wide geographic area (probably starting small and then growing), and willing to sacrifice most of the rest of their life. I see maybe five people in BASE today with the necessary stature, and most of them have already given so much that we cannot ask more of them.

Perhaps you, Rigalo, can be that leader. Care to give it a shot?

--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com

Please pardon the relative disorganization of this posting. It's now 9:15, and I've got to make a three hour drive by noon. I'll try to edit it into a coherent form later tonight.

[MT]

Mick (and everyone else),

I genuinely don't know the answer to these questions and mean well by asking them, take them as you see them.

How many skydives did you have before your first BASE jump?

What was your first BASE jump off?

How many canopy control jumps did you have?

Were you slightly more reckless when you started BASE jumping than you are today?

I only ask because I see so many righteous skydivers and BASE jumpers who took plenty of risks early in their sport who now think the entire mentality of first timers should change because of their experience. The fact is that this sport attracts a lot of people who find the DZ too restrictive and consequently there is a slight chance of getting sole operators in this sport.

I do wish that all jumpers played safe and learnt from all the previous jumps that have been done. In reality though there are always going to be those who try to reinvent the wheel, ignore advice and generally do what the pioneers did in the first instance. This doesn't make them pioneers.

This guy is an idiot and one of many that will enter the sport the wrong way.

On the 200 jump rule. I did my first jump with 89 skydives but a very sound mindset, I'm not advocating this reckless behaviour just being honest, I had about 30 accuracy jumps on my BASE canopy at that stage, the jump was at bridge day. I still reckon the 200 jump guideline / rule should stand and let it be on the head of the injured guy who mills into a tree in a gorge. I have to say though I know guys with 1000+ skydives who I would stand beside at the exit point.

C-Ya,

Martin