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.
Agreed. Maybe yer the one who's like, so smart and stuff.
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 &-)
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
no... and it just isn't practical. there wasn't enough time... where would they keep them all? how would they sort through them all and find the right one that fit them? there's no way they could get fastened in in time. not to mention the flames everywhere! 50,000 jumping at once in such a small area would be awful... they are going to have to find some other way of making sure this doesn't happen again. i would have been a jumper though ;-)
Don't work in buildings higher than 10 stories. That's the max height of hook-n-ladder trucks.
That's my plan.
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
Papa kilo, that is the best suggestion so far. I'll do it!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks