Cliff jumps for beginnners...

[guest]

Here's food for thought.

If we outlawed BASE for beginners in Kjerag Norway, where BASE is accepted as a legal activity on all the cliffs aside from Trollvaggen, where would the beginners go? My assumption is that they would venture to the Romsdalen or Ichesdalen area to make their first BASE jump. Sure these cliffs are one or two more seconds to impact, but there is currently no organization for "tourist BASE jumpers" - courses of instruction, gear for rent, etc.

Do the Norwegians in this area want to have this responsibility? That is my question.

Remember, if we outlaw first timers in Kjerag, the first timers will look for new sites....

JIM J
:-)

P.S. - In regards to Miche's post about the BASE rescue teams - "you said it all - and thanks."

In regards to Tracy's postings - "you speak only wise words..."

[imported_Tom Aiello]

>If we outlawed BASE for beginners in Kjerag Norway, ... where would the beginners go?

I would hope that they would go to the legal span in the Western U.S., or the span in Southern Europe, and make enough jumps there (in a logical progression from hand held or PCA to stowed) to ensure that they could exit stable from a cliff.

>My assumption is that they would venture to the ... area to make their first BASE jump.

I don't think your assumption is accurate. Since those areas are far less publicized (especially among American skydivers--who are rapidly becoming our riskiest demographic), a suggested minimum of 25 or 30 jumps would probably result in more span training prior to a trip to Norway, Italy, or wherever their eventual vacation plans take them.

I know that the NBA has made great efforts to make Kjerag a safer place for the hordes of foreigners who visit. And I respect and appreciate the work that everyone there has done, and continues to do. But I still think that a solid object of any altitude is inappropriate for a beginner.

--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com

[guest]

Tom and company,

<I don't think your assumption is accurate. Since those areas are far less publicized (especially among American skydivers--who are rapidly becoming our riskiest demographic), a suggested minimum of 25 or 30 jumps would probably result in more span training prior to a trip to Norway, Italy, or wherever their eventual vacation plans take them.>

About 10 percent of the first time jumpers here at Kjerag are from America.

<I would hope that they would go to the legal span in the Western U.S., or the span in Southern Europe, and make enough jumps there (in a logical progression from hand held or PCA to stowed) to ensure that they could exit stable from a cliff.>

Me too. But, most skydivers around the world are under the impression that if they can jump from a plane at less than 1000 meters, then they can jump off a mountain that is 1000 meters. The reality is that the Kjerag cliff most suitable for beginners is less than 500 meters to impact. Would most skydivers jump from a plane at that altitude if there was a solid object behind them? I doubt it.

Look back to Trollvaggen in the 80's and you will learn how many skydivers or inexperienced BASE jumpers ventured up there for their first jump. In the area of Romsdalen, Ichesdalen, etc. there are many large jumpable walls...that are legal and well known around the world - especially in Europe.

Mandating first time jumpers (skydivers) to meet required minimums would likely push the ignorant skydiver who wants to make a BASE jump to the walls north of Kjerag. That is my belief and the belief of the Norwegian BASE Federation.

The goal here is to keep BASE legal in all of Norway (unfortunately of course the exception of Trollvaggen where making it legal again is the goal).

More food for thought....

JIM J
:-)

[imported_Tom Aiello]

>About 10 percent of the first time jumpers here
>at Kjerag are from America.

Do you know what the percentages are for injuries and fatalities?

It might just be my skewed (American) perspective, but it seems like an inordinate percentage of the accidents on European sites (compared with jumps made) are visiting Americans.

--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com

[guest]

Yeah Tom,

It's your skewed American perspective. Being in America and only using an American internet forum, you just don't hear about the Europeans that get injured or die...

JIM J

:-)

[guest]

a lot of the europeans read this board and actively contribute...just because you dont hear of any bounces doesnt mean that theyre happening...:*

[d-dog]

>I would hope that they would go to the legal
>span in the Western U.S., or the span in
>Southern Europe, and make enough jumps there (in
>a logical progression from hand held or PCA to
>stowed) to ensure that they could exit stable
>from a cliff.

Just a nitpick, Tom, but no progress system is going to "ensure" that a jumper exits stable from a cliff, whether on their first cliff jump or their 100th. I am sure you really intended to say that the progression would lessen the chances of a fatal unstable exit on a jumper's early cliff jumps.

Even with that, who decides what an acceptable level of risk is? How many of us "old-timers" (inside joke) started off with dozens and dozens of handheld jumps from legal spans? Cripes, how many of us did our first cliff jump off an E taller than 800 feet? Not bloody many!

I certainly see your point regarding skydivers descending on Kjerag as a "beginner's cliff" with NO prior training in BASE. However, this wasn't the background with the most recent fatality.

The fact of the matter is that BASE is dangerous. One's first base jump in ANY category that involves more risk and technical factors is always going to be more dangerous than the previous jumps. We can minimize these risks, and certainly should not simply ignore them as that does jeopardize access to all other jumpers.

However, at the end of the day, risk is part of base. Every BASE jumper chooses the level of risk she is willing to accept. So long as a jumper is informed of those risks (and not jumping on the basis of total ignorance of course), then it is her call to decide what risk works for her. We've ALL taken risks on some jumps that would make other jumpers soil their pants; some of us have been fortunate enough to survive these jumps with some scars and maybe a bit more wisdom (speaking from personal experience). Others were not so fortunate, though that does not make them somehow inferior by definition - there is an element of pure luck at play, lest we all forget in our rush to pat ourselves on the back for being so clever.

Anyway, I generally agree with your thesis here though for me the foundational facts lead me to a different conclusion: ensure new jumpers have the knowledge and guidance to understand the risks they are taking, and then place in THEM the responsiblity for deciding what risk level is acceptable. When things go wrong, recognize that responsiblity lies with the JUMPER, not with their teachers or the government or the people they had breakfast with or the person who sold them their rig or. . .

Peace,

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

[imported_Tom Aiello]

The people I am worried about fall (in my mind) into the category of "don't really understand the risk."

I have met numerous skydivers whose primary contact with BASE was through Aerial Extreme (which primarily operates at the DZ's I visit), and who could all assure me that they understood the risks, and that those risks were no greater than the risks of doing a hop and pop from an airplane (generally on the strength of an experienced BASE jumper telling them so--as well as telling them some other things, like that skydiving rigs were acceptable BASE gear). All of these people would tell you, if asked, that they understood the risks. In my opinion, none of them did.

I believe that a longer BASE apprenticeship would entail greater exposure to other BASE jumpers, BASE gear, and BASE in general, and help to bring them to a better understanding of the level of risk they would assume on a cliff jump.

In my opinion, the problem is that these skydivers did not understand the risks, precisely because they had a professional from Aerial Extreme or Aerial Focus standing there understating the risk and requirements. When I am feeling charitable, I admit that this may simply be a disagreement in principle between myself and Mark Lichtle or Tom Sanders. I do not feel that Kjerag, Arco, or Angel Falls with skydiving gear is a good first, third, or tenth BASE jump, while they do (In point of fact, I do not believe that skydiving gear should ever be taken off a fixed object, while several professional guides allow it, as does Bridge Day). When I am feeling less charitable, I tend to speculate that their willingness to expose their clients to greater risk without raising their awareness of it is motivated by monetary factors (I have noted that all of their staff jumpers use real BASE specific gear, but that they let their clients jump skydiving gear).

Bottom line: Risk is only personal if you are aware of it.

I do not believe that the majority of American Skydivers taking guided BASE trips are aware of their level of risk. I believe that several of the tour operators (not BR--I'm not talking about a specific incident here) understate the risk, and I can only speculate as to why.

--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@mac.com