Why Are So Many Base Jumpers Dying? (2016)
nationalgeographic.com
nationalgeographic.com
I was working right next to this tragic Base jump - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ueli_Gegenschatz - we used to eat lunch in the Sunrise Tower and one day there's a really weird vibe in the room because 30 minutes earlier this guy had Base jumped from the roof and crashed; he was still alive when they took him to hospital but died later.
The screwed up part of the story according to what I've _heard_ - and which didn't really get well reported - the wind conditions that day were unpredictable. He shouldn't have been jumping at all, but decided to anyway because Red Bull - the sponsor - plus the press were there and he didn't want to disappoint everyone by cancelling. So you could argue it was his decision, but was it really? There should at least be some independent referee that makes the final call on stuff like this.
Should all this equipment really be thought of as safety gear? Because it encourages me to take risks I wouldn't otherwise take. Really it's danger gear.
My instructor is insistent that I learn all my flying fundamentals in a 1940s-era Aeronca Champion (stick and rudder, no flaps, no electronic instruments) on the theory that it's much better to learn the fundamentals with the least help possible so that when we add complexity with things like an artificial horizon, VSI, and eventually an EFIS and autopilot, I won't have to depend on those tools to fly.
On the one hand, my flying now is certainly less safe than if I was learning with all those modern safety advancements, but on the other hand I'm learning how to fly purely with an airspeed indicator, an altimeter, a tach, and my own eyes. It's a little scarier, but if god forbid I ever had an electrical system die on me mid flight I can still fall back on my basics.
Ultimately, safety systems paradoxically make you more likely to make bad choices if you don't understand what they do. Autopilot doesn't make you a safer pilot, it allows you to reduce some of the load while you're flying by reducing the amount of fine motor skill you need to engage. A GPS doesn't make you a safer pilot, it allows you to reduce some of the load by not having to fiddle with VORs or rely on ground references for navigation as much. But you have to be ready for either of those systems to fail and still finish your flight safely. I feel much more confident that I could do that now than friends of mine who learned on fancy brand new aircraft with glass cockpits.
But it's so much easier to plug in the co-ordinates or name of your destination into the good old GPS, that I fear 99.9% of pilots do their navigation that way.
But what happens if your GPS malfunctions somewhere along the way? Can you get to your destination by map and wristwatch?
This is not new. Look at Roald Amundsen and Reinhold Messner. They managed to achieve many firsts and reached an old age. But how many of their contemporaries died? Messner even lost his brother on one expedition they did together even though both were considered to be among the best climbers. I wonder how much survivorship bias is in there.
We all take risks every time we get out of bed, when we cross the streets or driving a car. I can totally understand that some enjoy these kind of experiences when they are taking much greater risks. I don't have a problem if they want to live fast and die fast.
But what about the people they affect with their lifestyle? If you have kids and you still put yourself into these dangerous situations, you're just a selfish asshole IMO.
Do you need an address to send me the Pulitzer?
Most of these thrill seekers are in reality(or also) showmen, attention seekers. If there's anything they like more than jumping, it is being watched doing it, recording the jump, discussing every detail of it with as many people as possible.
Sponsors are just reinforcing that component of the sport, and it attracts wannabes like flies.
He's in a scene in that Doc (sorry for just being in german):
this is why. Constant pushing of the envelope in a incredibly dangerous sport. Judging how fast you are falling and whether you'll end up a meter above or below your target is hard and it probably cannot be predicted in a persistent manner. One time you'll get a gust of wind that pushes you slightly off target and you catch a rock wall or a tree at 100mph+.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatalities_due_to_wing...
"Soloing" is the right name for climbing on your own, and even then, you can solo with artificial protection (although that's rare, and less safe than free climbing).
Dean Potter died wingsuit flying. Michael Reardon (most likely) Drowned. Dan Osman died rope jumping. Brad Gobright rapelled off the end of his rope.
Alain Robert,at 58 is still active and has free soloed 170 highrises, he's been doing about 10 a year for the last several years.
Alex Honnold, Peter Croft, Catherine Destiville, Steph Davis, Hazel Findlay and Brette Harrington are all storied free soloists who are still with us.
John Bachar died in a ropeless climbing fall in his 50s, but most of his notable climbs he did while in his 20s. Austin Howell, a lesser known soloist died in a climbing fall a couple years ago. Those are the only 2 I know of who died free soloing.
Now, the world of extreme alpinism, that's a different story. Dying all the time. 5 of the top guys died over the span of less than 3 years, in a cluster of incidents a few years ago.
I'd say the question begs the answer!
That's not really true though, no? It's just a form of gliding. It's absolutely not human-powered flight.