Not that watching the safety video would have helped in this case, as the instructor was not properly trained and vetted in the first place.
Still, it shows the careless attitude of the business, and the skewed priorities of profit over people.
The rules are written in blood, and lack of compliance tends to be self regulating.
They provide insurance in exchange for following the rules, which generally does what it needs to do.
But anyone crazy enough could pay a pilot to let them jump out and not follow any of the licensing rules, and there isn’t much that would happen until something goes wrong and lawsuits start flying.
1. Pilot still follow FAA, and there are chapters about skydiving operations in FAA for pilots.
2. USPA Members have to follow USPA rules even if they jump not in USPA DropZones.
3. The gear manufactures (especially Sigma) have their own set of rules for using their gear.
Other than skydivers who want to be YouTube famous, there are not that many that do stupid shit.
My guess both will be pursued only if there is a lawsuit.
Ways they could lose their license for recklessness I guess, or if they were doing something dumb and someone landed on someone in the ground.
But USPA’s rules get followed because they’re a good idea and it’s easier that way, not because someone is going to jail or losing an FAA license if they don’t.
Remember ‘recommends’ != ‘required’, and ‘should’ != ‘must’. If it’s not required or a must, it’s not a rule. It’s a suggestion.
In these cases an exceptionally good one, but caveat emptor. Hard to find a clearer example of ‘obvious inherent risk’, after all, and regulations tend to focus on protecting those that had no idea, or innocent bystanders.
Even training for pilots on how to drop skydivers is a should, not a must. Which considering how much someone hanging off the side of the plane changes aerodynamics, and how unusual it is to suddenly lose hundreds of lbs of weight on a GA aircraft in flight, is actually pretty amazing. You’d have to be really crazy to do it without it, but eh.
I have yet to meet anyone who didn’t have any idea once the jump plane door opened.
Something about that roar of the crisp air at altitude clarifies the mind. Or shuts it down entirely, depending on how one is wired. I’ve never seen someone go out the door ignorant, either way.
Notably one of the musts for pilots is that anything dropped from a plane won’t strike something it isn’t supposed to. Even if the thing dropped is a human. And the odds of someone hitting an innocent bystander on the ground without trying are pretty low.
I’m not current now, but I did hold a USPA C license for a long time, and had my share of close calls.
And let’s not forget about BASE jumping….
In USPA there are a lot of "recommended", but most of the larger dropzones enforcing recommended to required, for a long time. But yes, if we are taking about Lodi, they aren't USPA dropzone. So the only thing they follow are FAR Part 105 and manufacture requirements for Sigma rigs (tandems), which are pretty strict. There is another question why they don't follow those requirements, and why the government is not stricter about it.
> I’m not current now, but I did hold a USPA C license for a long time
It is nice that you have experience, and some understanding. I am with 1,500 jumps. I feel like new in a sport, still learning from people with 10,000+ jumps. Unfortunately, all of those licenses don't really matter much, the same as pilot instructors are usually private pilots with only 200 hours of flight, considering that you can get your license after 40 hours.
> and had my share of close calls
Definitely, I have seen with my eyes not once close calls, not once I have seen people being injured, and unfortunately witnessed a few fatalities. But I see that also while I am getting outside the house.
And BASE jumping is not a skydiving related sport. Those are two different sports. There is also paragliding, speed flying, and a lot more, and yes, they use fabric over the head, but those are not the same sports.
The FAA only cares about parachute types for reserves.
They only regulate actual jumping in a handful of situations all involving controlled airspace and large crowds or near/in clouds. Solo jumpers are not interesting for them as long as no one on the ground gets killed and property not destroyed.
No special training or certification is required by the FAA for skydivers (except tandem instructors), and for pilots.
Training types are extremely thinly regulated (really just a couple of gotchas to keep aircraft from crashing).
And base jumpers started as skydivers originally, and the original equipment was skydiving equipment.
Different sport now? Yes.
You should read it, it’s pretty short. The CFR I linked summed it up pretty good.
If there is a specific area you think I’m wrong, please do point it out.
You said - it is not regulated: I corrected, that there are FAR chapters about parachuting in the USA, actually SIM has all of them highlighted https://www.uspa.org/sim/9 and USPA exists with a set of rules and recommendations. Ah, and FAR mentions TSO, which are the requirements for the gear to be used for skydiving (TSO approved rigs and reserve canopies). I do believe this is more than enough for us skydivers.
Do you want more regulations? But why Skydiving? Why not skiing, kite surfing, surfing, mountain biking? Have you looked at the "regulations" about water sports? Why are those not regulated? Those other sports don't have injuries? How many people are getting hurt by other skiers on the mountain?
…In the USA. In Europe it is a rather different story.
We took an instructional vhs course for a few hours and were allowed to jump solo with no previous experience.
The airplane hangar had a ‘wall of death’ that went to the ceiling listing everyone that died there.
I was afraid of heights at the time as well.
That said, it was a great experience and have no regrets.
Anyhow, all went well, and I received a heluva rush. But that was it for me, didn't want to do it again.
P.S. if you climbed out onto the peg, you weren't coming back in. The instructors made it clear that it was too dangerous to try, and the airplane couldn't land with you on the peg. So they showed us a piece of pipe they'd use if you tried to climb back in or wouldn't let go.
The old protocol was just to cut the line and let them deploy as normal but now they have a whole device to try to pull them back in. I've heard sometimes the damage is much worse cause you spend more time in the air and hitting the plane. Saw a video of it once where the device took forever to deploy and you just heard a constant banging from the back. Sounded horrible.
I guess this system was started because someone has their line cut and was already unconscious and didn't survive the landing or was seriously injured.
Not every fear needs to be pathologized. It's good to hear freefall from miles above the earth.
I mean... "I cut my finger off to deal with the fear of it" is a ridiculous statement, but for some reason it's okay here.
I'm proud to fear skydiving .
The article is a little vague about the failure but I'm a skydiver and this might not be the instructor's fault. I know that sounds insane but hear me out.
The article says "main and reserve parachutes had tangled, preventing either from opening". This could mean a few things:
1. Neither chute was ever deployed - "total malfunction" on main and reserve where they're both stuck in the container (backpack thing holding the parachute).
An instructor following perfect protocol with a poorly packed reserve would have died here, and they likely did not pack the reserve themselves. Reserve chutes are packed by a master rigger who's required to apply a seal and update a little paper record on each rig indicating when it was packed and by whom. These are meant to be checked before you're allowed to get on a plane. Reserves are (thankfully) rarely opened until they're due to be repacked based on time. There's overlap between master riggers and instructors who handle tandem jumps, but the reserve was most likely not packed by that instructor.
2. Main deployed but has a "partial malfunction" (out but not fully open), reserve then deployed and tangles with the main.
This would be the instructors fault - in this case they should cut away the main before deploying the reserve.
3. Main has a "total malfunction" where it doesn't come out at all, instructor deploys reserve, then main deploys late and tangles with the reserve.
This one is inconclusive but probably not the instructor's fault. Protocol here is don't waste time cutting your main because you're falling fast with no drag from a partially deployed chute and the main is unlikely to ever open. The reason it could still be the instructors fault is if they had a chance to cut away the main after it came out and failed to do so before they tangled.
As I recall, free fall is about 120 mph, while a tangled chute can cut it to 60 mph. I know this from a newspaper article about a man who survived a tangled chute fall onto pavement.
But yes, a partial deploy will slow you down somewhat.
And mildly related there's this website about free fall survival that I find fascinating:
I’ve done a “solo” skydive where you jump out with 2 instructors and then they pull the line and you’re on your own. As a part of the training, we just had one motion (if I’m remembering right) to jettison the main and switch to reserve. Is that a potential configuration or do I have it wrong?
In my hypothetical failure case you referenced it wouldn’t help because the instructor didn’t cut away the main - they went straight to their dedicated reserve handle.
Cutting away should automatically deploy the reserve, but deploying the reserve from the reserve handle doesn’t automatically cut away the main.
Nobody tells students anything about the RSL at this stage, just teaches them basic Emergency Procedure - "Look at Red, Grab Red, Look at Silver, Pull-Punch Red, Pull Silver".
The square canopy had one end closed off by lines looped over the top of the chute, perhaps 75% was still inflated. The instructor decided to keep the main chute.
There was still significant drag, but no steering on the closed side, so we just spiralled into the ground at relatively high speed. The wind calculation was correct, so we hit a soft ploughed field.
Needless to say - we survived :)
I have never skydived and have no interest in doing so but from reading the other comments it seems like there's another possible scenario:
Main deploys badly. They jettison the chute which deploys the reserve--but the jettisoned chute is hung up on something, doesn't actually jettison.
The same probably can't be said for most skydivers (I assume most are first timers ticking off a bucket list item.)
Most people are not professional ship drivers, and so big ships are much harder to recognize as "bad" just by looking at it.
And the entire world is filled with "required, but ignored" waivers and such, and people just kind of "do what the professionals are saying."
The point isn't about if you think something is dangerous, but how dangerous it is. There are a bunch of near accidents and minor accidents because people fail to realize their limitations and the vehicle dynamics. I constantly see people texting, tailgating, and not understanding the law (right of way isuses). Many people are wildly overconfident, showing they don't really know the risks and engage in risky behavior that they aren't even aware of.
Also, drivers know all about near misses. Their propensity to near miss is based off their knowledge that major accidents are quiet infrequent for most drivers (most will never be in a life-threatening crash, and minor crashes are a "once in several years" occassion for most drivers.)
Yet stereotypes are exactly what you're talking about when it comes to anecdotal evidence in your prior comment. Most people don't think about the what ifs, or possible outcomes. They're making stereotypes based on the experiences they do have. Stuff like how dangerous driving in the snow is if your a southerner or a northerner.
"Also, drivers know all about near misses."
I've seen some rather oblivious drivers who didn't realize how close they came to injury or death. The statistics for either activity isn't particularly helpful because individual scenarios can be wildy different.
"Personal experience aren't stereotypes."
How do you think stereotypes start? It's personal experience coupled with group think. A perfect example is how people think nice sunny days are safer for driving. Yet in reality they are risky because people pay less attention and drive faster than in the rain. So yes, there are common stereotypes of the safety of various conditions.
This is why we have vehicle safety regulations.
The regulations don't matter if people don't know them or choose not to follow them.
The UK driving test takes more than twice as long and involves way more maneuvers - though it looks like they've dropped three point turns and reversing left around a corner according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_driving_test#Ma...
Unless they're providing skydiving to young children or the severely mentally disabled - which as I understand things, they aren't.
At least 10-25% of drivers I see in the road are constantly on their phone. So it’s definitely not enforced enough to deter that.
Additionally, enforcement is extremely weak, and even with these lesser penalties, police will do everything they can to avoid dealing them out, even when they apply.
It would be ridiculous if we locked up the people who happened to kill others while not driving particularly dangerously. Justice is not being served by locking up the unfortunate unlucky sods while everyone else is engaging in the exact same risky behavior. It's why cops are unlikely to go after someone who say killed someone while speeding a not crazy amount; the thousands of drivers that go by every other day are doing the same thing. But they will throw the book at the statistical outliers of dangerous driving.
But if those folks couldn’t drive in the US with the way things are currently setup socioeconomically, everyone would have a huge problem.
And it usually isn’t that big of a deal - or at least emotionally doesn’t feel like an unreasonable risk, which is all society cares about.
There's obv something wrong at the The Lodi Parachute Center, but bars onsite to the remaining private airports are common. eg Lake Paris. "We did not witness the pilot consuming alcohol" is an insinuation, indicating a lack of supporting facts.
https://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/
These are a blip. I don't see the reason for outrage. Take risks and sometimes it doesn't work out. I rather the govt spend resources somewhere else.
It's interesting you focus on the alcohol claim but not any of the accusations mentioned in the article that would have gotten people killed.
I am a certified FAA Rigger, 1500 jumps, used to be an AFF Instructor.
(I will make this my default Yelp review for local restaurants...)
1500 jumps in 5 years (not that much), 1 reserve ride, one twisted ankle in early 100 jumps.
I'm not so sure about that. I knew the statistics, and I paid full attention in the pre-jump class. A colleague of mine who went with us did not pay attention and shattered one leg from the ankle to the hip. Fortunately, he made a full recovery.
I don't know why any intelligent person would regard jumping out of an airplane as "safe".