From: bob@pta.pyramid.com.au (Robert Vernon)
Subject: Re: You're dead -- unless you pull (was Re: Tiny Broadwick
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Sydney
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:03:58 GMT

In article <7334@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com> yzarn@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Philip Yzarn de Louraille) writes:
>In article <1142.2AD1986C@ehsnet.fidonet.org> SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.fidonet.org (SKYDIVE) writes:
>>
>>But equipment failure is the only 'real' malfunction.  Human failure is just human failure, not a true malfunction.
>
>I more or less agree with you but the point is that on most cases one
>cannot truly be sure.

I've got to agree with Philip here.  I know he doesn't agree with the
statement I once said here that "modern squares WILL NOT malfunction if
everything is done perfectly".  The problem with that statement and one
of the reasons why I think he disagrees with it is that everything is
not always perfect.  People do pack incorrectly, people do jump cruddy
gear, people do dump unstable, people even design bad equipment
sometimes.  If you discount any malfunction that was caused by human
error, then (in my opinion) you wouldn't have any malfunctions left to
compare statistics about.

>For instance: you twist your belly band and can't pull your hand-deploy.
>Some would call that equipment failure as the equipment failed to tell the
>user that it was put wrong.

Belly bands have been out of favour for many years because of this.
If all the belly-band incidents had been ignored because it was
attributed to user error then we would still be jumping them and
people would still be twisting them and killing themselves.  Those who
still use belly-band throw-aways, religously check for twists as part
of their gear check sequence (at least I hope you do).  The only
reason why they do this is because of the stats we have showing that
this is a common malfunction problem.

>For instance: a bad body position for a fraction of an instant at a
>crucial time during the deployment sequence may result in a malfunction:
>how can one really say that they had a true malfunction or not? It is a
>judgment call.

Gear is often redesigned due to incidents like this.  As time goes on,
the gear is getting more and more reliable regardless of body
position.  It can only continue to get more reliable, if the incidents
are reported with as much information as possible.

>When people are asking how safe is the sport, do you think it is fair to
>tell them that the equipement rarely fails? Not if you do not add that
>most malfunctions are pilot errors.

Wuffos always ask about how safe the gear is.  I think they have the
impression of streamering roman candles from all the war movies they've
seen.  Its not helped by the media which usually simply reports "both
parachutes failed to work" without any description of why.  I always
tell my wuffo friends that the equipment is fairly reliable.  The main
will fail about one in a thousand for some reason.  But most deaths are
caused by the jumper failing to use his reserve on an otherwise normal
malfunction.  After a few more questions, some people get scared off
thinking they won't be able to handle the situation if it happened to
them.  And thats fine with me.  I don't want anyone, especially my
friends, taking up the sport if they don't at least have confidence in
themselves.  Bounces waiting to happen.

>                                    Yet those are the ones who kill the
>most and hence cannot be ignored.

Absolutely.

>When someone gets killed, someone gets killed. It is academic to say that
>his equipment performed well....

A malfunction is a malfunction is a malfunction.  If you end up on
reserve, then put a tick against your name under the #malfunction
column.  Doesn't matter the reason.  And while you are at it, fill out
the incident book and make sure the DZ reports it to your national
body.  Someone, somewhere will find a use for your statistic and maybe
come up with a way to prevent it in the future.


Bob V!