What risk is OK? (Was - Medical issue just before exit - Oct 2021)

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Again, it isn't really a part of the regular "sport". Anymore than flying on a Branson branded rocket is like a flight on Virgin. Bad press? No such thing, just make sure you spell you name right. But I can see why many people will look at the dichotomy between what Tom always preached about tandem safety and the extremes he was willing to go to himself and see a degree of hypocrisy.  

I disagree. Any planned Skydives done for money at a Dropzone are indisputably a part of the sport. Be they hop and pops from 4K or free falls from 10K to 41K makes no difference. Each requires proper preparation by the business and the purchase of a ticket by the customer. They were selling slots to skydive, plain and simple. And until they had developed systems and a safety plan proven out by repetitive test flights or flying many loads of reasonably experienced up jumpers they should have not, in my opinion, been offering student jumps.

15 minutes ago, billvon said:

... "what sort of risk is OK for passengers vs skydivers to take?" is not really relevant to what happened on Tom Noonan's jump - especially since the passenger was OK. ...

OTOH, of all the people on the plane, I think Tom would be the last one you would think would be the fatality. That he died and the pax didn't was very likely just chance; it very easily could have been the pax. So IMO, his survival shouldn't really change how we view the situation. (And at least the disputed account claimed the pax was incapacitated by the hypoxia.)

1 hour ago, Divalent said:

OTOH, of all the people on the plane, I think Tom would be the last one you would think would be the fatality. That he died and the pax didn't was very likely just chance; it very easily could have been the pax. So IMO, his survival shouldn't really change how we view the situation. (And at least the disputed account claimed the pax was incapacitated by the hypoxia.)

i don't know if i would agree with that yet.  how old was he?  how about the others?  from one of the comments in the other thread, a flaw in an artery wall would be deadly in this situation.  not knowing the cause of death or anything else, it is just speculation, but had he gotten out with a passenger and died before getting the drogue out, the passenger could have likely died as well.

18 hours ago, billvon said:

I split this thread off from the Incidents thread, because "what sort of risk is OK for passengers vs skydivers to take?" is not really relevant to what happened on Tom Noonan's jump - especially since the passenger was OK.

Personally I think as long as they are informed of the risks, and consent, then it's up to them with how much risk they want to take.  The one area you have to be very careful about (IMO) is the "informed" part, because most people don't understand skydiving/aviation risks, and people have become very well trained to ignore all the warnings in the waiver.  Not sure how to deal with that.

The point isnt that the passenger was ok. The point is that the passenger was really fucking close to dying a really fucking horrible death - even more horrible than your everyday average tandem fatality. They paid a tremendous amount of money to have someone keep them safe and alive while they got their super duper extreme adventure and claim to being "the first".  

It's Disneyland not Death Valley!

But, hey at least they were the first tandem passenger to pass out at 41k and not get to jump...

If it's okay to take whuffos to extreme altitudes if they are informed of the risks, then why have rules like no turns over 90 on final for tandems?  Passenger signed a waiver, they want the adventure, they should be given what they want regardless of the risk to them, the sport, the dz...

Nobody gonna sue. They were informed, they signed a waiver. <eyeroll>

18 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

And until they had developed systems and a safety plan proven out by repetitive test flights or flying many loads of reasonably experienced up jumpers they should have not, in my opinion, been offering student jumps.

This. This. This. This.

21 minutes ago, skybytch said:

Nobody gonna sue. They were informed, they signed a waiver. <eyeroll>

You really don't have any idea who the passenger was, or how aware they were made of the risks, or how much training they received, or even that it was a wuffo. You are making a lot of assumptions.  I agree that just selling this thing to anyone who can come up with the cash like an ordinary tandem is never going to be acceptable.

57 minutes ago, skybytch said:

If it's okay to take whuffos to extreme altitudes if they are informed of the risks, then why have rules like no turns over 90 on final for tandems? 

Turns over 90 for tandems is against the USPA BSRs. Something that Tom Noonan was the driving force behind as well as the BSR requiring handles checks on each jump. He was in a position where he wore two different hats. On the one hand he was responsible for the UPT tandem program including safety and training and it was his job to do what was best for the industry. On the other hand he was someone involved in technically difficult tandem jumps with higher degrees of risk. 

19 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

You really don't have any idea who the passenger was, or how aware they were made of the risks, or how much training they received, or even that it was a wuffo. You are making a lot of assumptions.  I agree that just selling this thing to anyone who can come up with the cash like an ordinary tandem is never going to be acceptable.

Of course I am making assumptions. 

Tandems from 41k were advertised at $100k. At least one tandem passenger was on a load at 41k.  Seems reasonable to assume that the passenger paid for the jump. Not many experienced jumpers would pay to do a tandem ride, even for a special jump like this, especially when they could easily get a waiver for (or ignore) the D license requirement.  Seems reasonable to assume the passenger was not an experienced jumper.  

Considering who the TI was, I have to assume the training was top notch. 

If you couldn't tell, I'm not a fan of high altitude tandems, period.  If O2 is required out the door, tandems shouldn't be there. Extraordinary skydives should be done by people extremely comfortable with skydiving, not by people relying on someone else to save their life. 

10 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Turns over 90 for tandems is against the USPA BSRs

And that's a good thing. 

But there are no BSRs regarding tandems and high altitude jumps, where the margins for error are much much much thinner and the consequences could be much more severe.

Why not?  Should there be? Should tandems be up there period? Is that too much responsibility and workload on the TI?  Are there just too many variables to be taking non-skydivers into that environment?  

Or is it worth it for the money? 

26 minutes ago, skybytch said:

Why not?  Should there be?

Because it has never been a common problem, unlike large turns can often be. BTW, the BSR about turns over 90 is regularly ignored. Especially on tourist focused DZs located in windy places. Of course these TIs are highly experienced and have high jump numbers so they feel it is ok for them. Which is similar to this situation.

3 hours ago, skybytch said:

Of course I am making assumptions. 

Tandems from 41k were advertised at $100k. At least one tandem passenger was on a load at 41k.  Seems reasonable to assume that the passenger paid for the jump. Not many experienced jumpers would pay to do a tandem ride, even for a special jump like this, ...Extraordinary skydives should be done by people extremely comfortable with skydiving, not by people relying on someone else to save their life. 

Maybe the passenger was not a paying passenger, but another experienced skydiver (even TI, why not) who was there to test the feasibility of Very High Altitude Tandem. Who knows.

Yet again, I do believe that the crew involved in the jump are/were among the very knowledgeable in the high altitude jumping.

8 minutes ago, piisfish said:

Maybe the passenger was not a paying passenger, but another experienced skydiver (even TI, why not) who was there to test the feasibility of Very High Altitude Tandem. Who knows.

Yet again, I do believe that the crew involved in the jump are/were among the very knowledgeable in the high altitude jumping.

My information is that it was a paying passenger who had jumped with Tom previously from a lower, but extreme, altitude. 

On 10/28/2021 at 11:54 AM, JoeWeber said:

My information is that it was a paying passenger who had jumped with Tom previously from a lower, but extreme, altitude. 

I can concur with Joe.  He has correct info.  The passenger has paid for multiple high altitude jumps, including balloon jumps.  I doubt that the passenger or Tom knew that the plane they were in was not certified to do jump operations or to fly with the door off, and they certainly were not told that the O2 systems being used were not designed or certified for the use the seller of the jump used them for.

On 10/27/2021 at 12:47 PM, gowlerk said:

Since we have lost Tom Noonan in a unexpected way during an attempt at a 41,000 ft tandem jump that also included successful sport jumps the discussion in the incidents forum has included talk of whether or not such jumps should even be done. The forum mods have now twice suggested that this discussion should take place in the General Forum. This very high profile incident has many facets worthy of talking about. This topic is meant to be about the wisdom of selling jumps this risky to the general public.

My personal feeling is that there should have been more testing before this attempt. My understanding is that there were test runs, but all at somewhat lower, athough still very high levels. The aircraft owner put a lot of time money and effort into this program and is someone well known for excellence in the quest to go higher and faster than anyone else. Now I am wondering if his program will be able to recover from this setback. I believe that if further attempts are made they should be done with several loads of solo jumpers and an improved supervisory system on board. As I read more about the conditions at this height I am somewhat astounded by the small margin for error in the systems.

Gowlerk- this isn’t something new.  The military has been doing this and testing this since the 1960s.  This is new to the civilian skydiving world due to an ever increasing desire to test limits and the ability for providers to find and provide higher and higher jump platforms.

There are systems and procedures that are tested and proven. The systems and procedures used on this flight were not those that have been tested and proven.  There are literally 1,000s of pages of reference manuals and studies available online for various O2 systems, masks, regulators, bail-out bottles etc. mostly done by the military.  All the equipment Mike uses is military.  He just didn’t know how to use it nor the proper procedures concerning its use.  His staff lacked proper education and experience.  This was an avoidable fatality.  Trust me, I am pissed!  Tom was a great guy.  

On 10/27/2021 at 4:51 PM, sfzombie13 said:

a flaw in an artery wall would be deadly in this situation

Hypoxia is deadly enough on its own. When it gets to the point that everyone around is impaired and multiple people are incapacitated with no sober person to save them, they are all lucky to be alive and without permanent disability, regardless of what this specific cause of death turns out to be.

On 10/28/2021 at 1:54 PM, JoeWeber said:

My information is that it was a paying passenger who had jumped with Tom previously from a lower, but extreme, altitude. 

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/11/01/jim-wigginton-thomas-noonan-sky-diving-world-record-attempt/6106938001/

10 hours ago, nwt said:

they are all lucky to be alive and without permanent disability, regardless of what this specific cause of death turns out to be.

We actually have not been told if anyone involved has permanent injury. It seems at least one participant may have a memory problem.