Base Jumper Dies ... his own fault ?

Jester252

Things happen thats life. Can you real blame anyone

Stark

BattleCorp wrote: »

This is up there with people who climb mountains and stuff like that.

Climbing mountains!? Bit of a sweeping statement isn't it? Could cover anything from a walk up Djouce to attempting to summit Everest without oxygen. But typical of kneejerk responses to things that "look dangerous" without any consideration for how those risks are mitigated on a case by case basis.

donegal_road

what if they fed a rope down from the top of the cliff? I know this would have meant joining many long climbing ropes, and there would be considerable weight involved, but could it have been done?

How possible would it have been to have something on the ground to break his fall? That bat-suit guy a couple of weeks ago landed into a large pile of cardboard boxes and it worked.

Ickle Magoo

Yes it's his fault - but only so much as anyone dying of non-natural causes is at fault because they got in the car/crossed the road/surfed/base-jumped/etc.

As for blaming the emergency services...the guy was 650ft down a 900ft cliff. Lets put it in logical perspective: the highest commercial abseil with fixed lines, anchors, etc, is 669 feet. Trying to get sufficient ropes - which would literally weigh tons, in place and fixed safely would take many, many hours...

In order for a helicopter to winch him leaving sufficient room for the helicopter to safely hover above the cliff and adjoining hillside it would require dangling a rescuer and nearly 750 ft of metal cable weighing goodness only knows how many tons without swaying around and smashing the rescuer into the cliff...which, if such cable lengths are even possible, requires both a large helicopter and specialist machinery. In short, it was a logistical nightmare even if he hadn't been on a very small, bankrupt island.

Poor guy, poor family - but thems the risks when you do dangerous sports in inaccessible locations...of course, that's part of the allure in the first place.

norrie rugger

Would you guys be a quick to condem people that drown sailing or ask who pays the bill for the Coastguard/Lifeguard to scramble?

aaronjumper

norrie rugger wrote: »

Would you guys be a quick to condem people that drown sailing or ask who pays the bill for the Coastguard/Lifeguard to scramble?

Trying to use other activities is a poor way of trying to defend him.
If the person sailing died because they went somewhere incredibly remote do to something dangerous for thrills, then yes I would condemn them as quickly.

Why are people having such trouble admitting that it is no ones fault but his own. Are you saying someone else should take the blame for this? Please elaborate.

Teyla Emmagan

It's his wife and unborn child I feel sorry for. He should have put them first. I would rather have a father who was alive to love and protect me than know my dead dad was some 'free spirited' thrill seeker.

It's not just that he died doing something risky that he loved, it's that he died doing something so patently stupid.

allibastor

it is a bit like that irish lad who dies climbing everest in the last few years when he has 2-3 kids at home. all small. he wanted to do it and that was it. now his kids don't have a dad and his wife will have to struggle to raise the kids on her own.

when you plan to become a parent all your selfish interests should be left at the conceiving room door. what a muppet. lets jump off a cliff and see what happens. if we were meant to fly on our own we would have wings, that is why we were smart enough to invent planes.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Yes it probably was his own fault and considering his wife is 7months pregnant then it probably was a foolish thing to do but he loved the sport and probably did take the necessary precautions but wind direction changes in an instant and he was very unlucky.

I honestly dont see how a helicopter could have made any difference, it cannot get close enough to effect a rescue at the level he caught and so it would have to have been from above the top of the cliff and he may have been too far down to lower someone to rescue him. The mother is grieving and like any mother will look for someone or something to blame...its a natural reaction.

It was an unfortunate accident and i dont think anyone is really to blame for it.

norrie rugger

aaronjumper wrote: »

Trying to use other activities is a poor way of trying to defend him.
If the person sailing died because they went somewhere incredibly remote do to something dangerous for thrills, then yes I would condemn them as quickly.

Why are people having such trouble admitting that it is no ones fault but his own. Are you saying someone else should take the blame for this? Please elaborate.

using other activities is not a poor way IMO. We have hill walkers that get into trouble all year round, they are doing something that they enjoy but is dangerous and cost the tax payer a lot of money in helicopter fees.
We have sailors that get into trouble out to sea (that is remote also) and need helicopter recovery.
We have recreational divers that may need rescue.
We have weekend sports people getting injured and needing ambulance recovery, hell I broke my neck playing rugby, a risk involved in the game.


I am not saying that there is anyone to blame here but that the holier than thou attitudes are a bit tiring. He was partaking in a sport with risks and the bad happened, his mother is grief stricken and in looking to vent.

paddy147

Base jumper chose to take the risk of jumping,so he also chose to accept the serious and possible fatal risks involved.

Sad accident and not the fault of the paramedics or rescue teams that he died.

iguana

norrie rugger wrote: »

using other activities is not a poor way IMO.

Of course it is. We are talking about BASE JUMPING. An activity with a nearly 2% fatality rate. It's not even remotely comparable to hillwalking as there isn't a 1 in 60 chance of you not making it back when you pack up your rucksack.

aaronjumper

norrie rugger wrote: »

using other activities is not a poor way IMO. We have hill walkers that get into trouble all year round, they are doing something that they enjoy but is dangerous and cost the tax payer a lot of money in helicopter fees.
We have sailors that get into trouble out to sea (that is remote also) and need helicopter recovery.
We have recreational divers that may need rescue.
We have weekend sports people getting injured and needing ambulance recovery, hell I broke my neck playing rugby, a risk involved in the game.


I am not saying that there is anyone to blame here but that the holier than thou attitudes are a bit tiring. He was partaking in a sport with risks and the bad happened, his mother is grief stricken and in looking to vent.

Yes and when the above people get into trouble it is their own fault, the same way if I was off doing one of the above and needed to be rescued it would be my fault. When you put yourself in harms way you have to be ready to deal with the consequences.

It's not a holier than thou attitude, it should be common sense. The origional question posed in the thread was who was at fault. In my opinion he was. He chose the time and he chose the place.

Odysseus

CJC999 wrote: »

Yes it probably was his own fault and considering his wife is 7months pregnant then it probably was a foolish thing to do but he loved the sport and probably did take the necessary precautions but wind direction changes in an instant and he was very unlucky.

I honestly dont see how a helicopter could have made any difference, it cannot get close enough to effect a rescue at the level he caught and so it would have to have been from above the top of the cliff and he may have been too far down to lower someone to rescue him. The mother is grieving and like any mother will look for someone or something to blame...its a natural reaction.

It was an unfortunate accident and i dont think anyone is really to blame for it.

I used to take part in some exterme sports, but I also used to be part of a rescue team/organisation. If an rescue operation could have been arranged a team should have been sent out; cost should never come into it when we are talking about a persons life. I think most people who have ever been involved in any type of rescue organisation would agree.

Capt'n Midnight

The King of Moo wrote: »

It's his fault for jumping off big things, and it's also the fault of the people who could've sent help more quickly.

as pointed out before helicopters don't like cliffs.

a rescue helicopter's cable is probably about 50m long so zero chance that the chopper could have been outside of turbulent air

stuff like this is why they didn't send helicopters to pull people off the roof during 911




There is also the financial cost.

If you want to row across the atlantic for charity you have to raise a lot of money to cover for the rescue.

If you want to do something very dangerous you have the option of taking out insurance. Normal holiday insurance doesn't cover dangerous sports for a reason.


A quick look at the stats http://www.extremeinsurance.co.za/base-jumping.htm shows that it's extremely dangerous

slight overlap in the dates, so the fatality rate might be lower than 11.7%
but you have to remember that a lot of these people are still jumping so life time risk will rise, and the sport is growing in popularity so not every one has been jumping for many years. Also the number dying is increasing year upon year.

Once you’ve hurled yourself off a building, bridge cliff and antenna, you can apply for your very own BASE number – the goal of most jumpers. Base-1 was awarded to Phil Smith of Houston, Texas in 1981. The 1000th application for a BASE number was filed in March 2005 by Matt Moilanen of Kalamazoo, Michigan

Through the availability of specialized equipment and wider knowledge of techniques, base jumping is safer today than in the early days, though fatalities and injuries still occur. Some deaths through ground impact in free fall or object strike do occur, but most incidents are due to hazardous landing sites or other problems which develop after the parachute has opened. Because of the covert nature of much of BASE jumping, no reliable figures are available to assess the statistical risks of the activity.

Between 1981 and 2007 there have been at least 117 fatalities within people assigned base numbers in the sport.

http://www.blincmagazine.com/forum/wiki/BASE_Fatality_List 184 confirmed deaths

Capt'n Midnight

iguana wrote: »

Of course it is. We are talking about BASE JUMPING. An activity with a nearly 2% fatality rate. It's not even remotely comparable to hillwalking as there isn't a 1 in 60 chance of you not making it back when you pack up your rucksack.

nearly 12%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OgrjDz7mV4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdSbJFPWnfk

Stark

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

nearly 12%

Where did you get that figure from? The figures I've seen are 1.6% per participant over their lifetime of jumps or 0.0004% per jump. Still unacceptably high but not as bizarrely high as 12%.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17495709

Pigeon Reaper

Risk is relative to individuals. Once people take steps to mitigate the risks I've no problem with any activity. In Ireland we deal with alot of cliff rescues where drink is involved. Climbing/walking along a cliff top with alcohol taken is arguably more dangerous than someone with experience trying to basejump. We'll still rescue everyone to the best of our abilities without passing judgement as I'm sure the teams in Greece did. The problem here is people asigning blame because they percieved that the rescue took too long and a helicopter wasn't called. We don't know the full details on this rescue which by it's nature is difficult and dangerous.

Helicopers are great when you can use them and but this isn't a miracle machine. Expecting to lower a winchman over 300m from a cliff top is too much. we also don't know the local conditions so gusts could have started a pendulum effect or a spin.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msw31_dw7hE

This can easily kill the person on the end of the winch and is why long winches are best avoided. the downdraft of a helicopter would also have blown the casualty off the cliff, after all parachutes are designed to catch the air.

Second one is lower a rope but it's hard to get 300M ropes. Most Irish teams use 200M or less. Tie a few together? Each knot weakens the rope so very sepcific types must be used. Then you can't belay through these knots or haul with a system where knots are present so there goes that one. The only option is a multi-pitch rescue with anchors on the cliff face which needs special equipment to be delivered or wait for extra long ropes to come. Both of these take time.

Personally I'd prefer the longer rope as it's safer for the rescuer as less can go wrong. The casualties broken leg can be dealt with using a stretcher which you could eventually lower down to a waiting boat at the bottom of the cliff. We could still knock rocks onto the casualty as we climb down and these could also kill them. The casualty may also have internal injuries so just because some waves and talks doesn't mean we can take our time.

Next question why not have all this equipment present? It's a small island and normally anyone involved in a fall of this height is dead anyway so there's normally no rush. It's highly unlikely for a person to survive and you can't be expected to prepare for everything.

In Ireland rescue is free even if the casualty is a drunken idiot climbing a cliff. Helicopters are on a contract so no matter how much we use them the cost is the same. After all the main cost is training, maintaining the machines and having teams on stand by. Coast guard teams don't get paid, nor are mountain rescue or lifeboats. This is why there's no charge from specialist teams. In other countries charges may be made but this will not affect the response given, you'll just be handed a bill afterwards.

Capt'n Midnight

Odysseus wrote: »

I used to take part in some exterme sports, but I also used to be part of a rescue team/organisation. If an rescue operation could have been arranged a team should have been sent out; cost should never come into it when we are talking about a persons life. I think most people who have ever been involved in any type of rescue organisation would agree.

If it was a rare occurrence then it's not a problem

some extreme sports are a drain on rescue service resources because of the number of rescues needed. and some not so extreme sports like sailing too far when we get good weather

http://www.swissalpineguides.ch/english/matterho.htm

We strongly recommend you take out an insurance policy to cover mountain accident and rescue transportation. Helicopter insurance (only rescue transportation) can be purchased for SFr.35.- per person / per year with REGA, which covers the whole of Switzerland.

If you don't have insurance they send you the bill for the Helicopter.

iguana

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

nearly 12%

To be as fair as possible I went with the lowest fatality figure I could find, which is 1.66% or 1 in 60. Which is still bloody enormous and the highest fatality rate of any recreational activity by a very, very, very wide margin. Comparing base jumping with any other recreational activity is laughable.

And in this specific case, going base jumping alone in a very remote part of a bankrupt country which is experiencing severe public services cuts and in an area that a rescue will be a major expedition requiring equipment not likely to be on the island or easy to get a hold of, the odds of dying are likely to be much higher than the average.

thebigbiffo

Personally, I blame the gust of wind that most likely came up as he opened his shoot. In close second is the gust of wind that dislodged his suit from whichever crag was holding him in place.

in short - i blame the wind.

norrie rugger

iguana wrote: »

To be as fair as possible I went with the lowest fatality figure I could find, which is 1.66% or 1 in 60. Which is still bloody enormous and the highest fatality rate of any recreational activity by a very, very, very wide margin. Comparing base jumping with any other recreational activity is laughable.

And in this specific case, going base jumping alone in a very remote part of a bankrupt country which is experiencing severe public services cuts and in an area that a rescue will be a major expedition requiring equipment not likely to be on the island or easy to get a hold of, the odds of dying are likely to be much higher than the average.

Every activity carries risk, just because you decide that the risk is too high does not mean that everyone agrees.

People argue that cycling in Dublin is overly risky but people do it all the time. Same with bungee jumps, cliff walking, rugby or every physical activity. What one person believes is an acceptable risk is too dangerous for another.

This was an accident and he was at "fault" as much as the swimmer that gets into trouble due to changing currents.

Peter B

falan wrote: »

Was it called "the men who jump off buildings"?

Really good documentary..

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-men-who-jump-off-buildings/4od#3118940

That is an excellent documentary. This guy from the documentary jumped the same cliff also.

Appears 15 seconds into this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQCovYgsphg

norrie rugger

norrie rugger wrote: »

Every activity carries risk, just because you decide that the risk is too high does not mean that everyone agrees.

People argue that cycling in Dublin is overly risky but people do it all the time. Same with bungee jumps, cliff walking, rugby or every physical activity. What one person believes is an acceptable risk is too dangerous for another.

.

You can only rationalize a big risk when there is something to gain from it, basejumpers get a min of the heart pumping like **** "i might die....i might die".

Snowie

Things go wrong....

But does that mean that people stop?

Nope.. why because they want to do it, pushing boundaries is what some people do.. if you don't agree with it and feel the need to condemn it go for it live your dull boring and some what unsatisfied while getting your self worked up over a foot ball game that you can't control..

Condemn? You don't can't even contemplate the preparation of the mental state that one most do just to get them selves into the right mental state..

The risk involved all women who go out with men who push boundaries weather its of piste skiing/snowbaording, free climbing, big wave surfing and base jumping. There gfs wives etc know from day 1 that when they step out there front door, they may not be coming back its a commitment to something that
they dearly love...

People push boundaries, to condemn them for well OO your putting people at risk including your self is one way to look at it... Another is to look at it from the point there going against whats possible...

In the words of mark foo Its not tragic to die doing something you loved...

Mark Foo Lived up to his words. which was a tragedy ..

Leard Hamilton, Jeremy Jones, Greg Noll, Alex Honnald

Some of mans greatest extreme sports men, they've pushed limits gotten away
with things they share the knowledge there experiences bad and good its safety gets better but it also says that those chin stroking fvcks who say you can't do that its impossible...

If we sat there and listened to oo you can't do that well the world would be a terribly boring place...

like the most of you condemning a man for pushing his boundaries and his safety zone... and yea you can argue what you want but. You don't know what your talking about!

So shout at the tv or get angry at computer you know sit in your dull un exciting monogamous life... thats fine..

But some people choose not to... But carry on blasting some on you don't even know

Zab

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As for blaming the emergency services...the guy was 650ft down a 900ft cliff. Lets put it in logical perspective: the highest commercial abseil with fixed lines, anchors, etc, is 669 feet. Trying to get sufficient ropes - which would literally weigh tons, in place and fixed safely would take many, many hours...

People have abseiled much further than 200m (~650ft). The longest commercial abseil is designed for non-experts, but the rescuer would be an expert. 200m of abseil rope would typically be less than 20kg.

iguana

norrie rugger wrote: »

Every activity carries risk, just because you decide that the risk is too high does not mean that everyone agrees.

People argue that cycling in Dublin is overly risky but people do it all the time. Same with bungee jumps, cliff walking, rugby or every physical activity. What one person believes is an acceptable risk is too dangerous for another.

This was an accident and he was at "fault" as much as the swimmer that gets into trouble due to changing currents.

Not many activities carry a risk even remotely as high as 1 in 60. Trying to compare base jumping to anything other than maybe signing up for active military service in a Western country currently at war is utterly ludicrous. The danger levels just don't compare and nor does the danger you are putting your potential rescuers in.

Naomi00

maglite wrote: »

We are entitled to do fun and stupid things.

Should we give up live to live longer. I'm almost certain sports like Football, Horse Riding, Rugby are many times dangerous, not to mention Cars, Bikes etc...

Base jumping is illegal though, rugby etc isn't.

Base jumping is a lot more likely to go wrong than those sports.

Snowie

Naomi00 wrote: »

Base jumping is illegal though, rugby etc isn't.

Base jumping is a lot more likely to go wrong than those sports.

and so is taking drugs, driving with a phone in your hand.... having sex in public, drinking under the age, but we've all done at least one once....

aaronjumper

Snowie wrote: »

Things go wrong....

But does that mean that people stop?

Nope.. why because they want to do it, pushing boundaries is what some people do.. if you don't agree with it and feel the need to condemn it go for it live your dull boring and some what unsatisfied while getting your self worked up over a foot ball game that you can't control..

Condemn? You don't can't even contemplate the preparation of the mental state that one most do just to get them selves into the right mental state..

The risk involved all women who go out with men who push boundaries weather its of piste skiing/snowbaording, free climbing, big wave surfing and base jumping. There gfs wives etc know from day 1 that when they step out there front door, they may not be coming back its a commitment to something that
they dearly love...

People push boundaries, to condemn them for well OO your putting people at risk including your self is one way to look at it... Another is to look at it from the point there going against whats possible...

In the words of mark foo Its not tragic to die doing something you loved...

Mark Foo Lived up to his words. which was a tragedy ..

Leard Hamilton, Jeremy Jones, Greg Noll, Alex Honnald

Some of mans greatest extreme sports men, they've pushed limits gotten away
with things they share the knowledge there experiences bad and good its safety gets better but it also says that those chin stroking fvcks who say you can't do that its impossible...

If we sat there and listened to oo you can't do that well the world would be a terribly boring place...

like the most of you condemning a man for pushing his boundaries and his safety zone... and yea you can argue what you want but. You don't know what your talking about!

So shout at the tv or get angry at computer you know sit in your dull un exciting monogamous life... thats fine..

But some people choose not to... But carry on blasting some on you don't even know

You're over thinking this. Again it is not about why, the question asked was who was to blame.

For example, I like being in cars that go really fast. It's a thrill of mine.
If I however plow into a wall and end up seriously injured or worse, who is at fault? The road? The car manufacturer? The tyre company?

No it's my fault. It starts and ends with me.

aaronjumper

aaronjumper wrote: »

You're over thinking this. Again it is not about why, the question asked was who was to blame.

For example, I like being in cars that go really fast. It's a thrill of mine.
If I however plow into a wall and end up seriously injured or worse, who is at fault? The road? The car manufacturer? The tyre company?

No it's my fault. It starts and ends with me.

You forgot "The Wall"

Snowie

aaronjumper wrote: »

You're over thinking this. Again it is not about why, the question asked was who was to blame.

For example, I like being in cars that go really fast. It's a thrill of mine.
If I however plow into a wall and end up seriously injured or worse, who is at fault? The road? The car manufacturer? The tyre company?

No it's my fault. It starts and ends with me.

But your missing my point... With anything dangerous comes risk he accepted this long before he started base jumping...

Who's to fault? mother nature, he could of jumped late in the day when there was a sea breeze a thermal could of cought him. his parashoot could of opened in a way that have swung him into the cliff face...


Im not over thinking it I just think its cruel to condemn some one because they take a risk....

aaronjumper

Snowie wrote: »

But your missing my point... With anything dangerous comes risk he accepted this long before he started base jumping...

Who's to fault? mother nature, he could of jumped late in the day when there was a sea breeze a thermal could of cought him. his parashoot could of opened in a way that have swung him into the cliff face...


Im not over thinking it I just think its cruel to condemn some one because they take a risk....

So if someone accepts that they are taking a risk they should be exempt from blame?

I suppose condemn was too strong a word and I will take it back.
I still however think he was to blame.

norrie rugger

There really is no blame though. It was just an accident

Snowie

aaronjumper wrote: »

So if someone accepts that they are taking a risk they should be exempt from blame?

I suppose condemn was too strong a word and I will take it back.
I still however think he was to blame.

No its the way it is...

he's dead he tuck risk its up to him to him to make peace with that long before he jumps...

Bad Panda

af_thefragile wrote: »

I often wonder where do all these base jumpers, squirrel suit jumpers, mountain climbers and thrill seekers as such get the money to waste on their frivolous pursuits?? As many such people are "professional" thrill seekers and do little else than finding new places to jump off from...

Maybe they're not spending 200e every weekend going out on the p!ss?!

donegal_road

you can abseil 300m

http://www.visitmountbuffalo.com.au/index.php?p=1_19

Capt'n Midnight

iguana wrote: »

Not many activities carry a risk even remotely as high as 1 in 60. Trying to compare base jumping to anything other than maybe signing up for active military service in a Western country currently at war is utterly ludicrous. The danger levels just don't compare and nor does the danger you are putting your potential rescuers in.

LOL

BASE jumping is far more dangerous than being in a western army at war.

over 2.33 million US troops have served in the middle east.
the number of deaths is about 6,440

Only if 38,000 had died would you get the lower 1:60 rate. ( 36,516 died in Korea )

to get the 12% rate you'd have 194,000 deaths,
so 3.5 times worse than Vietman (was 58,209)
nearly twice as bad as the trenches of WW I (was 116,516)


so BASE jumping can be 28 times more dangerous than doing tours of duty in a warzone.

And the troops are coming home so their casualty rates should drop.





Just to be clear on this BASE jumping is suicidal in the sense that a person who BASE jumps is more likely to die prematurely than someone contemplating suicide.

The 11.7% statistic is actually higher than the % of successful suicide attempts in the US (11:1). Guns make it easier to succeed and more elderly succeed so looking at the mortality rate a younger person with a history BASE jumping could be considered as a long term attempt at suicide.

Most suicide attempts are expressions of extreme distress, not harmless bids for attention. A person who appears suicidal should not be left alone and needs immediate mental-health treatment.

Ickle Magoo

donegal_road wrote: »

you can abseil 300m

http://www.visitmountbuffalo.com.au/index.php?p=1_19

From that site:

There are four pitches on the descent. The first is 160 Metres and the remainder from 40 to 50 metres using a twin rope pull down system.

Stark

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The 11.7% statistic is actually higher than the % of successful suicide attempts in the US (11:1).

Where did you get the 11.7% statistic though?

Paparazzo

This reminds me of the southpark episode:
Stan: Somebody's gonna help the people off their, their rooftops, right? Randy: That's not important right now, son. What's important is figuring out whose fault this is

mossyc123

It wasn't me! wrote: »

That shows absolutely no understanding of the nature or reason in extreme sports and the like. The guy died pushing his own boundaries, and it's sad, and trag Similarly, my dad worked in construction. Friends' fathers were soldiers. Plenty of people I knew had parents who worked in risky jobs to feed and clothe them, so the argument that he shouldn't have done it because he was a father is also ridiculous, to my mind. People die every day. Most, however, don't. The day we start wrapping ourselves in bubble wrap, we've lost any hope of ever advancing ourselves.

So much wrong with this post:

(a) Your Dad worked in Construction to feed/clothe his family, pay the mortgage, etc NOT to satisfy some impulse.

(b) Your suggesting people should make decisions based entirely on how they will benefit without taking any heed of how it may impact on others.

Wow.

(c) You've just suggested that base-jumping and extreme sports play a part in the advancement of the human race.

Again, wow.

Snowie

mossyc123 wrote: »

(c) You've just suggested that base-jumping and extreme sports play a part in the advancement of the human race.

Ok so what about rucksacks you know the ones that every one has used to travel around the world that are super comfy that never let your back sweat to how about plain old boring gortex.... What about The jump, in water safety none of that had a pay of to do with the fact big wave surfs came up with a rescue method that a lot of cost guards around the world adopted...

Theres a lot you may not know because your not in that life style or actively engaged with what goes on.....

It wasn't me!

mossyc123 wrote: »

So much wrong with this post:

(a) Your Dad worked in Construction to feed/clothe his family, pay the mortgage, etc NOT to satisfy some impulse.

(b) Your suggesting people should make decisions based entirely on how they will benefit without taking any heed of how it may impact on others.

Wow.

(c) You've just suggested that base-jumping and extreme sports play a part in the advancement of the human race.

Again, wow.

My dad did his job because he liked it. There was plenty else he could have done far less dangerous. The point was that to do what he wanted, there was a risk element. Thanks for telling me why my dad did the particular job he ended up in though. Your authority is impressive.

As to (b), to a certain extent, yes. I don't believe it's appropriate to base every decision on its potential impact on others. If I knew that someone restrained themselves from doing something they really wanted because of me, regardless of what it was, I'd feel like shít. That's wrong, to me. You get one go at this. Don't hold back. I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't ever want anyone else to do it for me.

As to your very narrow-minded interpretation of what I said, what has advanced humanity is our willingness to take risks and explore the unknown. The lunar expeditions served no specific purpose other than to prove it could be done. The vast human effort behind that is something we should be immensely proud of. It's absolutely the best thing we have going for us. All else is mediocrity.

CruelCoin

mossyc123 wrote: »

(c) You've just suggested that base-jumping and extreme sports play a part in the advancement of the human race.

Again, wow.

Extreme sports require equipment that is not available on the general market and that sometimes has to be developed from scratch. These new manufacturing techniques, materials, etc then filter down into other products and other uses, thus advancing the human race and our general ability and knowledge.

A prime example (although war based) is the internet. never designed by civilians, this was initially created to serve as a war-time communication network and has since then been adopted by the general populace.

There are many examples of this.

Doing what is safe, and what has been done before has advanced nothing.

Zab

It wasn't me! wrote: »

My dad did his job because he liked it. There was plenty else he could have done far less dangerous. The point was that to do what he wanted, there was a risk element. Thanks for telling me why my dad did the particular job he ended up in though. Your authority is impressive.

As to (b), to a certain extent, yes. I don't believe it's appropriate to base every decision on its potential impact on others. If I knew that someone restrained themselves from doing something they really wanted because of me, regardless of what it was, I'd feel like shít. That's wrong, to me. You get one go at this. Don't hold back. I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't ever want anyone else to do it for me.

As to your very narrow-minded interpretation of what I said, what has advanced humanity is our willingness to take risks and explore the unknown. The lunar expeditions served no specific purpose other than to prove it could be done. The vast human effort behind that is something we should be immensely proud of. It's absolutely the best thing we have going for us. All else is mediocrity.

What exactly are you arguing here? Are you saying that it's perfectly acceptable for parents to take part in a sport with a 12.7% fatality rate (a figure I don't accept by the way, but anyway) because it's thrilling and because it's risks like these that have advanced humanity to where we are today?

If so, then that's preposterous. I completely support people having the right to take whatever risks they choose to, but if it entails a cost to society (such as rescues) then they'll have to contribute towards that and if they've chosen to have extra responsibilities by having children then they're most likely being selfish dicks (also their right).

WhatNowForUs?

Kirby wrote: »

paddy147 wrote: »

Can someone tell me how the fcuk a helicopter is meant to get near him on that rock face?? (picture attached)

The mother hasnt got a clue and is way out of line for blaming her sons death on the rescue team.

The fault lies with the guy who jumped. It's dangerous, he knew that and it was his own choice. I would never blame a response team.

However there are numerous ways he could have been rescued. A chopper rescue team could have saved him. Hover above the cliff and winch a rescuer down in a harness. This is a very common and effective method of rescue.

They also could have sent a guy to abseil or rappell down the cliff face and hook the guy up and then cut his tangled harness.

They had options and did nothing. This doesn't sit well with me. Somebody in charge has to shoulder some responsibility for inaction.

Could somebody say how long a helicopter harness is, id been surprised if there is one over 500 ft long . Would going down a sheer face not been extremely dangerious due to winds with the rescurer getting slapped against the side of the cliff very likley.

scamalert

not to sound rude but probably helicopter would caused more wind and guy would been blown down even faster then they could reach him.otherwise rip its no ones fault he took the risk.

Snowie

Zab wrote: »

What exactly are you arguing here? Are you saying that it's perfectly acceptable for parents to take part in a sport with a 12.7% fatality rate (a figure I don't accept by the way, but anyway) because it's thrilling and because it's risks like these that have advanced humanity to where we are today?

If so, then that's preposterous. I completely support people having the right to take whatever risks they choose to, but if it entails a cost to society (such as rescues) then they'll have to contribute towards that and if they've chosen to have extra responsibilities by having children then they're most likely being selfish dicks (also their right).

I agree...

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

Could somebody say how long a helicopter harness is, id been surprised if there is one over 500 ft long . Would going down a sheer face not been extremely dangerious due to winds with the rescurer getting slapped against the side of the cliff very likley.

How ever, he could of been rescued bye 3 climbers... Multi pitch absails would of got him down or back up pretty quick I would say.. thats something all climbing instructor know how to do.....