111–120 of 275 posts
Came across this Wikipedia list of wingsuit fatalities: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatalities_due_to_wi... The past few years is pretty sobering, especially given that most of these guys were experts and clearly knew their stuff
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of differences with heroin. I have been volunteer in a Spanish org called "proyecto hombre" that help people with drugs. People on drugs are almost non human in order to take a dose, they will kill you,or steal and they really don't care because the only thing they care about is their next dose. Once you have recovered the person it looks like another one, like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I also did BASE in the pas…
>...like airplanes, is possible because someone quasi suicided I agree with some of that. Progress and freedom have costs. Where it gets problematic for me is when there is a promoting entity that doesn't have skin in the game [0]. Also, maybe drugs weren't the best analogy: What about MMA (mixed-martial arts)? Would the UFC be tolerated if the death-rates matched wing suit jumping? Also, one-way trips to Mars: Are t…
A lot of things are tolerated (in that they aren't prevented) that are very high risk. Mountaineering is the first one that comes to mind.
All that said, I kind of agree with you. GoPro (also redbull and some others) are drawing benefits from uniquely risky activities. This creates an incentive problem. It would make sense for this issues to go in front of a judge.
this pisses me off so much. Why would anyone but that irresponsible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My dad was a mechanical engineer that spent most of his working career supporting the development of aircraft. Me mentioned there are two paradoxical things about aircraft. The higher you fly, the safer it is. Flying higher gives the pilot more time to fix problems. Took a while for early aviators to realize this. Many died. And the faster you land, the safer it is. Landing faster reduces the relative effects of wind…
> The higher you fly, the safer it is. Flying higher gives the pilot more time to fix problems. I have heard pilots refer to "mistakes" as a unit of measure for altitude. You want to spend as much time as possible 2+ mistakes high.
I had a close call this summer whitewater rafting on the Upper Animas River in Colorado and it has caused me to re-think every serious risk I take and has changed me in a big way. I was participating in a multi-day trip run by one of the local guiding outfits through the Upper section of the river, a much more difficult and serious undertaking than the Lower Animas, which is frequently run by average day-tripping tou…
Eight or nine years ago, I lept off a tower from about 800 ft. After opening the parachute and scanning for my landing area I turned towards it to the left, which was slow and felt off. "Maybe I'll turn to the right and come around from the back", at which point the parachute collapses and spins violently from behind. I reach up and grab the left riser, the strap that connects you to the harness, and stopped the spin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me of Freeman Dyson's research on British Bombers during WWII -- the data showed experienced crews didn't fair better than novices, but they didn't figure out why till after the war. > Bomber Command told the crews that their chances of survival would increase with experience, and the crews believed it. They were told, After you have got through the first few operations, things will get better. This idea…
That's a great story. My first instinct for where to look to find things that would affect experts and beginners alike is manufacturing defects or poor suit design. I'd say also weather but that seems more likely to be highly variable and prone to skill (i.e. experts know when conditions are poor).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to wonder, how many of them would be doing this (or any other "crazy" thing) if there were no cameras, no YouTube, Facebook, or Instagram Live, etc.?
I don't know how many people are doing it for the "internet fame" (my gut instinct is that it's a small percentage), but I'm sure there are many people who got into the sport in the first place because they watched it on the internet.
I don't have any numbers, but as with anything else (e.g. Russian dash cams) I don't feel that the behaviour of people has really changed.
The difference now is everyone has a camera strapped to them, and with social media it's much easier to hear about someone who died doing X than in previous decades.
BASE jumping is a dangerous sport. The advent of live streaming and HD cameras small enough to strap to your helmet and hand haven't changed this, but rather raised the profile of a failure.
Six hours late on this thread and I can't see anyone calling out GoPro and friends: >Five days earlier, the GoPro star Uli Emanuele, 29, died when he crashed in the Dolomites of his native country, Italy. Freedom for these people (mostly young men) to die is one thing. But part of GoPro's profits are knowingly built up by a quasi-suicide cult. That's not that different from dealing heroin.
You have to wonder, how many of them would be doing this (or any other "crazy" thing) if there were no cameras, no YouTube, Facebook, or Instagram Live, etc.?