20121026026409I

Inspectors from this office conducted an investigation of a sport parachute incident at Eloy municipal airport. On 10-26-2012, mr. ****** rented a harness and main canopy from ******, a local company that rents skydiving equipment. On his first jump of the day, mr. ****** was observed by several witnesses to have a partially cutaway main chute (one riser still connected). In addition, witnesses observed his reserve chute was also deployed. As the jump continued, witnesses observed the main chute and the reserve chute getting intertwined resulting in mr. ****** striking the ground at a higher than desired speed, suffering serious injuries. According to statements received, personnel from ****** proceeded to the incident site and rendered aid until first responders arrived. Mr. ****** was airlifted to a hospital while Eloy police gathered mr. ******'s equipment and placed it into evidence.11-2-12INSPECTORS from the scottsdale FSDO retrieved mr. ******'s equipment and met with several dpre's to inspect the equipment. The inspection revealed:•mr. ******'s altimeter read zero at time of inspection.•helmet was damaged with no audible altimeter installed.•the aad had not fired.•reserve chute lines were tightly spun up with the main chute lines.•outside of one line being cut (most probable from first responders), and a small tear in the chute (appeared to be post incident) the main chute was in good condition with no defects noted.•the reserve chute appeared to be in good condition.•the harness and main chute combination was not compatible due to the location of the rsl routing. •the rsl was incorrectly rigged (attached) to the small ring of the 3 ring release. •this incorrect rigging kept the main chute from cutting away from the harness on one side.• no indications on the jumpsuit were found that would indicate the jumper being entangled.•the equipment rented was appropriate to mr. ****** according to his weight and experience level.a review of witness statements, interviews and documentation supplied by ****** and ****** revealed:•mr. ******, had 51 jumps with 31 being in the last 6 months.•the day of the incident, the jumpzone was unusually busy due to the nationals. •mr. ****** was from brasil. Although he had completed the registration forms and rental agreements to skydive, it is not known if he had an adequate command of english to fully understand each written instruction.• mr. ****** indicated he held a uspa b license on his rental agreement although a review of his other documentation appears he held a cbr category a license. The difference between these is unknown.•no one witnessed mr. ******'s jump progressing prior to him having a partially cut away chute, therefore nobody could verify what might have been wrong with the main chute if anything or why it was cut away. •it is not known if anyone performed an equipment check of mr. ****** prior to his jump. •it is not known if mr. ****** or someone else packed his main chute or he had a rigger do it at this time.