Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Mar 30, 2013, 8:36 AM
Post #76 of 157 (1892 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

An RSL wot help you if you are unconscious.

I was on a jump with a buddy that was knocked out from a collision. He was jumping 2 rigs back to back. One had an AAD and one didn't. As luck would have it he had the AAD rig and woke up on a golf course. Since then I became a believer.

I think it's fine to jump without an AAD but I don't think it's an opinion that should be rammed down people's throats.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 30, 2013, 9:24 AM
Post #77 of 157 (1862 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulk04] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

My apologies. RTFM was not the correct thing to say.

I did send an email to AirTec asking about official documentation regarding the activation altitudes with respect to body orientation being put on their web page.

Andy


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 30, 2013, 9:34 AM
Post #78 of 157 (1858 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PalmSky] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Well on that note...

We just ordered 2 brand spankin' new AAD's.
I'm pretty sure I'm also converting my RSL to a Skyhook.

Cool

I jumped without an AAD for 18 years, but I have had them in all my rigs for 14 years. My life is worth $1000 bucks.

Yes but I'll bet you wouldn't hesitate to jump without one if the need ever arose. Lots of device dependent folks now.

device dependent? the cost of my life is much more important than the cost of a brand new rig and all of it's associated components.

Do you pay for auto insurance? and if so what are your premiums for the year? do you pay it willing or complain about being insurance dependent?

Lot's of smarter people now. I'd give up any yearly income figure in exchange for my life as a cost well worth it.

I don't think cars had seat-belts 32 years ago, maybe lap belts, not 3 point seatbelts. I'm seatbelt dependent.... simply because it's a wiser decision.

All that is fine and dandy for you...except you don't speak for everyone. IMO, there's lots MORE stupid people now. It's a more-than-full-time-job trying to overcome the amazing incidence of stupidity in this sport. If you get out and get around more, you just may come to agree with me on that.

Yeah, yeah, many people talk smart, more often than not, they act stoopid.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 9:47 AM
Post #79 of 157 (1850 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Well on that note...

We just ordered 2 brand spankin' new AAD's.
I'm pretty sure I'm also converting my RSL to a Skyhook.

Cool

I jumped without an AAD for 18 years, but I have had them in all my rigs for 14 years. My life is worth $1000 bucks.

Yes but I'll bet you wouldn't hesitate to jump without one if the need ever arose. Lots of device dependent folks now.

With all due respect - I've come to observe that "device dependent" is a loaded, judgmental term. Dependency on the device is always there; it's just a question of degree, and that's just a question of personal preference. If reserves weren't required, some people who wanna be hard-core and skydive only BASE rigs (from aircraft) would call people jumping reserves "device dependent".

I'm old enough and have been around the sport long enough to get away with being openly intolerant with old-timers (including some well-respected, pioneering "legends") who scoff derisively at safety technology, or procedures, that didn't exist yet back when they started jumping. Seriously, guys, who cares? - that was then, this is now.


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 30, 2013, 9:50 AM
Post #80 of 157 (1846 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed. But this incident has less to do with AADs and more to do with the insanity of chasing an AFF student deep in the beeps. But everyone is focused on the AAD as if the mistake was the AADs doing. Amazing to me. They are appalled that someone could go in wearing an AAD.


(This post was edited by airdvr on Mar 30, 2013, 9:51 AM)


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:13 AM
Post #81 of 157 (1827 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Agreed. But this incident has less to do with AADs and more to do with the insanity of chasing an AFF student deep in the beeps. But everyone is focused on the AAD as if the mistake was the AADs doing. Amazing to me. They are appalled that someone could go in wearing an AAD.

Excellent point!


In fact since it is a speculation thread - I wonder if the instructor would have been so prone to continuing the chase had there not been some device dependency in the back of his mind.


It 'could' be perceived that the AAD was in part the cause of one fatality...not because of the firing but because it was there. Just some food for thought.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Mar 30, 2013, 10:17 AM)


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:18 AM
Post #82 of 157 (1818 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PalmSky] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I don't think cars had seat-belts 32 years ago, maybe lap belts, not 3 point seatbelts. I'm seatbelt dependent.... simply because it's a wiser decision.
Just to quibble, my 1972 Subaru definitely had 3-point seat belts.

To me, device dependence isn't as much refusing to jump without an AAD. There can be valid reasons for it, like the insurance analogy. However, changing how you jump because you have an AAD is. And that's stupid. It's like driving like a moron because you have collision insurance.

Wendy P.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:29 AM
Post #83 of 157 (1812 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Agreed. But this incident has less to do with AADs and more to do with the insanity of chasing an AFF student deep in the beeps. But everyone is focused on the AAD as if the mistake was the AADs doing. Amazing to me. They are appalled that someone could go in wearing an AAD.

Excellent point!

In fact since it is a speculation thread - I wonder if the instructor would have been so prone to continuing the chase had there not been some device dependency in the back of his mind.

It 'could' be perceived that the AAD was in part the cause of one fatality...not because of the firing but because it was there. Just some food for thought.

I don't disagree with you. When "device dependency" is used to mean "only willing to jump if using the device", it's being used as a misnomer, and that's what I was complaining about.

To me, imprudent device dependency is an adjunct of risk homeostasis. That's the sense in which you're using it here, too.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:35 AM
Post #84 of 157 (1808 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I don't think cars had seat-belts 32 years ago, maybe lap belts, not 3 point seatbelts. I'm seatbelt dependent.... simply because it's a wiser decision.
Just to quibble, my 1972 Subaru definitely had 3-point seat belts.

To me, device dependence isn't as much refusing to jump without an AAD. There can be valid reasons for it, like the insurance analogy. However, changing how you jump because you have an AAD is. And that's stupid. It's like driving like a moron because you have collision insurance.

Wendy P.


Ya always hear the 'in case of getting knocked out' justification for an AAD..which is valid.

However, what's the percentage of AAD fires because of unconsciousness vs. going low because of inattention?

IF every AAD fire = a fatality the incidents thread would be longer than the DB Cooper one!

Nothing wrong with using an AAD...there's definitely something wrong with viewing it as 'insurance'.

Insurance always pays off...an AAD is a last ditch 'maybe'...it may increase your odds of survival in a certain set of defined circumstances. But to 'depend' on it saving your life is ludacris. You are FAR better off never putting yourself in a position it may-be needed. IF you wouldn't jump without one you may want to reconsider your perception of the hazards of the sport.

....nothing 'wrong' with not jumping without one, any increase regarding odds of survival is a good thing. Just be aware that it doesn't make this a Disneyland ride...shit can still happen that will get ya dead quick.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Mar 30, 2013, 10:41 AM)


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:47 AM
Post #85 of 157 (1793 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Insurance always pays off
Dunno about that -- I've never used my car insurance for anything of mine, and it's been nearly 30 years since there was a house claim.

I have one now; obviously I have a ton of jumps without them. One thing to think about is that not every AAD fire would be a fatality, some would be stupid low pulls. But if you're jumping in a way that the AAD fires, you're screwing up if there wasn't unconsciousness or other disability involved.

If you're using an AAD to make this a Disneyland ride, then you're definitely letting the AAD change your behavior Unsure

Wendy P.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 10:55 AM
Post #86 of 157 (1786 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Insurance always pays off
Dunno about that -- I've never used my car insurance for anything of mine, and it's been nearly 30 years since there was a house claim.

I have one now; obviously I have a ton of jumps without them. One thing to think about is that not every AAD fire would be a fatality, some would be stupid low pulls. But if you're jumping in a way that the AAD fires, you're screwing up if there wasn't unconsciousness or other disability involved.

If you're using an AAD to make this a Disneyland ride, then you're definitely letting the AAD change your behavior Unsure

Wendy P.

In my case when I 'needed' it, it ALWAYS paid off, and I'd bet if you NEEDED it your insurance would too.

Case in point here, 'so called insurance' was in place but did not 'pay off' as expected or advertised...that's the only point I was making. Wink


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 11:20 AM
Post #87 of 157 (1779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Ah -- missed that. Yup, there are no guarantees. The safest (if I can use that word Tongue) assumption is that you're dead when you jump out of an airplane, unless you do something positive to save your life.

Like pull.

Because your life really is on the line here.

Wendy P.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Mar 30, 2013, 1:54 PM
Post #88 of 157 (1715 views)
Shortcut
Re: [everyone] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I never did get any input on my question from two days ago....

" Can that be true? Vertical speed has no impact on time to inflation after extraction? "

Anybody?


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:05 PM
Post #89 of 157 (1699 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I never did get any input on my question from two days ago....

" Can that be true? Vertical speed has no impact on time to inflation after extraction? "

Anybody?


How about we say~ does it have any influence instead of 'impact'? Tongue

And IMO of course it does. . .isn't that the reason for the slider?


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:21 PM
Post #90 of 157 (1682 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I would even think the chances of getting knocked out have decreased. Everyone wears a helmet now.


Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:31 PM
Post #91 of 157 (1674 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

A skydive helmet really doesn't provide much protection from impact, not when compared to real protective helmets. You shouldn't rely on that device....Wink


(This post was edited by WickedWingsuits on Mar 30, 2013, 2:33 PM)


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:37 PM
Post #92 of 157 (1654 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm pretty sure he's talking about getting knocked out in freefall, by an errant foot, doorway, etc.

Wendy P.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:38 PM
Post #93 of 157 (1649 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airdvr] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I would even think the chances of getting knocked out have decreased. Everyone wears a helmet now.

Probably increased in truth...larger formations, faster free-fall speed disciplines...and more pinheads skydiving. Wink


Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Mar 30, 2013, 2:58 PM
Post #94 of 157 (1639 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I meant head impacting something. Impact doesn't have to mean head to ground at 120mph. Maybe the word collision would clear it up.

I switched to a full face over the winter after a gnarly head to foot collision. Looked like I had been in a bar fight. A full face will protect against a flesh wound but still nothing compared to a serious helmet.

I tend to think many people wear helmets as a camera mount not for safety. If it were for safety you would see a lot more protecs. I sometimes jump my ski helmet and people make fun of me.

At the end of the day it's your head, I just wish people understood that there isn't really that much protection.

I am probably a bit sensitive to this topic because I have had a couple of serious snowboard and bike accidents where good helmets saved my life but still left me with conclusions that lasted over a year. It's not pretty.

Anyways, getting a bit off topic.


(This post was edited by WickedWingsuits on Mar 30, 2013, 3:06 PM)


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 4:32 PM
Post #95 of 157 (1584 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

I broke a helmet on an airplane door once. It was a cheap hockey helmet, but I'm sure it would have hurt a whole lot more without the helmet.

Wendy P.


wolfriverjoe  (A 50013)

Mar 30, 2013, 4:33 PM
Post #96 of 157 (1582 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I don't think cars had seat-belts 32 years ago, maybe lap belts, not 3 point seatbelts. I'm seatbelt dependent.... simply because it's a wiser decision.
Just to quibble, my 1972 Subaru definitely had 3-point seat belts.

To me, device dependence isn't as much refusing to jump without an AAD. There can be valid reasons for it, like the insurance analogy. However, changing how you jump because you have an AAD is. And that's stupid. It's like driving like a moron because you have collision insurance.

Wendy P.

And just to quibble a little bit more - 1972 was 41 years ago. In 1981, 3 point was mandatory for the front seats.


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Mar 30, 2013, 4:35 PM
Post #97 of 157 (1576 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wolfriverjoe] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

My quibble was with the statement that cars didn't have 3-point restraints 32 years ago. If they did 41 years ago, they probably did 32 years ago as well.

Wendy P.


IanHarrop  (C 1152)

Mar 30, 2013, 4:41 PM
Post #98 of 157 (1572 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Helmets are making the news these days for offering only limited protection

http://www.voxxi.com/...ards-brain-injuries/


Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Mar 30, 2013, 4:54 PM
Post #99 of 157 (1559 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Helmets are making the news these days for offering only limited protection

http://www.voxxi.com/...ards-brain-injuries/

I certainly got brain injuries....ask my friends...but I didn't get dead.


ChaoP  (A 65048)

Mar 30, 2013, 6:40 PM
Post #100 of 157 (1510 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] The Z-hills Double Fatal Speculation Thread [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
A skydive helmet really doesn't provide much protection from impact, not when compared to real protective helmets. You shouldn't rely on that device....Wink

I jump a full face now, but my benny has a warning inside that says "You are participating in a dangerous sport. This helmet serves no protective purpose and is not intended to provide any protection from any head, brain, neck, or facial injures..."

Got a laugh from that the first time I noticed it.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)