WILL AADS BECOME MANDATORY?

[RiggerLee 61]

You're looking at this from a very limited viewpoint. Many of us jump with out a reserve. Single canopy rigs have become the norm in base jumping. In fact people argue vociferously against containers with reserve. In fact there are objects where it is forbidden to jump a skydiving rig with a reserve. The interesting thing is that reserves were in the past much more common Depending on the area it was very common to see people jump Sorcerers with reserves and mard systems, predecessor of the sky hook only better. And we actually moved away from this system to a single canopy system. And with long delay slider up jumps there really is no difference between that and a sky dive. On many of these jumps you could if you wish open high enough to cutaway and open a reserve like the sorcerer system. All I'm saying is that it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Not to be rude but you still have much to learn about the sky and the wind and all the things with in it.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[julius 0]

SoCalJumper

***I'm just explaining how I think others think.

I think people use AAD's for a variety of reasons. This being one of them.... sometimes they don't think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b90EzNNrQ2M

A simple, complete gear check was not done.

this is a perfect example of "gene pool cleansing" gone wrong. technology has enabled a substandard set of genes to survive.

[JeffCa 0]

gowlerk

You are usually so articulate and straight forward with good ideas, and now you come up with this. I guess it's just another symptom of the emotion that surrounds AADs.

I don't have emotion surrounding AADs, though I see it all over this thread. They've simply been part of my equipment since I began learning. And I'm trying to just get people to comment on the differences. Your read-between-the-lines statement that it's a stupid thing to ask speaks to some emotion that you might be feeling, though. But thanks for the kinda compliment before that, I guess.

gowlerk

The reason reserves are both necessary and mostly, but not always mandated is the historically high and somewhat predictable rate of main parachute malfunctions. Requiring them is not really needed because few if any would choose to be without one. This is because they have succeeded in the marketplace of ideas.

So it's just the rate of incidents that dictates it? I was expecting that answer. I don't think that's a fundamental difference, it's a "have to draw the line somewhere" argument. It warrants neither anger nor a "nanny state" accusation as a response to possibly making AADs mandatory, because they're the same except for degree. Both can save your life. One is more likely to save your life than the another, statistically. And I'd argue that AADs are succeeding in the marketplace of ideas, at least for the new generation. There were still lots of older folks who stuck to typewriters long after computerized word processing became widely available, and that doesn't mean computers weren't succeeding in the idea marketplace.

gowlerk

But we allow grown ups to make grown up decisions about the level of risk to accept. All states are nanny states to some degree.

These 2 sentences are in contradiction, but why then do so many seem to have anger towards a DZO that wants to exercise the freedom to make them mandatory at his own DZ? Should a reserve be mandatory? Are they OK with it being mandatory? Why are we stomping on somebody's freedom to make their own grown-up decision?

gowlerk

But I intend to hold onto as many freedoms as I can. There are many things in skydiving that others do that I will not risk. Please don't ask that I be demanded to follow you personal standard unless you are willing to give up the risks that you choose to accept but I don't.

We're already required to follow many standards that others do, which is why I can't accept this argument. We just accepted them without thinking about it because we were raised with them or because we personally liked the ideas. 180-day (or whatever for where you jump) repack is one that is asked of us, but the anger over that issue is much quieter than for AADs.

My entire point was simply to try to get people to realise that many things are already mandatory in skydiving, but none seems to get people as riled up as the AAD issue. Most of these standards, whether enforced by law or by DZs, are followed without thought because they just seem "normal" to us. There is not a fundamental difference between these and the AAD argument. I also believe that many people are making these objections because of cost. If AADs were $50, suddenly we wouldn't see so many "nanny state" accusations.

The only argument that I really find to work is the matter of degree. Just come out and say it. "An AAD is very unlikely to result in my life being saved, and I personally find the cost-benefit proposition to not be worth it. Others may make their own choices about whether the chance of payoff is worth the investment."

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[JeffCa 0]

RiggerLee

You're looking at this from a very limited viewpoint. Many of us jump with out a reserve. Single canopy rigs have become the norm in base jumping. .... All I'm saying is that it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Not to be rude but you still have much to learn about the sky and the wind and all the things with in it.
Lee

I'm aware that BASE typically uses a single canopy, but this is a skydiving forum, and BASE is not operated like skydiving.

I was wary of wading into this thread. I've already been subtly insulted twice. I just wanted to point out that the "don't regulate me" arguments are not valid when we happily follow other regulations without protest. People are fine with rules as long as they're rules that they like, they're not really objecting to the concept of having rules, but seem insistent on dressing it up that way. Just tell us the real reasons why you don't like something.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[ianyapxw 0]

JeffCa

I just wanted to point out that the "don't regulate me" arguments are not valid when we happily follow other regulations without protest.

I can see your point here, though I have to say comparing a reserve to an AAD was a very bad choice. I don't feel it's matter of blindly following, people generally accept that the line should be clear cut for reserves, especially since (I assume) lots of people have had reserve rides.

I guess grue is the only one with a consistent opinion on both AAD and reserve.

[wmw999 2,116]

That's right, the concept of what's safe has changed over time, and it will continue to change. Many of these evolutions add either cost or complexity to a system that we're trusting our lives to.

As long as drop zones can choose to require AAD's you can choose to go to them. Personally I think an AAD is a good idea. I also think a motorcycle helmet is a good idea.

Skydiving will continue to evolve. But the only person who's likely to singlehandedly change the direction of skydiving safety is Bill Booth.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[JeffCa 0]

ianyapxw

***I just wanted to point out that the "don't regulate me" arguments are not valid when we happily follow other regulations without protest.

I can see your point here, though I have to say comparing a reserve to an AAD was a very bad choice.

Sorry, I was attempting some reductio ad absurdum to illustrate what kind of arguments we could have if we oppose, in general, pieces of equipment from being mandated just to avoid mandating things.

I wonder if Grue thinks the main canopy should be mandatory.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[RiggerLee 61]

It has been successfully demonstrated that mains are now optional. They're just cheaper then 30,000 boxes.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[ianyapxw 0]

JeffCa

I wonder if Grue thinks the main canopy should be mandatory.

"I would jump with one but wouldn't take away the right of someone who wants to jump without a main"

Don't be mad grue you're a great guy

[Di0 1]

JeffCa

Should somebody be allowed to jump without a reserve? Why or why not? They're expensive, they're heavy, they can kill you if they deploy at the wrong time, and I know plenty of people who have never used theirs. Is it only a nanny state that would force a reserve on us? (Am I correct that reserves are mandatory at every DZ on Earth?)

Is the issue just that the older jumpers see an AAD as an add-on, but many newer jumpers see it as a vital part of a rig? I don't consider a rig to be "complete" if it doesn't have an AAD. When I see ads for a "complete rig", I expect it to have an AAD, but it often doesn't. What should be the definition of a "complete rig"?

Out of curiosity, are there places where altis aren't mandatory? I haven't been around enough to know, but I do know that some old-timers insist that their eyes are their primary alti.

Because over time, after they became mandatory, they also became "socially accepted".
It happened with every single safety device in history: when seat-belts were made mandatory, people complained, people didn't use them for a while anyway, they're uncomfortable, they can strangle you, I am a safe driver, blahblahblah, now pretty much everybody accepts their use.
Mandatory helmet to ride a motorcycle? People bitched, then eventually in a few years accept them as "normality", and later they would consider you a "unnecessary risk taker" if you don't wear one.
The "nanny state" argument was made and eventually disregarded for what it really is.
Airbags? Same stuff, expensive, not worth it, they kill more people than they save, blah blah blah, all bullshit, nowadays I think nobody would ever buy a new car without them.

If they'll ever make AAD or RSLs mandatory, people will scream, people will yell, people will complain and cry. Some of them will cheat and find ways to not use them. Most of us won't and will just comply.
In a few years, they would look back at "those crazy days that rigs didn't have mandatory AADs" the same way we look at old cars without seat-belts.

It's that simple.

I'm standing on the edge
With a vision in my head
My body screams release me
My dreams they must be fed... You're in flight.

[councilman24 36]

We could ask not "will they be mandatory?" but will they be available? We may be one lawsuit, or maybe one verdict, away from one AAD manufacturer abandoning the US market. Helmut, founder of Airtec GmbH, is baffled why he is spending 10's of thousand of dollars defending a lawsuit where the rigger didn't put the loop through the cutter. The rest of the world and the US military may just be a large enough market if it means avoiding lawsuits like this. It's happened before when Steve Snyder stopped selling a previous popular AAD because of lawsuits. I wonder how many jumpers would quit jumping if AAD's were not available? Or cost $10,000 in order to pay for lawsuits? Gear already costs more because of liability exposure in the US.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

let's take a look at the monetary segment of this discussion. Today's AADs are essentially microprocessors hooked up to a pyrotechnic device. Now, I am old enough to remember when a cell phone (another microprocessor driven device) cost a crapload of money. Today they practically give the damned things away. Why? Economy of scale for one. I have no idea how many AADs are sold every year--but I bet it's under 500 from both Cypress and Vigil (to the sport market--military is another whole can of worms). Production costs vs profit in that quantity are bound to be very high. Sooooo......if every rig purchased from today onward HAD to have one (and again, please, I am not advocating that)--that production number is bound to go up significantly thereby driving the cost down.

You clearly have very low understanding, if any - of REAL economics, economy or economies of scale as it may correctly/legitimately apply here.

1. Your presumption on why/how with cell phones (not even remotely a good or appropriate comparison!) "they now practically give those away" - is so patently incorrect as to be non-applicable here in ANY way.

2. You really think that by mandating AAD's - that action would force the production #'s of them up so significantly over what they are now, that the "economies of scale" resultant will force / drive their cost down?

REALLY???

-

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[gowlerk 1,903]

Quote

And I'd argue that AADs are succeeding in the marketplace of ideas, at least for the new generation.

Which is what I am saying, and why rule making is not needed. Of the many rigs I've repacked this month, three of them had no AAD. Two of them belonged to young people who are cash starved and have decided against buying one at this time. The other is mine, and I'll probably get one for my main rig this year. But not for my backup rig. Is that ok with you? It's not just "old" people with old ideas. It's people who don't have the same opinion as you do. You are now guilty of agism!

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[faulknerwn 36]

I think the biggest difference is the use. It is a rare skydiver who gets to a thousand jumps without having a malfunction. It is a very rare skydiver who has a legitimate AAD save. That is the big difference,

My question for those who want AADs mandated - do you want to ban small canopies? That will save far far more lives than mandating AADS. Heck not just from swoop landings - but simple things like line twists are typically non-events on big student canopies but are a dangerous high speed malfunction on tiny ellipticals - which also leads to low cutaways and late reserve pulls.

So rather than mandate AADS, mandate that everyone jump >200 square foot squares. That would save far more people. And heck, large slow canopies are cheaper too than cross braced canopies so rather than causing people to spend an extra $1400, you will actually be saving them money. How could anyone complain about that?

( and no I am not suggesting this - but it is no more absurd than the mandating AAD arguments)

[wmw999 2,116]

You forgot to add that if everyone jumped big slow canopies, then traffic will go back to being far more manageable, because people will be flying and landing at similar speeds again.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[katzas 0]

Well, golly gee I guess my ignorance of economics and pricing are soooo obvious that it must be just dumb, bumbling luck that has made me so much money following that ignorant path all my life. Making accusations without any proof is the hallmark of ignorance. Personal attacks are the modus operandi of those who have neither the credentials or evidence to make a reasonable counter argument. Back it up or back off.

I clearly stated that I had no idea how many AADs are sold today. I made a SWAG. But I guess that point was lost in your zeal to point out how little I know about real economics. Clearly I (and you) have no idea how much the cost would come down--but, barring any other significant influences on price, they should.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

katzas

Pretty much all your statements are true--TODAY. Now--as far as a local government making a local regulation where the FAA claims jurisdiction--well, it happens all the time. Case in point is where local governments sought to usurp federal regulation and jurisdiction with regard to amateur radio. The FCC has jurisdiction but that didn't stop communities from passing regulations that adversely impacted that hobby. Ultimately, federal law prevails--but it takes a challenge and, in many cases, years of costly litigation to do so. Voters didn't have much interest in that either...

Maybe in the radio world, but not in aviation. At least not in the US. There have been numerous court cases where a local entity tried to regulate an airport. Often in a "Airport Hater" situation where the idiot had pull at the local, county or even state level. Stupid, restrictive laws were passed, and were ruled unenforceable. The FAA doesn't allow local laws because it would create a patchwork of confusing and conflicting rules. It's been tested enough times that the court battles are usually pretty short.

Quote

Insurance companies could require a DZ operator to mandate AAD use or either pay a lot more for his liability insurance (any excuse will do if it means more $$$ in their pockets) or not issue a policy at all...

What "Liability Insurance" are you talking about?
There's liability to cover the plane if it falls out of the sky and lands on someone's house.
There's also "Trip And Fall" liability to cover stuff that happens on the property.

But liability for the DZ?
For jumpers?

No such thing in the US. Not anywhere, at any price.
We had this discussion a few weeks ago. Guy was a kayak instructor and was getting a quote from his agent. He was pretty sure he could get DZ liability.

Gee, I wonder why he hasn't come back with that information yet?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[JeffCa 0]

gowlerk

... I'll probably get one for my main rig this year. But not for my backup rig. Is that ok with you? It's not just "old" people with old ideas. It's people who don't have the same opinion as you do. You are now guilty of agism!

Is that OK with me? Are you serious? Why are you acting like I am personally trying to force an AAD on you? I'm not going to, and I don't have a vote if I did want to. I'm having a discussion here about changing attitudes towards AADs. And I did cite, on 2 occasions, economics as another reason people don't use them. You accused me of being emotional about the topic, I have none, but yours is clearly showing. You seem to be very jumpy towards people who think jumpers should have one, even it's just a non-binding thought. Why do you fear/hate us?

As for the agism jab, I don't mean old people, I mean old-time jumpers. I'd bet that an older person taking their first lessons and never knowing jumping without an AAD would feel closer to how I feel than how you do.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[JeffCa 0]

faulknerwn

I think the biggest difference is the use. It is a rare skydiver who gets to a thousand jumps without having a malfunction. It is a very rare skydiver who has a legitimate AAD save. That is the big difference,

And this is a valid argument against requiring them. Why aren't more people here using it?

faulknerwn

My question for those who want AADs mandated - do you want to ban small canopies? That will save far far more lives than mandating AADS.

Not banning small canopies for everybody, but for people who haven't demonstrated the skill to use them, it might not be a bad idea and I could see it being implemented sometime in the future. Not sure about where you are, but some countries have different driver's licences for trucks, cars, motorcycles, manual transmissions vs. automatics. You're not allowed to drive a manual truck if you only have a licence for an automatic car. You have to demonstrate that you are capable of handling the class of vehicle before they'll let you on the street with it. But for somebody with the appropriate skill, we don't need to ban trucks.

Banning 270 degree turns on landing for sub-xyz jump jumpers has also been implemented at some DZs. We don't ban demo jumps, we just ban them for people who haven't met the minimum requirements. I'm banned from doing a wingsuit jump because I don't have my 200 yet. And so on.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[gowlerk 1,903]

Quote

And this is a valid argument against requiring them. Why aren't more people here using it?

Maybe because it is so blatantly obvious, some things usually don't need to be pointed out. But since you started by asking for reasons for and against reserves, which is also painfully obvious I shouldn't be surprised.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[grue 1]

JeffCa

I wonder if Grue thinks the main canopy should be mandatory.

Nope. But if you jump without a main (or reserve) and die on someone else's property or get the pilot in trouble, you're an asshole.

cavete terrae.

[JeffCa 0]

gowlerk

Quote

And this is a valid argument against requiring them. Why aren't more people here using it?

Maybe because it is so blatantly obvious, some things usually don't need to be pointed out. But since you started by asking for reasons for and against reserves, which is also painfully obvious I shouldn't be surprised.

So much hostility is evident in your writing. Perhaps you should take a break from the topic and come back when you can discuss it calmly and without being insulting to those who disagree with you or who are thinking about it differently.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[gowlerk 1,903]

Quote

I'm having a discussion here about changing attitudes towards AADs.

What attitude is out there that you feel needs changing? Nearly everyone is in favor of them, nearly everyone uses them, a few people don't themselves but still are in favor of them. Who has a bad attitude about them? It's RULES that some are talking about changing here, not attitudes. I have no problem or emotion around AADs. I use one all the time when I do tandems, and I would even if there was not a rule on it. I sell them to people and make a profit doing so. I have a lot of emotion around people forcing their choices on me.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[JeffCa 0]

Di0

Because over time, after they became mandatory, they also became "socially accepted".
It happened with every single safety device in history: when seat-belts were made mandatory, people complained, people didn't use them for a while anyway, they're uncomfortable, they can strangle you, I am a safe driver, blahblahblah, now pretty much everybody accepts their use.
Mandatory helmet to ride a motorcycle? People bitched, then eventually in a few years accept them as "normality", and later they would consider you a "unnecessary risk taker" if you don't wear one.
The "nanny state" argument was made and eventually disregarded for what it really is.
Airbags? Same stuff, expensive, not worth it, they kill more people than they save, blah blah blah, all bullshit, nowadays I think nobody would ever buy a new car without them.

If they'll ever make AAD or RSLs mandatory, people will scream, people will yell, people will complain and cry. Some of them will cheat and find ways to not use them. Most of us won't and will just comply.
In a few years, they would look back at "those crazy days that rigs didn't have mandatory AADs" the same way we look at old cars without seat-belts.

I think this is completely correct. Regardless of my opinion on the matter, I do think I'll see mandatory AADs in my lifetime, and this is exactly how it is likely to be received.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[JeffCa 0]

gowlerk

Quote

I'm having a discussion here about changing attitudes towards AADs.

What attitude is out there that you feel needs changing? Nearly everyone is in favor of them, nearly everyone uses them, a few people don't themselves but still are in favor of them. Who has a bad attitude about them? It's RULES that some are talking about changing here, not attitudes. I have no problem or emotion around AADs. I use one all the time when I do tandems, and I would even if there was not a rule on it. I sell them to people and make a profit doing so. I have a lot of emotion around people forcing their choices on me.

Not that we need to change attitudes, but that attitudes are already changing. I'd bet if you took a survey of the people who feel that "I don't need an AAD because it's my responsibility to save my own life", you'd find it skews heavily towards people who started jumping when AADs didn't exist or were fringe. The newer jumpers who were raised with them would likely skew towards using them. And while you might not think that a "complete rig" includes an AAD, I already do, and I can't be alone on that one. Complete rig to me means 4 main components assembled together. It is my proposition that as time goes on, more and more jumpers will feel this way and it will become the new norm.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth