WILL AADS BECOME MANDATORY?

[gowlerk 1,905]

Quote

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.

You are not alone. AADs are already the new norm. A norm is not the same as a requirement. AADs are already required in Japan aren't they?

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

[GoHuskers 0]

***

Right. And I'm guessing that most on here (Grue excepted) are fine with that. But the argument seems fundamentally the same as the AAD argument, just one is accepted and one is not. Reserves are expensive. They can possibly kill you. Lots of people never use them. But most of us would never even entertain the idea of jumping without one. I'm not sure if anybody wants to call the USA a "nanny state" because they mandate reserves.

I think as we get more and more separation between us and the time when AADs were new, they'll come to be as accepted and vital as reserves are. quote]

I have been thinking the same thing up to this point in the thread.

I think AADs becoming Mandatory is more of a function of Dropzone's accepting legal risk. Are they more exposed to a lawsuit for allowing crazy skydivers to jump without an AAD or more exposed to a fatality resulting from an AAD malfunction when they are required at the dropzone.

[katzas 0]

You have essentially proven my point about local regs. While they may not stand a challenge in court someone has to do the challenging. Local officials (wanna be politicians) probably know or at least strongly suspect that whatever local ordinance they dream up will eventually be struck down--but they don't care. They can say to their dimwitted constituents, "well, I tried--my intentions were good--blame the court" thereby adding another arrow to their re-election quiver. Unfortunately, it takes time and money to challenge even the most absurd of local laws--or even not-so local laws.

As to the insurance situation--well, Lloyds insures practically anything for anyone (at a price) but I take your point. Apparently, according to another post the makers of the Cypres AAD are included in a lawsuit where evidently the person who packed the reserve neglected to pass the closing loop through the cutter. If true, it seems absurd to me that Cypres should be sued--but--lawsuit generally get filed against those with money to pay. Sad, but true.

[councilman24 36]

You already have seen mandatory AAD's, for tandems. When an supposedly uneducated member of the public is involved in the US the FAA has already decided that they should be mandatory. So far it hasn't reached to individual decisions of skydivers. I think that's an easy step for the FAA to take. Except for the fact they are so backed up and skydiving is to low on the priority list an emergency regulation correction took 8 years. The FAA has already said that no new little reserves will be certified with the latest TSO. I happen to agree with that decision. And the current ones were done under an exemption.

As to the new norm. There have always been AAD's available but few experienced people used them until Helmut invented a reliable, modern, small and easily adaptable AAD in 1991. I'd really like to see what would happen in the US if all AAD manufacturers refused to sell to civilians. See my post above, it is not an impossible situation.

I like AAD's I've owned several and still own one. Of course I also own 4 'modern' rigs.

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

[Di0 1]

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,

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)

Well, to continue the parallelism: for the same reason for which we allow fast sport cars instead of forcing every car maker to only build cars that can go at 60mph max. This would save thousands of lives every year.
But it would also a) destroy the industry as we know it and take away the very reason for the industry to exist and develop new stuff (car industry or canopy industry) b) it wouldn't be "fun". And "fun" is a big deal for human beings, even if it sounds stupid.
That's the main reason we are here talking, we not only want to have fun. We NEED to have fun, it's what makes us what we are.

Therefore, it's better to keep you selling high performance cars with backup mechanism (say, an airbag, it's your responsability not to crash in a wall, but the airbag might save your sorry ass if you do) or high performance canopies (again, it's your responsability not to chop low if you need to, but a skyhook might save your sorry ass if you do).

We are leaving the realm of skydiving to venture in the lands of human nature, why do we strive and look for faster things, higher performances, push limits and so on? It's in our nature, but it's also our nature to try to mitigate the risks with backup devices and technology. Again, if we were in the business of saving lives alone, banning skydiving would be the most effective decision. Also, banning skis, motorcycles, fast cars and acrobatic planes would help.
But I think here we are discussing the best compromise between our right/need to have fun with safety devices that are not directly taking your fun away (you wouldn't argue that an airbag or a seatbelt makes a porsche any less fun to drive, same way an AAD doesn't make my rig any less fun to jump).

I personally jump only rigs with AADs and Skyhooks.
It's my decision, it comes from a bunch of considerations, mainly being an engineer and deciding to trust other engineers but also since I never had a cutaway, I think I want all the assistance possible when it'll happen.

Oh, but it's my responsibility to pull all the handles in the right order. Sure thing, so it is your responsability to know how to properly steer or brake on a car, and yet the ABS, ESC and TC save a lot of asses every day.
So it is your responsibility to learn how to work on a power circuit if you need to, yet circuit breaker save lives daily.

The main concept of a BACKUP device is that, if something can go wrong it will go wrong, if there is room for a mistake, somebody will make a mistake at some point.

The argument "it's your responsibility to save yourself by doing this or that" is honestly completely pointless when talking about backup and safety devices, which are there for whem that doesn't happen, and whose job is exactly to do something when the human fucked up (and everybody can fuck up, being sure that it's always the other person that will do the mistakes is a great way to kill ourselves).

Would I force AADs or RSLs if I were the Emperor of The World and the only one to have the power to decide?
I don't know, probably ultimately not, because I don't like people and I think mankind has every right to try to thin itself. With sports cars, with skydiving, with alcohol, with skiing, with rock climbing, with extreme hiking, all fun things I love to watch or do, and that kill people "unnecessarily".

But it's human nature, we wouldn't be here if we didn't feel the urge to see what's out there or how it feel when going that fast.

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.

[Hellis 0]

Di0

Well, to continue the parallelism: for the same reason for which we allow fast sport cars instead of forcing every car maker to only build cars that can go at 60mph max. This would save thousands of lives every year.

I don't believe thousands of lives would be saved.
My general feeling, meaning I don't have any statistics on it, is that most car crashes with fatalities are not in 60+ mph nor in sportcars.

[Baksteen 84]

Lazily replying to the last post in the thread, not the poster.

Minor point:
- An AAD has a shelf life of 12-20 years, or even longer in the case of the FXC12000. An AAD can be transferred to the owner's next rig. Some people upthread act as if they must buy a new AAD every time they change rigs. Also, there is the option to buy second-hand AADs, lowering the price of the unit according to its age.

And since the can of worms is already open, I'll add a big, fat scoop of worms myself:
A poster upthread mentioned he'd allow CReW rigs to be exempt from AADs. Personally, I cannot think of any circumstance in which I am at 750 ft and still falling 45 m/s in which an AAD would be a bad thing. Downplane? I wouldn't feel comfortable taking it that low. Chickenshit? Your opnion - and you know what they say about opinions: every asshole has one (or something like that).

If any rigs might be exempt from a hypothetical rule, I'd nominate the creme de la creme of the swoopers. And no, the individual swoopers themselves do not get to be the judge of whether or not they got the aforementioned skill level.

In the netherlands you need a C-licence if you want to jump without an AAD - in any discipline. Few Dutch skydivers opt to jump without one, though there is a lot of bitching about the cost of an AAD, especially around the time the Cypres needs the 4 and 8 year checks. The price of these service checks might come as a nasty shock to some newer jumpers, myself included at the time.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[Southern_Man 0]

councilman24

You already have seen mandatory AAD's, for tandems. When an supposedly uneducated member of the public is involved in the US the FAA has already decided that they should be mandatory. So far it hasn't reached to individual decisions of skydivers. I think that's an easy step for the FAA to take. Except for the fact they are so backed up and skydiving is to low on the priority list an emergency regulation correction took 8 years.

It bothers me that the FAA mandates AADs [for tandems] but has no standard for certifying the AAD. Leads to some inconsistency.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Di0 1]

Hellis

I don't believe thousands of lives would be saved.
My general feeling, meaning I don't have any statistics on it, is that most car crashes with fatalities are not in 60+ mph nor in sportcars.

It would have saved Paul Walker. Which is all the statistics I need.

Joking aside aside, I am pretty sure there is a direct correlation (and causation) with the the speed at which an accident happens and the chance of dying vs surviving the accident. In a cars like in skydiving. The thing is that modern cars developed a lot of active and passive safety mechanisms that keep the passenger relatively safe(ish) from impacts belove 60 mph, either preventing the crash (ABS, Stability Control...) or greatly reducing the damage of the impact (seat belts, airbag, frame studied to dissipate energy etc.).

In skydiving we have no passive safety backups (except for very ineffective helmets), so I personally see the benefits of bundling up with every possible active device people can come up with and is proven to be effective (within reason).


But we are digressing, my point was another, my point was that forcing everybody to use NAV240s would effectively take the fun and the interest from the sport and the industry, same way forcing everybody to drive volvos with prius engines would do to car industry and car enthusiasts.
Forcing everybody to use safety backups as RSLs and AADs on regular jumps would not take away any of the fun and leave the industry for the most part intact as we know it.

I'm not saying it would be right choice or that I think it should be done, I'm highlighting the difference (or what I think is the difference) and why one thing might happen and the other might not.

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.

[faulknerwn 36]

But aads like airbags can hurt and kill people. When airbags first came out they were designed to save a 200 pound unbelted man. Unfortunately they were killing 5'0 tall women like me in mere parking lot collisions by decapitating them. (Ack!). Needless to say that I refused to drive in a car with one until they fixed that problem.
It's still allowed in many cars to be able to disable passenger side airbags because you might have to put a child there or something

Everyone acts like aads are infallible. They're not. They've fired from unusual pressure changes, radio triggers, static electricity among other things. If a crwdog in a 16 way all with radios doesn't want to risk something accidentally triggering his reserve who has the right to tell him that he has to take that chance. CRWdogs don't go in with too little out - they go in because they have too much crap out and tangled up around them.

Same thing with swoopers - if they don't want to take the chance of a fire which will kill them - they need to have the right to determine if they are at risk. Until the first swoopers started dying, Airtec maintained that it was impossible to set them off under canopy.

[skypuppy 1]

grue

***Perhaps a little thread drift might help with meaningful conversation.

Such as...if you owned/operated a DZ, would you require AADs? I would throw in to the question an assumption that CRW rigs would be exempt. They are usually pretty obvious to spot visually and aren't very versatile that they would be used for other purposes.

I think that as a DZO, it would be very tempting to require AADs. I think it likely that a DZO would wish that certain motivating factors that would push them to that decision didn't exist, but in reality they are there.

What is the actual experience of DZs that do now require them - has it been really bad for the popularity of it with experienced jumpers? Are any of these DZs that require them in a location where there is nearby competition without the requirement?

I wouldn't require anything more than the USPA does other than banning anyone under the age of 18 from the property, with no exceptions unless required by law.

I agree with you here. AADs are required in most dz's in Quebec. A few years ago they had the nationals there, so any jumper from canada (where aads are mandated only for students or tandems) wasn't allowed to compete UNLESS they had an aad even though there was no national rule to have them. I have a problem with a cspa member not being allowed to compete even if he was technically following all the cspa regulations, but apparently my opinion wasn't important. I do know of a few teams who would have attended otherwise but didn't.

I feel a dzo does have a right to impose mandatory aad rules on his business - but if he bids for a competition he then the rules of the competition's organization should be enforced.

I also feel that if a dzo wants to impose mandatory aad rules people have the right to go down the road to a competing dz without those rules -- but what we sometimes see is dzo's attempting to force a NATIONAL rule change so that there won't be any competition allowed down the road and they won't lose their pool of jumpers to other non-mandatory dz's. I find this to be repugnant - enforce your own rules and take the punishment, or don't make them mandatory at your dz - but attempting to force others to toe the line is over-reaching...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

JeffCa

***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.

come to think of it, most reserves are actually cheaper than aads. and likelihood of using the reserve is higher than the aad. so the aad is less cost-effective. Thanks...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

JeffCa

***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.

If you look at the incidents, I think you'll find that many, if not most of the people who have died swooping (or from canopy collisions enroute) would be people who had 'demonstrated the skill to use them' and just f'ed up on a jump. Just like many if not most of the recent proximity flight deaths were by some of the most proficient wingsuit and proximity flyers in the world.

So having previously demonstrated the ability to do something doesn't mean your immune.

Statistically however, an experienced, current jumper in normal jump mode is unlikely to need an aad and should be free to make the choice to use one or not himself.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

katzas

You have essentially proven my point about local regs. While they may not stand a challenge in court someone has to do the challenging. Local officials (wanna be politicians) probably know or at least strongly suspect that whatever local ordinance they dream up will eventually be struck down--but they don't care. They can say to their dimwitted constituents, "well, I tried--my intentions were good--blame the court" thereby adding another arrow to their re-election quiver. Unfortunately, it takes time and money to challenge even the most absurd of local laws--or even not-so local laws.

As to the insurance situation--well, Lloyds insures practically anything for anyone (at a price) but I take your point. Apparently, according to another post the makers of the Cypres AAD are included in a lawsuit where evidently the person who packed the reserve neglected to pass the closing loop through the cutter. If true, it seems absurd to me that Cypres should be sued--but--lawsuit generally get filed against those with money to pay. Sad, but true.

The local reg situation is actually a lot simpler. There is enough precedent that the courts will pretty much rule the laws as unenforceable at the first court hearing. The locality can file an appeal, but unless they are particularly obstinate, their attorney will tell them that it's a losing proposition.

And not even Lloyd's will provide DZ liability. It's been discussed.

Post 99 of this thread (for some reason I can't link just the post):

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4605117;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

And I fully understand the concept of "Deep Pockets" and the "Shotgun Approach" to lawsuits.

"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

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

I cannot think of any circumstance in which I am at 750 ft and still falling 45 m/s in which an AAD would be a bad thing. Downplane? I wouldn't feel comfortable taking it that low.

30 years ago, we never started a downplane until about that altitude.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[councilman24 36]

I was never much for doing crew or down planes but for the guys that did them they were.landing manuvers. If you were good you turned it so you landed by.the.peas and the other guy landed in the corn.

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

[Baksteen 84]

Well, then perhaps I should wait with intiating the downplane until 150 feet, when my Cypres turns itself off anyway.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[katzas 0]

Small (read high performance) canopies are already de-facto banned by the manufacturer for folks without enough experience.
Try buying a super hot cross braced canopy from PD with only 50 jumps on a Navigator under your belt. Sure--you could probably buy one used--or get around the manufacturer's policy somehow--thus proving Darwin's theory.

[Remster 24]

katzas

Small (read high performance) canopies are already de-facto banned by the manufacturer for folks without enough experience.
Try buying a super hot cross braced canopy from PD with only 50 jumps on a Navigator under your belt. Sure--you could probably buy one used--or get around the manufacturer's policy somehow--thus proving Darwin's theory.

You're funny...

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4493965

Remster

[NWFlyer 2]

katzas

Small (read high performance) canopies are already de-facto banned by the manufacturer for folks without enough experience.
Try buying a super hot cross braced canopy from PD with only 50 jumps on a Navigator under your belt. Sure--you could probably buy one used--or get around the manufacturer's policy somehow--thus proving Darwin's theory.

That's cute that you think that's true.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Doug_Davis 0]

Remster

***Small (read high performance) canopies are already de-facto banned by the manufacturer for folks without enough experience.
Try buying a super hot cross braced canopy from PD with only 50 jumps on a Navigator under your belt. Sure--you could probably buy one used--or get around the manufacturer's policy somehow--thus proving Darwin's theory.

You're funny...

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4493965

Wow. That thread/accident. Unreal.
Whats crazy is Icarus still has half of those profiles up on their website.

[Tink1717 2]

The short answer is yes.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717