0
eyeinthesky

why doesnt everyone use an AAD?

Recommended Posts

What I'd like to see is the control box being put in the main pack tray, with connectors like the ones the newer field servicable cutters use for the inputs/outputs. This would give people the ability to remove the part that would be damaged in a water landing before they do a jump over water.

This is since, in my understanding, the "water proofing" isn't exactly totally water proof, just water resistant.

This also makes the system modular, easier/cheaper to repair.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

but I didn't like your first paragraph. It take us slightly off topic - we're talking about AAD's, not all the other ways you can die.


Too many people think that having a Cypres makes them a safe skydiver. I'm trying to point out why that isn't so. I'm also trying to point out that having an AAD of any type can create problems that wouldn't have happened had the AAD not been there. Sorry if you don't like either the fact that I said it or the way it was said.

Quote

But if I'm ever passing through 750ft with nothing out I certainly won't be thinking about how much value for money that canopy control class was.


And you probably won't be thinking about how much value for the money that AAD was when someone cuts you off on final and you fly into their canopy. Like I said, bad stuff is far more likely to happen while you're under your main than it is while you're in freefall... unless of course you routinely take it low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It needs to be in the reserve tray where its unable to be tampered with. Since its effecting the reserve and the reserve is being sealed against tamper by a rigger they are responcible for the system. If the cypres control was outside the reserve I'd refuse to pack one with a reserve if my seal was going on it. One time of someone hooking it up wrong or getting dirt in the connections and having it not in my control when it is worked on with my seal and reputation on the line is too much for me...

For pond swoopers... get your riggers ratings, pop the reserve, remove the unit, reclose it, add back in after you are done in the water.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Since its effecting the reserve and the reserve is being sealed
> against tamper by a rigger . . .

I don't know of any reserves that are "sealed against tamper." There are half a dozen ways to mess with a reserve that has been sealed, some of which have been done accidentally.

>One time of someone hooking it up wrong or getting dirt in the
> connections and having it not in my control when it is worked on with
> my seal and reputation on the line is too much for me...

Do you refuse to pack reserves on rigs that have soft reserve handles that do not meet the pull-force requirement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok.. sealed against tamper is'nt totally right but by placing the seal on the rig the rigger is taking responcibility for the reserve and any associated systems.

>Do you refuse to pack reserves on rigs that have soft reserve handles that do not meet the pull-force requirement?

If you are refering to over the pull limit, I'm yet to run into that problem. When I do I'll have to decide the best way to handle that situation to best resolve it.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


You must be reading some old fatality reports. Seems to me that most of the jumpers dying nowadays are doing so under open (i.e. outside the container) canopies. Not much a Cypres can do for someone who misjudges their final turn...



Agreed. The percentage of fatalities has changed categories. Each year, it seems that more than half the fatalities are hook turns under fully functioning canopies. Having an AAD does not increase/decrease that.

However, you spoke of the difference between the old reports and the new ones. You know the low-pull/no-pull category is small when compared to years ago. AAD's are a major reason. An AAD fire at 750 ft at terminal is close. Your canopy still needs time to open. AADs have lowered the numbers in that category. This is history that newbies may not be aware of. They need info to make informed decisions.

The only purpose of my AAD is to prevent me from dying if I am unconscious. My fault, somebody elses fault, I don't care. I think that even if it was my fault, I don't want to die. That is pretty harsh. If someone else has an AAD fire for a stupid reason, dying for being stupid is harsh too.

If people are comfortable without them, that is their decision. I support their right to choose, but the newbies don't understand all the risks yet. Threads like this are always re-treads, but they are useful because they are informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SO we don't have to worry about no-pulls because no-pull fatalities are down?

Reminds me of a science fiction story by (I think) Frederick Pohl. A team of scientists land on a planet and one by one start dying off. Eventually the survivors discover a high concentration of beryllium in the ground, and pulling out an old old chemistry book discover that beryllium is highly toxic. Of course, beryllium poisoning had been eliminated on Earth so many years before by strict controls, that no-one remembered about it any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm comfortable without one and have done most of my jumps on non-AAD rigs. That said, I bought one when I got my gear. Which brings me to another reason people might not like them...maintenance. When my rigger checked out my rig, he noticed the cypres didn't appear to have the required check, even though it had current batteries. A call to SSK revealed that it had been sent in for a 4-year, but due to a SNAFU, it hadn't been done. So now I'm waiting for the cypres to come back from its check. Luckily, it's not costing me money, because a 4-year is something like $160. The lifetime cost of a cypres is considerable more that the $950 it costs new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I view my Cypres strickly as insurance in case I get knock out while
> in free fall. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you have a round reserve or a very large square reserve?



Actually, this is something I was thinking about. How likely is one to survive a no-flare landing under a reserve (say, unconscious or dislocated shoulders)? Is there a wingloading you would consider the maximum for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have the empirical data to justify my position and unfortunately Cypres will not release information about cause and frequency of misfires. ( I have made repeated requests) With all of our other equipment, we get feedback...why not the Cypres??
Two years ago I saw saw a Cypres fire during an agressive hook turn. Givin the limited lifespan, the high maintenance cost, and the fact I can't turn a Cypres off under canopy...I'll stick with and advocate using an Astra over a Cypres for the ultra high performance canopy pilot. It's just my view from my
perspective. I'd buy another Cypres if they put a switch on it like the Astra.
"Slow down! You are too young
to be moving that fast!"

Old Man Crawfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>How likely is one to survive a no-flare landing under a reserve (say,
>unconscious or dislocated shoulders)?

Depends on way too many things to give one answer. No-flare, with brakes stowed, in no wind, on turf - I would think you'd survive landing even a 1.4 to 1 reserve, perhaps with a broken legs/pelvis/back. In 15mph winds, flying downwind into a building? You'd need a .8 to 1 to survive at all. A 28' unmodified round is a lot more survivable under most conditions of unconsciousness.

In any case, the odds of someone needing their AAD due to unconsciousness or total incapacitation is very, very low. I think most people buy AAD's because they are afraid they will get 'knocked out' then get saved when they lose track of their altitude. Under those situations, a smaller reserve is OK. They may not be 100% honest with themselves, but at least they're alive, which is the important part.

If I ever do need an AAD it will probably be because, in order of likelihood:

-Loss of A/A while doing something else
-Unwillingness to give up on a student
-Intentional going low to avoid traffic (not really a 'save')
-Unconsciousness due to collision (I do a lot of big ways)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>I view my Cypres strickly as insurance in case I get knock out while
> in free fall. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you have a round reserve or a very large square reserve?



Actually, this is something I was thinking about. How likely is one to survive a no-flare landing under a reserve (say, unconscious or dislocated shoulders)? Is there a wingloading you would consider the maximum for that?



With the dislocated shoulder scenario, I'm quite confident I could plf a brakes stowed landing under my reserve (loaded ~1.4:1) without breaking any bones. I could probably even do so with the brakes unstowed, though I might get a few more bruises out of the deal.

Unconscious, all bets are off. It was only a year or two ago that a guy died from falling down under his main and having his chest-mounted altimeter pop him in the throat. Wierd stuff can happen when you're falling, especially if it's an uncontrolled (unconscious) fall. Then again, as I don't have an AAD, it's highly unlikely I'll ever land unconscious under a functional reserve.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

SO we don't have to worry about no-pulls because no-pull fatalities are down?



I have no idea how you got that out of what I said.

My statement was that no-pulls are down. My point was that I felt that AADs were responsible for a large part of that. People who haven't been in the sport very long may not be aware of that. Lisa knows that, newbies don't. I was providing that info.

We still have to worry about low/no pulls. We just have a tool to help avoid them. It is the responsibility of the jumper to save their own life and make their own decisions. Any tool that helps is a good tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Under those situations, a smaller reserve is OK.



Not to hijack the thread, but I've heard people say they have a smaller reserve as a safety issue (because it's more compatible with their main in a 2-out). Is that the case when one has a cypres (and thus 2-out is more likely) or is it still better to have a largish reserve when one has a small main? Keep in mind this is all largely academic to me, as I'll be jumping relatively lightly-loaded gear for quite a while to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was jumping with Sandy Wambach (spelling?) one month before she went in due to being unconscious after a collision. So, it definitely happens. You and I could post names until our fingers got tired. It is definitely not a question of occurrence.

The question of landing while unconscious. A few years back, an experienced load organizer at Lake Wales was knocked unconscious and his Cypres fired. He was wearing an old Protec. He was easily over 50 years old. He landed unconscious and had numerous abrasions.

This was a very experienced jumper. Glad he is still with us. Landing unconscious may not always be survivable, but the non-AAD option is definitely not.

The unconscious scenario is the easiest to discuss, because it does occur and it does not necessarily assign blame. An AAD fire while conscious does and makes people defensive when discussing it. Yes, it is everyones responsibility to pull, but I have seen too many saves. I wouldn't want to point to a body and say "Your fault."

I saw a guy get a 10-second canopy ride and heard "I was about to pull". It was too late to pull. He was in the wrong, but stupid shouldn't be fatal. Maybe he has learned from his mistake and is a good careful person now. I hope so. If not, I am still glad he is alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Under those situations, a smaller reserve is OK.



Not to hijack the thread, but I've heard people say they have a smaller reserve as a safety issue (because it's more compatible with their main in a 2-out). Is that the case when one has a cypres (and thus 2-out is more likely) or is it still better to have a largish reserve when one has a small main?
Quote



It appears to me to be a "different strokes for different folks" scenario. Personally, I like have a decent-sized reserve regardless of what size main I'm jumping. Therefore even with a 99 sq.ft. main, I've stuck with a 170 reserve.

My personal opinion is that prudent jumpers will try to get some CRW experience early in their career. If they like it, they can continue to do it, and if they don't, they can stop. Either way, they'll have developed a better understanding of how canopies fly together (even incompatible canopies) and thus be able to keep a sensibly sized reserve in their container regardless of how far they downsize their main. I think many times folks downsize their reserve with their main just because that's all that will fit in the container of their choice. I don't see the sense in that. What would you rather do...get a container custom made to fit a 170 reserve and a 99 main or find yourself under a 107 reserve loaded at 2:1, for the first time, over trees, at an altitude of 800 feet? The phrase I've read here and elsewhere is along the lines of "I've never seen someone look up at their reserve and wish it was 20 feet smaller."

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I was jumping with Sandy Wambach (spelling?) one month before
> she went in due to being unconscious after a collision. So, it
> definitely happens.

I agree. Of people who use AAD's, though, such saves are definitely in the minority. Like I said, if it saves your life (even if it's not for the reason you thought) it's a good thing.

>I saw a guy get a 10-second canopy ride and heard "I was about to
> pull". It was too late to pull. He was in the wrong, but stupid
> shouldn't be fatal.

Yet it often is, and in most cases, the person is fully conscious while it happens. Things like AAD's can help, but come in a poor second behind education and common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>or is it still better to have a largish reserve when one has a small main?

I think you should get gear that will keep you alive most often during the most common mals. Spinning mals on HP canopies are common; therefore, get a reserve that you can easily land if low, that can be untwisted easily, etc. Two-canopy-out situations are a lot rarer, so any considerations about main-reserve compatibility come in a far distant second.

I've had this discussion with a lot of people, and I notice that the ones most vehemently defending the small-reserve idea already have tiny rigs, and they generally don't have much (if any) CRW experience. It has made me wonder if they are more justifying a decision to get a tiny rig rather than deciding the issue on its own merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0