0
Tomex

If you think Cypres is better than Argus or any other AAD... Think again.

Recommended Posts

I know of several cases where the brakes on a car didn't prevent the car running off the road and hitting a tree, a few where the sudden application of brakes resulted in a rear-end collision, and a couple where the brakes didn't work as designed.
I've still got brakes on my car.
You don't have to outrun the bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You are forced to use a parachute and they fail regularly.



Bullshit, I choose to use a parachute, and in many places when I CHOOSE to use a parachute, I am forced to have my reserve closing loop routed between a device that have time and time again been proven to be unreliable.

yes there are much more times when they have been reliable.

Mosyt of the time is not all of the time.

Making AAD's mandatory was a very bad Idea.

Fortunately the part 149 that I am under does not require the use of them in solo rigs...
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Bullshit, I choose to use a parachute...



Not bullshit at all, it is an FAR that you have to use a parachute - even two of them.

that was not my point anyway. The arguer was saying something about being forced to use something that does not work sometimes....I compared it to parachutes....

We are forced to wear seatbelts, but sometimes, rarely, they fail, or they inadvertently pin you in the car and you die due to the seatbelt.

That does not make seatbelts 'unsafe'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to step away from the key board and take a deep breath. Do you even know who wrote the silly crap in your first link? I am not a lawyer but it seems to me there is very good cause for action against the author of that rubbish.


libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]


Whoever wrote it knows he is lying and still made it available on the internet.
Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

No, I didn't say that. My statement was the first, you just read it as the second



To quote you:
Quote

went without one for a few hundred jumps. but I saw that bigger way flocks could be a dangerous place and I could get hit without ever seeing it coming. With an AAD: may well die anyway, without one: no chance. Do the math.



So instead of avoiding the danger, you decided to get an AAD and do them anyway.



I think you're twisting what he's saying. He never said that because he has an AAD he's going to do more dangerous things. He's saying that he realizes that he's doing something with more risk involved so he would like to have a backup should something go wrong.

There's a big difference there. Saying you're going to do something more dangerous BECAUSE you have an AAD is stupid. Saying you REALIZE that what you're doing has a more inherent danger involved and you would like something as a backup in case something goes wrong isn't stupid.

There are several disciplines in skydiving that are more dangerous than others. Does that mean that we shouldn't do them because they are more dangerous? Absolutely not. It simply means that we should have the proper training and take any extra precautions to HOPEFULLY avoid something that could go wrong. Getting an AAD could be one of those extra precautions.

If i get involved in a discipline in skydiving where, say, the risk of getting knocked out in freefall is greater than that of another discipline, and having an AAD could help prevent my death should that happen, then you bet your ass I'm getting an AAD. Now assuming i didn't jump with an AAD already, I'm simply taking a precaution because i realize there is a greater risk involved. However, i am not choosing to try this new discipline BECAUSE i have an AAD. I think that's exactly what this person is saying as well.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, all used up, and loudly proclaiming: Wow, what a ride!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There's a big difference there. Saying you're going to do something more dangerous BECAUSE you have an AAD is stupid. Saying you REALIZE that what you're doing has a more inherent danger involved and you would like something as a backup in case something goes wrong isn't stupid.



Doing the thing because you have an AAD is stupid.

Quote

If i get involved in a discipline in skydiving where, say, the risk of getting knocked out in freefall is greater than that of another discipline, and having an AAD could help prevent my death should that happen, then you bet your ass I'm getting an AAD. Now assuming i didn't jump with an AAD already, I'm simply taking a precaution because i realize there is a greater risk involved.



And if you would do the more dangerous thing that you should really just avoid IS stupid and allowing the AAD to run your decision.

But hey, I do not expect you to admit that. And what the hell would I know about skydiving anyway?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

No, I didn't say that. My statement was the first, you just read it as the second



To quote you:
Quote

went without one for a few hundred jumps. but I saw that bigger way flocks could be a dangerous place and I could get hit without ever seeing it coming. With an AAD: may well die anyway, without one: no chance. Do the math.



So instead of avoiding the danger, you decided to get an AAD and do them anyway.



I think you're twisting what he's saying. He never said that because he has an AAD he's going to do more dangerous things. He's saying that he realizes that he's doing something with more risk involved so he would like to have a backup should something go wrong.

There's a big difference there. Saying you're going to do something more dangerous BECAUSE you have an AAD is stupid. Saying you REALIZE that what you're doing has a more inherent danger involved and you would like something as a backup in case something goes wrong isn't stupid.

There are several disciplines in skydiving that are more dangerous than others. Does that mean that we shouldn't do them because they are more dangerous? Absolutely not. It simply means that we should have the proper training and take any extra precautions to HOPEFULLY avoid something that could go wrong. Getting an AAD could be one of those extra precautions.

If i get involved in a discipline in skydiving where, say, the risk of getting knocked out in freefall is greater than that of another discipline, and having an AAD could help prevent my death should that happen, then you bet your ass I'm getting an AAD. Now assuming i didn't jump with an AAD already, I'm simply taking a precaution because i realize there is a greater risk involved. However, i am not choosing to try this new discipline BECAUSE i have an AAD. I think that's exactly what this person is saying as well.



The problem with what the person said is not that he decided to get an AAD.

The problem is that he didn't decide to mitigate the additional danger as a prerequisite to his entry into the world that is more dangerous.

He didn't say, "I want to do bigway wingsuits, and that means I need to be extra careful to choose the right people to jump with, and to be certain that the dives are planned better than ever, etc, etc.". He said, "the danger is greater, so I'll get an AAD.

Acceptance of risks that are able to be controlled first is where the problem with the thought process is. Not in the eventual decision to get the AAD.

Mitigation of risks often involves establishing personal limitations. That is the step that is missing. Saying things like "I will always jump with a person in a small-way before I will go on a big way with him" means you decide to do your best to control the risk with a clear understanding of what the risk is, an how you can address it before you involve a back up system.

While you may think that distinction is obvious, I suggest that it is not at all obvious.

We have too many people getting saved by AADs and thinking nothing of it to believe that they are all taking the proper care to mitigate risks before they start.

No, they are saying that the AAD mitigates the risks, and that's not a good thing to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>There are several disciplines in skydiving that are more dangerous than
>others. Does that mean that we shouldn't do them because they are more
>dangerous? Absolutely not.

In some cases - absolutely yes! If the additional risk of being in a flock makes you nervous, then you shouldn't do them until you are more comfortable. If the added backup of an AAD makes you just comfortable enough, then it has made you less safe overall.

> It simply means that we should have the
>proper training and take any extra precautions to HOPEFULLY avoid
>something that could go wrong. Getting an AAD could be one of those
>extra precautions.

No problem there. The problem arises when the jumper thinks an upcoming jump is considerably more dangerous than ones he has made in the past, but the added reassurance of an AAD (or RSL, or dytter) makes it safe enough. To quote Kate Cooper on this:

"If you need some specific piece of backup equipment to make a skydive safe enough for you, you should reconsider whether you should be making that skydive at all."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

There's a big difference there. Saying you're going to do something more dangerous BECAUSE you have an AAD is stupid. Saying you REALIZE that what you're doing has a more inherent danger involved and you would like something as a backup in case something goes wrong isn't stupid.



Doing the thing because you have an AAD is stupid.

Quote

If i get involved in a discipline in skydiving where, say, the risk of getting knocked out in freefall is greater than that of another discipline, and having an AAD could help prevent my death should that happen, then you bet your ass I'm getting an AAD. Now assuming i didn't jump with an AAD already, I'm simply taking a precaution because i realize there is a greater risk involved.



And if you would do the more dangerous thing that you should really just avoid IS stupid and allowing the AAD to run your decision.

But hey, I do not expect you to admit that. And what the hell would I know about skydiving anyway?



now you're twisting my words. i never once said i would do something more risky because i had an AAD. Second, nowhere did i ever say nor imply that an AAD is running my decision.

Had you actually read my post, you would see that i made a point to say that proper training(and experience as well) is what's important when learning a more risky skydiving discipline. Then i went on to say that if having an AAD would reduce the risk of death more ALONG with proper training(and experience), then i would get one assuming i didn't already jump with one(maybe not in those EXACT words but still).

I personally don't base my decisions on choosing a discipline on whether or not i have an AAD. Never even insinuated that i did in my post. I make my decisions based on advice from experienced skydivers who have seen my skills and are capable of evaluating whether or not it is appropriate for me to partake in said discipline.

Furthermore, i know you know a lot more about skydiving than i do. That being said, it doesn't mean my views on reasoning for use of an AAD are wrong. Had you taken the time to read ALL of what i said you would see that i don't believe that people should be making decisions based on whether or not they have an AAD. Maybe i didn't emphasize it enough but i strongly believe that any decisions to take up new disciplines should be made with the advice of instructors and experienced skydivers.

With the proper experience and training dangerous disciplines can be made safer. If using an AAD can help make it even 1% safer on top of the proper training and experience then i'm all for it. But again i DO NOT advocate taking up something more dangerous simply because you have an AAD.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, all used up, and loudly proclaiming: Wow, what a ride!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To refresh the points of this post:

1) The powers that be... Have begun to tell skydivers what AAD's we can & can't use.

2) Not all AAD's are equal... Plus, to my knowledge there is really no independent testing to confirm an AAD’s reliability. In many instances, perception over shadows fact(s); which seems the only guide for choosing an AAD.

3) The fact that you have such a large group of people being adversely affected by the decision of small group. This is not a good thing at all... It would be like the US Government banning the use of motorcycles because they are too dangerous; which would be silly. I believe that skydivers (individuals) have a right to question a decision(s) that directly impacts their lives or affects the sport they love. Plus, this opens the door for possible regulation and oversight by the FAA. Again, not good...

These are the three major points of this thread... The use of terms like "rubbish" and "lying" are not constructive or germane to this post and to the individuals expressing their opinion.

With regards to liable, when facts are involved, there is no liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>It would be like the US Government banning . . .

. . . skydiving without an approved reserve. Which they did.

But in any case, the US government didn't ban anything. Rig manufacturers made a decision that you can't put a certain AAD in the rigs they make. If you do not like that you are free to:

1) buy another rig or

2) get your rigger's ticket and do whatever you like with your own rig.

However, "I can't be bothered" is not the same as "banned."

>Plus, this opens the door for possible regulation and oversight by the FAA.

Actually, continued unexplained deaths is what opens the door to oversight by the FAA. When they see the sport policing itself, they think "cool, I don't have to spend money to see what's going on, they're dealing with their own problems."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>There are several disciplines in skydiving that are more dangerous than
>others. Does that mean that we shouldn't do them because they are more
>dangerous? Absolutely not.

In some cases - absolutely yes! If the additional risk of being in a flock makes you nervous, then you shouldn't do them until you are more comfortable. If the added backup of an AAD makes you just comfortable enough, then it has made you less safe overall.

> It simply means that we should have the
>proper training and take any extra precautions to HOPEFULLY avoid
>something that could go wrong. Getting an AAD could be one of those
>extra precautions.

No problem there. The problem arises when the jumper thinks an upcoming jump is considerably more dangerous than ones he has made in the past, but the added reassurance of an AAD (or RSL, or dytter) makes it safe enough. To quote Kate Cooper on this:

"If you need some specific piece of backup equipment to make a skydive safe enough for you, you should reconsider whether you should be making that skydive at all."



i get what youre saying and i agree. maybe my wording is just wrong because i'm not the greatest at expressing my point through typing.

I know i still have heaps to learn in this sport and im learning something new every day. so im just going to drop out of this conversation because im sure im gonna make myself look like an ass because i'm no good at typing.[:/] and rather than try to make myself right, i'll just sit back and watch and maybe learn something in the process.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, all used up, and loudly proclaiming: Wow, what a ride!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

To refresh the points of this post:

1) The powers that be... Have begun to tell skydivers what AAD's we can & can't use.

2) Not all AAD's are equal... Plus, to my knowledge there is really no independent testing to confirm an AAD’s reliability. In many instances, perception over shadows fact(s); which seems the only guide for choosing an AAD.

3) The fact that you have such a large group of people being adversely affected by the decision of small group. This is not a good thing at all... It would be like the US Government banning the use of motorcycles because they are too dangerous; which would be silly. I believe that skydivers (individuals) have a right to question a decision(s) that directly impacts their lives or affects the sport they love. Plus, this opens the door for possible regulation and oversight by the FAA. Again, not good...

These are the three major points of this thread... The use of terms like "rubbish" and "lying" are not constructive or germane to this post and to the individuals expressing their opinion.

With regards to liable, when facts are involved, there is no liable.



That cleared absolutely nothing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Doing the thing because you have an AAD is stupid.



I agree. It's just not what he said. If he'd said something like, "I'm doing bigway wingsuit flocks with a bunch of raving nutters that are trying to kill me, so I'll get an AAD or else I won't feel safe doing so." then you'd have a point.

What he said was that he has recognized a certain level of danger in skydiving and that there is a device that in some small way may mitigate a small portion of those dangers and that since he has the means to get one, it makes sense that he should do so. Nowhere did he say that if for some reason he failed to get an AAD would he stop doing those jumps. You read that into his statements without him ever saying it.

By your logic, nobody should ever choose to adopt new safety equipment lest they be teased by the big kids for being stupid and only doing what they're doing because their new safety devices made them feel safe. What next? Are you going to ask him to go on some big wingsuit flocks without his AAD just to prove something to you? He has nothing to prove to you. I'm actually not sure why he's trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The problem is that he didn't decide to mitigate the additional danger as a prerequisite to his entry into the world that is more dangerous.

He didn't say, "I want to do bigway wingsuits, and that means I need to be extra careful to choose the right people to jump with, and to be certain that the dives are planned better than ever, etc, etc.". He said, "the danger is greater, so I'll get an AAD.



Another logical fallacy...

Just because he didn't say that doesn't mean that he never considered other safety factors. I see you do CRW and fly a wingsuit. I'm guessing that when you're preparing for a jump, you give adequate consideration to the relative skill levels on the other people on the jump and whether it's appropriate for them, the equipment available, current weather conditions and whether it makes sense to proceed with the jump in light of those factors. I'm also assuming that you don't always enumerate every such thought to the folks that at manifest when you manifest for the load. I also assume that when you don't explain such thought processes to them, they just assume that you're a grown-up and can think for yourself, rather than quiz you on it or accusing you of not thinking about them.

If everyone enumerated every thought they ever had when considering equipment purchases, jumps they're wanting to do or just about anything else in this forum, it would get very long and very boring. Can we stop reading stuff into people's posts for the sake of attacking people and save the jumping on them for situations when someone actually says "I wouldn't do XXX jumps if I didn't have an AAD because it makes me feel safer."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your point is that Airtec/CYPRES isn't perfect, I think most people should already know that. Every AAD manufacturer has had their issues. On the other hand, if you're looking at current reliability levels, IMHO, I think it's difficult to argue against the reliability record of CYPRES and CYPRES 2 units currently in service.

That said, I tend to agree with the wait and see attitude of some of the manufacturers such as Sunrise and VSE and think that the actions taken by some manufacturers against the Argus is premature and likely to lead to a lot of skydivers jumping without an AAD which despite it's cutter problems, seems more likely to improve safety outcomes if left in the container than degrade them.

As for what dogs I may or may not have in this fight, I jump a Vigil 2 which I regret buying and have some reservations about their design philosophy, however, they are nowhere near grave enough to warrant replacing my Vigil 2 with another device and I still believe that the net effect of the Vigil 2 is an overall improvement in safety. If I was to buy another AAD tomorrow, however, it would probably be a CYPRES 2, although I've become very curious about this new M2 device coming from MarS/Alti-2 in a few months. I don't know enough about it yet, nor am I likely to buy one straight out of the gate, but certainly curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

1) The powers that be... Have begun to tell skydivers what AAD's we can & can't use.



No one is saying you can’t use any AAD you want. Certain manufactured have said that you can’t use a particular AAD in the gear that they designed, tested and market to the public. Do you think you or any other jumper has the right to make business decisions for this company? I don’t think so.

Quote

2) Not all AAD's are equal... Plus, to my knowledge there is really no independent testing to confirm an AAD’s reliability. In many instances, perception over shadows fact(s); which seems the only guide for choosing an AAD.



You are right not all AAD’s are the same. Some are better than others. But that is just my opinion and I don’t try to sell it as fact. I am not sure what you mean by perception over fact but I tend to pick my gear by the company’s track record.

Quote

3) The fact that you have such a large group of people being adversely affected by the decision of small group. This is not a good thing at all... It would be like the US Government banning the use of motorcycles because they are too dangerous; which would be silly. I believe that skydivers (individuals) have a right to question a decision(s) that directly impacts their lives or affects the sport they love. Plus, this opens the door for possible regulation and oversight by the FAA. Again, not good...



A decision “adversely affecting” a large group has yet to be proven. As for the small group making decisions, wake up and look around. There are 535 members of Congress making decisions for 308 million citizens and the Government has already banned a motorcycle, the Honda 3 wheel ATV. Hello McFly. Skydivers do have the right to question decisions that have been made but do you think the rights of “skydivers” trump the rights of International Company’s to conduct their business as they see fit?

Quote


The use of terms like "rubbish" and "lying" are not constructive or germane to this post and to the individuals expressing their opinion.

With regards to liable, when facts are involved, there is no liable.



Make up your mind, is that rubbish an opinion or fact. Can you even identify the author? If not why would blindly support something that is blatantly biased that it is almost appears to be a joke. Show us where the facts are, substantiate just some of it. If you can show where there have been even 10 deaths caused by a Cypres or any other AAD for that matter I’ll eat my words. Until then it remains “rubbish” and “lies”.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not bullshit at all, it is an FAR that you have to use a parachute - even two of them.



yes it is bullshit, I can choose not use a parachute by staying in the ground and not jumping.

But (in many/most places) you are forced to use an aad if you want to use a parachute.

a seatbelt failing is not the same as an aad failing.

maybe if you lose conciousness and it fails to work, but not if it fires when you do not wish it to and you end up with a reserve parachute that you do not need/want.

this has happend with a cyprs 2 on more than one occasion.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I can choose not use a parachute by staying in the ground and not jumping.

Yes. And you can choose to not use an AAD by staying on the ground and not jumping. Fortunately, you can also choose to not use an AAD and jump in most places as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The problem arises when the jumper thinks an upcoming jump is considerably more dangerous than ones he has made in the past, but the added reassurance of an AAD (or RSL, or dytter) makes it safe enough. To quote Kate Cooper on this:

"If you need some specific piece of backup equipment to make a skydive safe enough for you, you should reconsider whether you should be making that skydive at all."



A reserve is a back up device so (regulations aside) should people quit jumping unless they are prepared to jump a single parachute system? Do you tell this to FJC students?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The problem is that he didn't decide to mitigate the additional danger as a prerequisite to his entry into the world that is more dangerous.

He didn't say, "I want to do bigway wingsuits, and that means I need to be extra careful to choose the right people to jump with, and to be certain that the dives are planned better than ever, etc, etc.". He said, "the danger is greater, so I'll get an AAD.



Another logical fallacy...

Just because he didn't say that doesn't mean that he never considered other safety factors. I see you do CRW and fly a wingsuit. I'm guessing that when you're preparing for a jump, you give adequate consideration to the relative skill levels on the other people on the jump and whether it's appropriate for them, the equipment available, current weather conditions and whether it makes sense to proceed with the jump in light of those factors. I'm also assuming that you don't always enumerate every such thought to the folks that at manifest when you manifest for the load. I also assume that when you don't explain such thought processes to them, they just assume that you're a grown-up and can think for yourself, rather than quiz you on it or accusing you of not thinking about them.

If everyone enumerated every thought they ever had when considering equipment purchases, jumps they're wanting to do or just about anything else in this forum, it would get very long and very boring. Can we stop reading stuff into people's posts for the sake of attacking people and save the jumping on them for situations when someone actually says "I wouldn't do XXX jumps if I didn't have an AAD because it makes me feel safer."



Sure, but I can only go by what was written.

Since this discussion is all about how these decisions are made, I'd hope and expect an elaborate discussion regarding the process, not an abbreviated description of it.

Personally, I don't do anything big in Wingsuits or CF, AAD or not, because what the other people can do scares me. My risk mitigation absolutely includes not doing anything with people I don't trust based on my personal experiences with them.

The presence or absence of the AAD has little to do with that.

It is still very clear to me that we have a lot of AAD fires that are simply jumpers failing to do what they need to do, as opposed to jumpers being knocked out.

So when I hear any jumper say, "I was okay before, but this new thing is more dangerous, so I'll get an AAD", I'll be concerned that he is one of them.

This whole discussion on this thread started with fasted3 mentioning something from another thread. I'm not even sure where it came from. But whoever said it is absolutely free to elaborate on his decision making process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


With regards to liable, when facts are involved, there is no liable.


Show me the "facts" in your posted rubbish.



My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
http://www.skydivethefarm.comhttp://www.chutingstar.com


LOL... You call this post "rubbish" and then have the nades to advertise on it... Nice... Btw, I will not be jumping at your DZ,
anytime soon... LOL...

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.

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