AAD's & Personal Acceptable Risk Thresholds

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Again Derek and I said this over and over again. You said yourself that you would not do CRW without a reserve. So the addition of a reserve makes you willing to take more risks, i.e. doing CRW.

The purpose of a reserve is different form an AAD, hence the difference.

Quote

The same goes for me and the 500 way. It's a very complex and dangerous jump. With an AAD I am willing to take the chance of getting knock unconscious without it I just say no to the jump.

So you are OK getting knocked if you have an AAD? Doesn't that mean you aren't treating an AAD like a back up, but are depending on it to mitigate risk?

Derek

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

To summarize gear DOES change my risk acceptance threshold.

I am willing to accept a certain amount of risk. Let's say I could put a number on it, 1 to 10, ten being the most risk. Say I am willing to accept a 8. What gear I have on my back does nothing to change how much risk I am willing to accept. I don't understand how an AAD can make someone willing to take more risk. I am willing to accept 8 on a scale of 1 to 10, an AAD does not change that.

If I am an 8 on the risk scale and I feel a 3-way head down dive is a 9, then it is too risky for me to do. I don't think an AAD makes the dive any less risky. There is the same chance of something going wrong, I just have a better chance of surviving if something goes wrong.

Derek

Risk of WHAT? An AAD changes the risk of death. There is absolutely no doubt of that.

You continue to use the work risk as if it does not have a precise meaning. It does have a precise meaning, and you misuse it over and over.

Look it up, then we can have a sensible debate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Again Derek and I said this over and over again. You said yourself that you would not do CRW without a reserve. So the addition of a reserve makes you willing to take more risks, i.e. doing CRW.

The purpose of a reserve is different form an AAD, hence the difference.

Quote

The same goes for me and the 500 way. It's a very complex and dangerous jump. With an AAD I am willing to take the chance of getting knock unconscious without it I just say no to the jump.

So you are OK getting knocked if you have an AAD? Doesn't that mean you aren't treating an AAD like a back up, but are depending on it to mitigate risk?

Derek

You are not looking at the complete system. For some reason you omit an important part.

The ultimate purpose of a reserve is to save your life if another part of the system fails. It may or may not succeed, but that's what it's for.

The ultimate purpose of an AAD is to save your life if another part of the system fails (the human part). It may or may not succeed, but that's what it's for.

You make an artificial distinction.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Risk of WHAT? An AAD changes the risk of death. There is absolutely no doubt of that.

In this case, risk of a collision. An AAD does not change that. I prefer to to avoid a collision where an AAD might be needed.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You are not looking at the complete system. For some reason you omit an important part.

I am not omiting it, I am treating it like a back up.

When you decide how fast to drive, do you consider if you have airbags or not?

I don't. They are back ups only and do not allow me to drive any faster. I would prefer not to ever use use and make driving decisions with that goal in mind. I do not drive faster because I have airbags. If I did I would be depending on the to mitigate the risk of driving faster. I don;t think it is a good idea to depend on airbags or AAD's. I think they should be strictly back ups whose use is avoided.

You mentioned that the AAD is there to save your life if the human part of the system fails, but didn't mention which part of the system the reserve is there for in case it fails. That is the main part of the system.

The reserve is there in case the main canopy part of the system fails. The AAD is there in case the human part of the system fails. 2 different purposes. That is why I treat them differently, they have different purposes.

Derek

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

You are not looking at the complete system. For some reason you omit an important part.

I am not omiting it, I am treating it like a back up.

When you decide how fast to drive, do you consider if you have airbags or not?

I don't. They are back ups only and do not allow me to drive any faster. I would prefer not to ever use use and make driving decisions with that goal in mind. I do not drive faster because I have airbags. If I did I would be depending on the to mitigate the risk of driving faster. I don;t think it is a good idea to depend on airbags or AAD's. I think they should be strictly back ups whose use is avoided.

You mentioned that the AAD is there to save your life if the human part of the system fails, but didn't mention which part of the system the reserve is there for in case it fails. That is the main part of the system.

The reserve is there in case the main canopy part of the system fails. The AAD is there in case the human part of the system fails. 2 different purposes. That is why I treat them differently, they have different purposes.

Derek

A back up IS part of the system. The reserve is a back up too. It backs up a different part of the system. The system is the whole shebang! Engineering 101.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Say I am willing to accept a 8. What gear I have on my back does nothing to change how much risk I am willing to accept. I don't understand how an AAD can make someone willing to take more risk. I am willing to accept 8 on a scale of 1 to 10, an AAD does not change that.

So long as you measure risk of collision instead of the more practical risk of dying, this circle routine will continue.

If there weren't risk in this sport, would we be doing it? But few of us want to die doing it.

[MWGemini 0]

True, they are both parts of the system, but the question I think that is at the root of the issue is this:

If they were NOT a part of the system, would you act any differently?

Would you pack neater if you did not have a reserve? Would you confine yourself to "safer" jumps without an AAD? Would you drive as fast if seatbelts did not exist and we were still driving open air cars like the ones Ford first made?

Just because a safety device is part of the system does not mean that we can allow ourselves to be so complacent as to rely on that device. This goes for any safety device, be it the AAD, the reserve, the helmet, even the altimeter. We must train ourselves to to rely ONLY on ourselves.

Mike

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

True, they are both parts of the system, but the question I think that is at the root of the issue is this:

If they were NOT a part of the system, would you act any differently?

Would you pack neater if you did not have a reserve? Would you confine yourself to "safer" jumps without an AAD? Would you drive as fast if seatbelts did not exist and we were still driving open air cars like the ones Ford first made?

I have an antique open car and I drive it like my 2004 model (except it can't actually go quite as fast).

Quote

Just because a safety device is part of the system does not mean that we can allow ourselves to be so complacent as to rely on that device. This goes for any safety device, be it the AAD, the reserve, the helmet, even the altimeter. We must train ourselves to to rely ONLY on ourselves.

Mike

You are making the same error. The system is everything you use to come safely back to Earth when you make a skydive. Everything: harness, container, main, reserve, human brain, altimeter, helmet... and any of them can fail.

There's an absolute minimum requirement without which you will probably die, and there's additional stuff that reduces the risk below that of jumping with just the minimum. But it all makes up one system. Backing up one failure prone part of the system is no different than backing up any other failure prone part of the system.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nicknitro71 0]

Quote

The purpose of a reserve is different form an AAD, hence the difference.

Again to you they are different to me only their proximate accounts are different the ultimate account is the same: they both are back up devices.

Quote

So you are OK getting knocked if you have an AAD?

No, I'm not OK but I'm better off than being knock unconscious without AAD.

Quote

Doesn't that mean you aren't treating an AAD like a back up, but are depending on it to mitigate risk?

Yes Derek. I also depend on my reserve to mitigate the risk of jumping my main. If I did not I would always jump my BASE canopy as main.

Memento Audere Semper

903

[Hooknswoop 19]

I'm going to take a break and think this through again

Derek

[MWGemini 0]

Quote

Backing up one failure prone part of the system is no different than backing up any other failure prone part of the system.

I think that is the key point. Equipment can fail, so we'll call that prone to failure. The AAD is only there to back up the human element. If the human element is prone to failure, it doesn't belong in the air. That is what golf is for.

Mike

[hookitt 0]

Quote

That is what golf is for.

You obviously haven't played golf

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[MWGemini 0]

Once, actually. It has been my understanding that the only thing in the air with golf is the ball (and the clubs if the golfer is having a bad day, but that is another story). We're not talking device dependency there. On that note- does Tiger Woods NEED those titanium clubs (or whatever it is he uses) to win the US Open (or whatever it is called- I'm not a golfer, so don't flame me for getting this wrong). My guess is that the answer is no, he relies on his skill and lifetime of training.

Mike

[hookitt 0]

I have a not so hot set of clubs in my truck that I'm taking to the used sports equipment store. Tiger couldn't win on those, but could school you.

He's dependant on good equipment. Some equipment allows you to use all your skill while others don't.

Ok.. I just ate a kick ass salad with pico de gallo, chicken and Spring mix. Back to the AAD dependancy debate!

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[MWGemini 0]

But given the same set of clubs, wouldn't he still be better than the next best guy (Nicklaus?)?

Gear should not change how we jump. I feel that if everyone made each jump with the thought that they had no backup devices, or that they were likely to fail, that we would be much more cautious in choosing and maintaining our equipment, and in selecting what jumps to go on.

I used to rock climb a fair amount. I have two ropes, and a fairly decent assortment of protective gear (anchors to the rock). I have free soloed before (climbing alone without a rope or any other protective equipment). I did this because I felt the climb was within my ability to do safely. When I first started learning to climb trad (placing my own anchors, something I never really got into), I made every one of those climbs as if I had no rope at all. The reason behind that is that I was not sure I could trust my anchor placements to hold. I trusted the equipment, and I trusted the rock, but I did not (and still do not) have the skill and experience to place bombproof anchors, or to know which ones are more likely to fail. When I was first learning to climb trad, I would not get on a route that I could not freesolo safely. That is no different from not going on a jump where I feel the risk of being knocked unconscious is higher than my ability to compensate.

I'm not sure if I'm just not making sense, or if you (and others) are understanding, but just disagreeing.

Mike

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

*** If the human element is prone to failure, it doesn't belong in the air. That is what golf is for.

Mike

You are clearly too young to have seen much of life if you think any human is immune to error.

Lets try this again. Here is a list of highly respected, medal winning, record setting skydivers. What do they have in common?

Sandy Wambach
Roger Nelson
Tom Piras
Patrick de Gayardon
Rob Harris
Chris Martin

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Once, actually. It has been my understanding that the only thing in the air with golf is the ball (and the clubs if the golfer is having a bad day, but that is another story). We're not talking device dependency there. On that note- does Tiger Woods NEED those titanium clubs (or whatever it is he uses) to win the US Open (or whatever it is called- I'm not a golfer, so don't flame me for getting this wrong). My guess is that the answer is no, he relies on his skill and lifetime of training.

At the professional level, sure, equipment matters. Many felt that Tiger's slide was related to changing in sponsors and gear. Ditching the coach was another possibility. The difference between his good and bad game is total domination and barely making the cut.

[kelpdiver 2]

Did Nelson make an error, or was he just unlucky in that low canopy collision? And I don't think Martin failed in any way, he just experimented with an unforgiving canopy.

But that aside, yeah. If anyone prone to failure doesn't belong in the air, it's going to be nothing but military drop testing.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Did Nelson make an error, or was he just unlucky in that low canopy collision? And I don't think Martin failed in any way, he just experimented with an unforgiving canopy.

But that aside, yeah. If anyone prone to failure doesn't belong in the air, it's going to be nothing but military drop testing.

It takes two to have a collision and one to avoid it.

The assumption that one is immune to error is just about the most dangerous assumption one can make in skydiving. Not even the Pope claims infallibility all the time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Here is the difference....If you pack like shit, ignore the maintenance on your gear, or deploy without trying to be stable...Just cause you have a reserve...

If you pack like you have no reserve, maintain your gear like your life depends on it, and try to be stable when you deploy...

In the last decade I've seen one skydiver with a reserve pack like he didn't have one - for a Mr. Bill jump with an intentional terminal opening below 1000 feet.

Every one else I've seen is sloppy. They do little to control the steering lines and nothing to guarantee they stay behind the nose. They mush the canopy until it will fit in the deployment bag instead of folding it to keep everything in place. Loose standards are accepted for line tension uniformity. They do little to guarantee nose symetry. They do little to align the top and bottom skin center seems.

Skydiver gear maintenance is horrid too. I've never seen a skydiver crawl inside their main. People take systems without reserves a lot more seriously - most get a thorough inspection every use, and many of the rest are gone through after a dozen jumps or at least yearly.

There may be a few exceptions, although as a rule skydivers pack less carefully and are more lax about maintenance because we have reserves. We feel that's reasonable because the risk increase is acceptable and it lets us get more jumps than we'd have with hour long pack jobs and frequent hour long inspections.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

When you decide how fast to drive, do you consider if you have airbags or not?

No but I do consider the protection I have when deciding how fast to go arround a corner. Loosing traction with four wheels means chewing up tires, getting the car dirty, and maybe breaking expensive parts. A ton of steel arround me reduces my chances of getting hurt. Loosing traction with two wheels means a low side or high side. A little fiberglass, foam, plastic, and 1/16" of leather won't do much against a guard rail.

Although I wouldn't drive any faster with airbags the difference between that and what I'm doing is a subjective matter of degree.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

No but I do consider the protection I have when deciding how fast to go arround a corner. Loosing traction with four wheels means chewing up tires, getting the car dirty, and maybe breaking expensive parts. A ton of steel arround me reduces my chances of getting hurt. Loosing traction with two wheels means a low side or high side. A little fiberglass, foam, plastic, and 1/16" of leather won't do much against a guard rail.

Although I wouldn't drive any faster with airbags the difference between that and what I'm doing is a subjective matter of degree.

I agree totally. In this case I would think the airbags are like an AAD and the type of car, metal/fiberglass 2wd/4wd, etc are you main and reserve.

When I was a safety diver at the NBL, several times a reduntant air supply tank was added to the EMU suits in the vent all the other air supply systems failed, the diver could turn on this mini bottle for the subject. It was strictly a back up. No added risks were taken when it was installed. The same rules and procedures applied regardless if that bottle was installed or not.

To truly be a back up, a back up shouldn't be relied upon. I think an AAD should be treated strictly as a back up. I believe a back up device should not allow the risk level to be increased.

I think a back up device shoud make you safer. If you increase your risk exposure because you have an additional back up device, you aren't safer than before.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

think a back up device shoud make you safer. If you increase your risk exposure because you have an additional back up device, you aren't safer than before.

I pretty much agree with your entire post. I don't agree with some of the conclusions you've made in other posts.

First of all I don't think you can really quantify risk in skydiving very well. What's the risk of going on a 50 way? Well, that depends on a million factors. Whats the risk reduction associated with adding a backup device (AAD)? Again, hard to quantify. What makes you believe the risk reduction and risk increase are the same, so that the AAD has no added benefit?

Lets say a jumper is comfortable on a 4-way but not a 5-way. But by borrowing a cypres-equipped rig, that jumper agrees to go on a 5-way. What's the added risk of one more jumper? What's the added benefit of the cypres? What if that was a 50 way instead of a 5-way? Still the same?

You keep saying that taking more risk because you have an added safety device negates the effect of that safety device. Well I believe that depends on how much more risk you're taking. You might be able to take a little more risk, add a cypres, and still be safer than you were on a jump with no cypres.

Again, I understand your point and agree that its stupid to go do dangerous things no matter what backups you have. But I don't agree that risk depends on WHY someone chooses to use a cypres. Risk depends on what that person is doing and what equipment they use. A 5-way with a cypres is safer, in theory, than a 5-way without a cypres, regardless of experience level or AAD philosophy. If a jumper chooses to use a cypres for certain jumps because of the increased risk level on those jumps, he's being realistic. AFF instructors have lost altitude awareness and died. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that those instructors (I know of one, don't know how many others there have been) would have been safer if they had worn AADs when doing AFF jumps. I don't understand any argument for why they were better off accepting the risk of doing AFF without an AAD.

Dave

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

First of all I don't think you can really quantify risk in skydiving very well.

I agree.

The only two rsik asessments that matter are how much risk a jumper is willing to take and if that jumper feels a particular jump exceeds that or not. It is completely personal. If the jump is too risky, the jump is too risky. AAD's don't change how risky a jump is, only the odds of surviving if something does happen.

Quote

Lets say a jumper is comfortable on a 4-way but not a 5-way. But by borrowing a cypres-equipped rig, that jumper agrees to go on a 5-way. What's the added risk of one more jumper? What's the added benefit of the cypres? What if that was a 50 way instead of a 5-way? Still the same?

If the jumper isn't comfortable doing 5-ways, they shouldn't do 5-ways. If they do do the 5-way because they now have an AAD, they aren't treating it like a back up device. An AAD shouldn't allow to do something you aren;t comfortable doing.

Quote

You keep saying that taking more risk because you have an added safety device negates the effect of that safety device. Well I believe that depends on how much more risk you're taking. You might be able to take a little more risk, add a cypres, and still be safer than you were on a jump with no cypres.

The jump is either too risky for you or it isn't. An AAD shouldn't change that. As a safety diver, we had to keep a clear path back to the donning stand and keep the umbilical line from preventing us a clear shot to the donning stand. Adding the extra air tank didn't change that even though we had more time to get them back to the donning stand with the tank. If we would have allowed the umbilical line to go around structure because now we had more time witht he spare tank, that means we would relying on it in the event of a problem, and it was no longer a back up device.

Quote

A 5-way with a cypres is safer, in theory, than a 5-way without a cypres, regardless of experience level or AAD philosophy.

I disagree. Put 5 people with no jumps out of the airplane with Cypres's. Now put 5 people w/ 1000 jumps each out of the airplane w/o Cypres's. Which 5-way is safer? To me safety isn't just landing under an open parachute, it is avoiding the need for an AAD in the first place. I think the second 5-way is safer because they are less likely to need AAD's in the first place. Given 2 identical 5-ways, one w/ AAD's, one w/o, the 5-way with are safer.

Quote

If a jumper chooses to use a cypres for certain jumps because of the increased risk level on those jumps, he's being realistic.

That leaves out a key point. Using an AAD for riskier jumps is fine by me. Using an AAD for jumps that are too risky is not. By this I mean the jumper that is uncomfortable doing a 5-way, but will do a 5-way with a Cypres. If his limit is 4-ways, his limit is 4-ways. If the policy is a clear shot to the doning stand, then that's the policy, regardless of the extra tank or not.

Quote

AFF instructors have lost altitude awareness and died. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that those instructors (I know of one, don't know how many others there have been) would have been safer if they had worn AADs when doing AFF jumps. I don't understand any argument for why they were better off accepting the risk of doing AFF without an AAD.

If NASA had just looked at the system at the NBL as a whole and not considered the mini bottle a back up, then we could have changed what we were allowed to do with regards to routing the umbilical cord. But NASA didn't look at it as a system, they looked at what was necessary, and then what was safety back ups and didn't change anything when the extra mini bottles where installed. That is how back ups should be treated. If we had depended on that bottle we could have accepted more risk. Instead, because it was a back up, we didn't depend on it and it just made things safer, as a back up should.

I have never argued that a jumper shouldn't wear an AAD or is safer w/o one. Please quote anywhere I have said that a jumper is safer w/o an AAD.

Derek