AAD's & Personal Acceptable Risk Thresholds

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

AAD's don't change how risky a jump is, only the odds of surviving if something does happen.

Well I'll disagree with you right there. To me, risk heavily depends on odds of surviving. I think AADs do decrease risk. They don't change the probability of a collision, they don't change the probability of dying instantly in a collision, but they do increase the probability of surviving a skydive. Higher probability of surviving is lower risk.

Quote

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.

See I have no problem with this. I have a problem with the idea that any jump you won't do without an AAD is automatically too risky for you. Maybe some jumps are RISKY ENOUGH to warrant AAD use every time. Maybe the specific risks associated with certain types of jumps are risks that can be mitigated by using an AAD.

You never suggest jumping without an AAD like billvon has. He's congratulated people for jumping without one to prove they can do it. But you pose the question "would you do it without an AAD?" You never ask anyone to demonstrate it. Why is "no" the wrong answer to that question? Why not ask "is this jump too risky for you, taking into account the equipment you'll be using?"

You never suggested that any AFF instructor go instruct without an AAD. But you do believe that they should be willing to. Why? Just using them as an example, history has shown that experienced instructors can lose altitude awareness and die. I agree that all AFF instructors should know that they might lose altitude awareness and die. That's a given. But why should they be willing to jump without an AAD? They must ACCEPT THE ACTUAL RISKS THAT THEY ARE TAKING. They shouldn't have fantasies about what a cypres will do for them. They should know it might not work and even if it works exactly as designed, it might not save their life. But why should they be willing to jump without it knowing that it MIGHT save their life?

Forget the 5 way. We agree on that. Forget lack of skill. You're very sly about how you make your argument about experienced jumpers. You never suggest jumping without an AAD, you just say they must be willing. To me, those aren't so different. It's like suggesting that it's WRONG for an AFF instructor who finds his AAD is shut off on jumprun to ride the plane down with his student, the other instructor, and the video guy. Yeah, I think pretty much any AFF instructor would "risk it" for that one jump and just do it. But you seem to suggest in that scenario that he SHOULD jump without an AAD. I think that should be his choice to make, not yours. If he wants to ride the plane down, so be it. Call him device dependent or whatever you want. I don't think he'd be wrong. And after getting a working AAD, I don't think he'd be wrong getting back on that plane and doing an AFF jump. Accepting risk and being willing to do it without an AAD are not the same thing in my opinion.

Dave

[nicknitro71 0]

Quote

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.

Yes Derek but human behavior changes if humans feel the safety of a back up device, it’s the nature of the beast. Does it make it right? That I cannot answer but it definitely helps exploration and the setting of a new niche, evolutionary speaking.

Let me give you few examples:

When humans first developed tools that can kill, like a sharp rock tighten to a long stick, they took more chances when it came to food hunting and exploration. They knew their chances of survival went up because of the back up device they just developed. They did not act the same as if they did not have one. They were willing to try something new and more dangerous that they did not feel comfortable doing before.

When aeronautical engineers learn to increase the speed and maneuverability on aircrafts by developing smaller wings they encounter a problem: those aircraft could not be landed without the power of an engine and some pilots refused to fly them and some got killed doing so. So they develop ejection seats with parachutes and pilots changed their behavior: they started flying those aircrafts that there were not wiling to fly before. Again they changed their behavior due to a backup device.

If we did not have a reserve we would not be jumping the main canopies we are jumping today. Because a reserve most of the time functions quite well, we take the chance of jumping a main canopy that it’s a lot of fun but it could get unrecoverable due to a single line twist.

AADs especially the Cypres have an outstanding track record. We know they work. In a jump, like a hot 500 way, where chances of getting hit are very real, many people chose to be on that jump because they have an AAD. Without it many of them would not get on the jump.

Running a red light because you have airbags is just stupid and it does not make a good example. Let me give you a better one. I have a 4X4 truck. It’s normally a 4X2 but I have the backup of 2 additional wheel drive. I would not take it to work in a heavy snow storm if I did not have the back up of the 4X4 but because I know that the 4X4 gives me additional traction I take more chance and drive to work.

When I was deployed in Somalia I would not go in some streets of Mogadishu if I did not have a gun (the backup device). Now, I’ve gone in those streets every day for 4 months and only twice I had to use the backup device. Nonetheless I was willing to take more chance because I had a gun.

Behavior does chance with the presence of backup devices like it or not.

Memento Audere Semper

903

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Well I'll disagree with you right there. To me, risk heavily depends on odds of surviving.

Then we have to disagree, since to me risk depends on injury-free survival.

Quote

They don't change the probability of a collision,

Exactly why if the chance of a collision is too high, having an AAD does not mean you should go on the jump, since the chance of a collision has not changed.

A collision can result in a broken arm. If I think a jump has too high of a chance of collision, I won't go do it just because I have an AAD. I won't go do it because I don't want a broken arm and feel the chances are too high of getting one.

If all that matters was survival, then 100 jumpers with 50 jumps each and AAD's could go try a 100-way. They make collide, knock each other out, break bones, etc, but they would all survive.

If survival was all that mattered, then jumpers with AAD's would not have limits, they could go do any jump.

I disagree that survival is all that matters.

Quote

Why not ask "is this jump too risky for you, taking into account the equipment you'll be using?"

Because an AAD shouldn't be relied upon. That is why NASA didn't allow the umbical line to be routed around structure, because then we would be relying on that mini bottle and it wouldn't be a back up anymore. Is NASA wrong for not allowing us to route the umbilical line around structure which would mean we would need that mini bottle in the event of a loss of air supply? I don't think they were.

Quote

You never suggested that any AFF instructor go instruct without an AAD. But you do believe that they should be willing to. Why?

It's a litmus test, maybe a poor one, or poorly phrased. I think someone else said it better, "Don't go on a skydive BECAUSE you have an AAD." If you do, then it is no longer a back up.

If you go on a dive that you feel has too high of a chance for a collision because you have an AAD, then the AAD is no longer a back up like it should be.

Quote

You never suggest jumping without an AAD, you just say they must be willing. To me, those aren't so different.

Again, what I am trying to say there is don't make a jump that you think is too risky because you have an AAD.

Treat an AAD like a back up and you'll be safer.

2 jumpers, "A" and "B", both have AAD's. Both are OK w/ 4-ways but both think 5-ways are too risky because of the chances for a collision. One gets on a 5-way, figuring, "Well, if something happens, I have an AAD.". The other goes on a 4-way. Who is the safer jumper?

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Yes Derek but human behavior changes if humans feel the safety of a back up device, it’s the nature of the beast.

It doesn't have to be. The NBL didn't do it. It isn't that hard to not depend on back up devices. Just don't do something that you think is too risky because of back up devices.

Derek

[hookitt 0]

Quote

2 jumpers, "A" and "B", both have AAD's. Both are OK w/ 4-ways but both think 5-ways are too risky because of the chances for a collision. One gets on a 5-way, figuring, "Well, if something happens, I have an AAD.". The other goes on a 4-way. Who is the safer jumper?

Probably the guy on the 5 way because he's too afraid to screw up.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

2 jumpers, "A" and "B", both have AAD's. Both are OK w/ 4-ways but both think 5-ways are too risky because of the chances for a collision. One gets on a 5-way, figuring, "Well, if something happens, I have an AAD.". The other goes on a 4-way. Who is the safer jumper?

Probably the guy on the 5 way because he's too afraid to screw up.

Doesn't the 5 way have a higher chance of a collision like a 300-way has a higher chance of collision than a 4-way?

Being afraid to screw up or performance anxiety can reduce your performance, increasing his chances of a collision.

I'm saying don't go on jumps you think are too risky for you. Others are saying go ahead and do whatever jumps if you have an AAD. Which is safer?

Derek

[billvon 2,400]

>Probably the guy on the 5 way because he's too afraid to screw up.

I've jumped with people like that. "I can't screw up . . . I can't screw up . . . . damn, what was I doing? Why is everyone leaving?" One such guy (at Quincy 95 I think) just stared at me at breakoff, with me gesturing to 'go away.' "What am I forgetting to do?" I could almost hear him think. "I'm driving in, I'm not popping up in between points . . . why is he pointing at my altimeter?" Finally I spun him around and pushed him then tracked off myself. He got the idea.

[hookitt 0]

I applaud the guy for going on the 5 way even though he was probably afraid. Sounds like the first 12 ways I was on. It was frightening to think that 11 other people are going to be there. I learned alot on those dives.

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

[hookitt 0]

hehehe.. nice.. I've done that to people too and it didn't matter that it was a 2 way.

Edit: you said the magic word... "Quincy" lots of things go on at the WFFC. Makes a person appreciate home now doesn't it.

Edit #2: Tracking off would do the same thing wouldn't it? Why waste time and altitude pointing the guy in a different direction? Seems like it would take longer to get the point across.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I applaud the guy for going on the 5 way even though he was probably afraid.

No, not afraid. He feels a 5-way is to risky for him.

You have your limit too, right? Would you swim with great whites in a seal outfit with blood in the water?

My point is why do something that you think is too risky to do? Isn't that the point of having a limit? So that you don't go over it?

Derek

[hookitt 0]

When something as retarded as swimming with great whites is presented ... it's not even a consideration. Give me a Shark Cage and all the other added back ups and sure... I'd be willing to have the shit scared out of me.

I'm out of time for the afternoon so I must end my part of the debate. Maybe later though.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

When something as retarded as swimming with great whites is presented ... it's not even a consideration. Give me a Shark Cage and all the other added back ups and sure... I'd be willing to have the shit scared out of me.

Exactly, but you have a limit to how much risk you'll take. A 5-way has a certain level of risk of collision with other jumpers. If a jumper feels the risk is too high, then they shouldn't do 5-ways. An AAD does not reduce the chance they will be injured in a collision.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Is NASA wrong for not allowing us to route the umbilical line around structure which would mean we would need that mini bottle in the event of a loss of air supply? I don't think they were.

I only jump with one reserve. Are the FARs wrong for only requiring that I carry a single backup for my main? The whole thing about the umbilical is just that you only have a single backup. Precautions should obviously be taken to avoid NEEDING a backup device. We agree on that.

I said forget the 5 way. Talk to me about an AFF instructor that won't do AFF without an AAD. You have said over and over again, indirectly, that he should not be doing AFF jumps because the risk of AFF is too high for him. I disagree. The risk of AFF is acceptable to him. He chooses to have a backup device because history has shown it might save his life.

Quote

A collision can result in a broken arm. If I think a jump has too high of a chance of collision, I won't go do it just because I have an AAD. I won't go do it because I don't want a broken arm and feel the chances are too high of getting one.

A broken arm would suck. But we've got a deployment handle for each hand. The concern about a broken arm on a skydive is being able to pull. Secondarily I'd worry about flaring and then about other things like how would it affect the rest of my life while it heals. Injuries suck. But compared to death, who cares?

At work, we classify a dual engine failure of a helicopter as catastrophic. Worst case, you crash and die. Most dual engine failures might result in nothing more than an off-airport landing. But we are interested in those situations where a safe landing isn't possible. The cypres lowers the severity of a freefall collision or loss of altitude awareness. It in itself has no effect on the probability of either one. I AGREE that by going on dangerous jumps, you're increasing the probability of either of those. You've still decreased the severity by using a cypres... at least if it works.

Quote

If all that matters was survival, then 100 jumpers with 50 jumps each and AAD's could go try a 100-way. They make collide, knock each other out, break bones, etc, but they would all survive.

Again, you are not addressing the same topic as I am. Forget lack of skill. We agree there. I have a problem with the idea that it's not ok to choose to use a cypres specially for jumps that a person, with the skill to do that type of jump, considers to have a higher probability of a collision or loss of altitude awareness. AADs are good. You've said so over and over again. Why is that jump "too risky" just because the jumper chooses to only do that type of jump with a working AAD?

Dave

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

When something as retarded as swimming with great whites is presented ... it's not even a consideration. Give me a Shark Cage and all the other added back ups and sure... I'd be willing to have the shit scared out of me.

I wouldn't want to sit on the surface, but I have no qualms sitting at the bottom the water column without the cage. In any event, if you can see the white, it's *probably* isn't a problem on the surface either. They're more a fan of surprise attacks.

Good diving out at the Farallones. Be a shame to spend it inside a cage.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The whole thing about the umbilical is just that you only have a single backup.

No, there are several back up air sources, the mini bottle would be the 3rd back up, for a total of 4 sources.

Quote

Talk to me about an AFF instructor that won't do AFF without an AAD. You have said over and over again, indirectly, that he should not be doing AFF jumps because the risk of AFF is too high for him. I disagree. The risk of AFF is acceptable to him. He chooses to have a backup device because history has shown it might save his life.

If he feels that the risks in AFF aren't more than his personal limit and just adds an AAD as a back up, then he should do AFF.

If a jump has more risk than the person is willing to accept, then they shouldn't make the jump. If the jump does not have more risk than they are willing to accept, then they should make the jump. You should jump an AAD (you don't have to but it is a good idea), but shouldn't make a jump because you have an AAD.

Quote

A broken arm would suck. But we've got a deployment handle for each hand. The concern about a broken arm on a skydive is being able to pull. Secondarily I'd worry about flaring and then about other things like how would it affect the rest of my life while it heals. Injuries suck. But compared to death, who cares?

I care. I care a lot. If I think a jump has too high oif a chance of injury or death, I wouldn't make the jump. I wouldn't think, "Well, I may break my arm, but I'll still be able to pull, and if I can't pull, well the AAD will fire."

Quote

At work, we classify a dual engine failure of a helicopter as catastrophic. Worst case, you crash and die. Most dual engine failures might result in nothing more than an off-airport landing. But we are interested in those situations where a safe landing isn't possible. The cypres lowers the severity of a freefall collision or loss of altitude awareness. It in itself has no effect on the probability of either one. I AGREE that by going on dangerous jumps, you're increasing the probability of either of those. You've still decreased the severity by using a cypres... at least if it works.

I'm guessing the helo pilots wouldn't go fly if one of the engines was showing signs of imminent failure. The dual engines serve as a back up for each other. But just because they only need one engine doesn’t mean they should go fly when they know they will probably need the back up. Safe to say?

Quote

Why is that jump "too risky" just because the jumper chooses to only do that type of jump with a working AAD?

I think this is the root of our misunderstanding and very important to what I am trying to say.

1) We each set a limit for ourselves how much risk we are willing to take.

2) We each evaluate the risk (or least hopefully we do) of doing something before we go and do it. I look at the risks of a 300-way and decide that the risk is less than my limit for risk or the risk of a 300-way is more than my limit.

3) If the risk is below my limit, I make the jump, if it is above my limit, I don’t make the jump.

4) An AAD never enters into the equation. If I allowed myself to consider the AAD, I would make more dangerous jumps. I don’t think it is a good idea to do something you feel has more risk than your limit because you have an AAD. If you do, then you are depending on the AAD to bring the risk down below your limit and I don’t think depending on AAD’s to function is a good idea.

I wouldn’t make a jump that I felt had a higher level of risk than my personal limit because the chance of injury is too high. Having an AAD that should fire and save me after that injury if I need does not change that.

I wouldn’t go on a 30-way head down dive because the chances of a collision are too high for me. Having an AAD that should fire if I need does not change the fact that the chance of a collision is too high for me.

If I felt that a 30-way head down dive did not have too high of a chance of collision for me and decided to go do it. Having an AAD that should fire if I need it does not change the fact that the chance of a collision is not too high for me.

The chances of, for example, a collision is enough for me to make a decision about whether or not to make the jump. The Go/No-Go decision gets made before I would ever get to factoring in an AAD. It doesn’t matter if I have an AAD or not.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

If he feels that the risks in AFF aren't more than his personal limit and just adds an AAD as a back up, then he should do AFF.

AHHH! This is what it boils down to! The choice to use an AAD DOESN'T INDICATE a person's personal risk threshold! An AAD can be a backup, even if a jumper chooses to use it on all jumps he/she considers more risky than others. Do you disagree? I assume you do disagree since that's very different from what you've said over and over.

Dave

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

AHHH! This is what it boils down to! The choice to use an AAD DOESN'T INDICATE a person's personal risk threshold! An AAD can be a backup, even if a jumper chooses to use it on all jumps he/she considers more risky than others. Do you disagree? I assume you do disagree since that's very different from what you've said over and over.

No, I agree. The choice to use or not use an AAD in and of itself does not indicate if they are treating it like a back up or not. Using an AAD on jumps more risky than others is OK. Using an AAD to make jumps that you determine have more risk involved than your personnal limit of risk is not OK.

The point you keep missing is the personnal limit of risk.

If they feel that the risks in AFF aren't more than his personal limit and just adds an AAD as a back up, then he should do AFF.

If they feel that the risks in AFF are more than their personal limit and adds an AAD to offset the risk that is over their limit, then they are not treating the AAD as a back up and shouldn't do AFF.

How can I tell if the person just likes having an AAD and it is just a back up or if the person is relying on it? I can't. Not unless they tell me several things. 1) They feel, for example, the risks on AFF jumps are higher than their personnal limit, and 2) They will do AFF because they have an AAD even though they admit the inherent risks in AFF are more than their personnel limit for risk.

If they say both 1 and 2, then they are not treating the AAD as a back up, they are depending on it to bring the risk of AFF down below what they consider their limit of risk. If you are depending on something, it isn't a back up.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

Ok, now I feel like some progress has been made in this thread. But there's still this issue...

An AFF instructor rides the plane down with his student because his AAD wasn't turned on. Simple situation. Nobody's talking about "personal risk limits" on that plane. He would not make the jump without an AAD because of the inherent risks associated with doing an AFF jump. Clearly by your (and Ron's and billvon's) definition, he's AAD dependent. Is an AFF jump beyond that instructor's personal risk limit (without asking him)? Or is that something you can only determine by asking (ie something we only know ourselves)? Or do we even know it ourselves?

I think they've been done with this thread for a long time, but I'd love to hear Ron's and billvon's take on this too.

How about the freefly coach that won't coach newbies without being AAD equipped? In another thread, you said that BECAUSE this person won't do these jumps without an AAD it meant that these jumps were beyond their limit and therefore shouldn't be done even with an AAD. I guess now my question is how did you know that? Has your opinion changed since then, or did I read something wrong?

I know you haven't changed your mind, you're just trying to explain the same thing in different words. But to me, your last post contradicts previous posts and seems to be a very different opinion from Ron's and billvon's. Now we can't have the three wise men () disagreeing so I'm just trying to get this straight.

Just to sum it up into one final question: If your buddy sitting next to you on the plane during a 400 way attempt realized he forgot to turn on his cypres and decided to ride the plane down, is that DEFINITELY an indicator that he should not be doing a 400 way (ignoring the fact that he's about to be kicked off by the organizer anyway
Dave

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

An AFF instructor rides the plane down with his student because his AAD wasn't turned on. Simple situation. Nobody's talking about "personal risk limits" on that plane. He would not make the jump without an AAD because of the inherent risks associated with doing an AFF jump. Clearly by your (and Ron's and billvon's) definition, he's AAD dependent. Is an AFF jump beyond that instructor's personal risk limit (without asking him)? Or is that something you can only determine by asking (ie something we only know ourselves)? Or do we even know it ourselves?

I think it is something you can only determine by asking. Hopefully they know. From my first post in this thread:

"* How do you determine if you are using a Cypres to exceed your personal risk threshold or just feel you should always jump with one because it is a good idea to have one? I know of no pass/fail test you can do to make that determination. You have to be honest with yourself and make an honest assessment of how much risk is acceptable and how much risks you are taking, leaving the Cypres out of this determination."

Quote

How about the freefly coach that won't coach newbies without being AAD equipped? In another thread, you said that BECAUSE this person won't do these jumps without an AAD it meant that these jumps were beyond their limit and therefore shouldn't be done even with an AAD.

No, she said the risk of coaching free fly jumps were beyond her limit ("The chances of jumping with someone that isn't yet stable just isn't worth it to me."), and she uses an AAD to bring the risks back below her limit ("I won't do freefly jumps with newbies that are learning to freefly until i get my cypres back.")

Quote

I know you haven't changed your mind, you're just trying to explain the same thing in different words. But to me, your last post contradicts previous posts and seems to be a very different opinion from Ron's and billvon's. Now we can't have the three wise men (Tongue) disagreeing so I'm just trying to get this straight.

No, my opinion hasn't changed. I think I have done a poor job of articulating my opinion and it has gotton misunderstood.

Quote

Just to sum it up into one final question: If your buddy sitting next to you on the plane during a 400 way attempt realized he forgot to turn on his cypres and decided to ride the plane down, is that DEFINITELY an indicator that he should not be doing a 400 way (ignoring the fact that he's about to be kicked off by the organizer anyway Smile)?

To me, no it is not definately an indicator that he should not be doing a 400-way.

From my first post; "* Refusing not to jump w/o a Cypres is OK. They are great and you should jump with one. Using a AAD to exceed your personal acceptable risk threshold is not OK because it isn’t smart to use back up safety devices that may not work to justify doing something you feel is too risky."

I think it takes saying a jump has a higher level of risk than their limit and that they are doing the jump anyway because they have an AAD, like in the example above.

Derek

[kallend 1,625]

I don't get this "personal risk threshold" being used as if it's some constant of nature. My "personal risk threshold" depends on what I'm doing and what the return on that risk (the benefit) is. I'm willing to accept more risk doing things I really want to do than on doing things that don't interest me very much. If my risk of death or serious injury when I go bowling was the same as when I skydive, I wouldn't bowl at all, because bowling is OK but doesn't really turn me on very much.

I'd get more "benefit" from being on a 400 way world record attempt than from a 2-way. I'd therefore be willing to accept higher risk. Simple economics.

I think the risk/benefit ratio is what you should be talking about.

...

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

[pilotdave 0]

Well that's sort of what I'm getting at. I don't think most skydivers have any clue what their "personal risk limit" is. I know I don't. Sure, I could come up with a million things I wouldn't try. But I can't come up with a million things that I WOULD try.

Hook says someone uncomfortable doing a 5-way shouldn't do a 5-way. That's not how skydiving works for most of us. A lot of skydivers ARE cocky and think they can handle anything... but I think the average skydiver assumes the opposite until proven wrong. If I was invited on a 50 way or something, I'd be scared to death I'd screw up. I wouldn't go do a 50 way unless someone I trust told me I'm ready. Is a 50-way beyond my personal skill level? Dunno. Never done one. Is a 50-way beyond my personal risk limit? No, not if someone told me I'm ready. Otherwise, yes. Would I be glad I've got a cypres? You bet!

I think most of us do jumps we're uncomfortable with alllll the time, especially as new jumpers. Otherwise we'd be doing a whole lot of solo jumps. If discomfort on a skydive is a sign that the jump is beyond my personal risk limit, I might as well sell my gear now. I do this for fun and I enjoy trying new things. And I'd say most of the time, I've got very little idea how dangerous any particular jump will be. Depends on way too many factors. I'm willing to risk it. And I have a cypres in case I don't deploy.

Risk/benefit ratio is just one more number you can't quantify.

Dave

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I think the risk/benefit ratio is what you should be talking about.

OK, however you want to say it, works for me.

What do you think constitutes being AAD-dependant?

Do you think that if someone does a jump that is beyond their risk/benefit ratio because the have an AAD is being dependant on it?

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Is a 50-way beyond my personal risk limit?

Is a 100-way? a 200-way? I'm sure you have a risk/benifit limit. If the risk of a collision on a 300-way isn't worth it to you, should you go ahead and do the 300-way because you have a Cypres?

Quote

I'd say most of the time, I've got very little idea how dangerous any particular jump will be.

Let's say you think a 200-way is too risky to be worth it to you. Would you do 200-way if you had a Cypres?

Quote

Sure, I could come up with a million things I wouldn't try.

Again, out of those million things that you wouldn't try, are they any that you would change your mind about and try because youhave an AAD?

You are saying you may not know if you feel a jump exceeds you risk/benifit ratio. What if the jumper does know? In Sunshine's case, she does know that free fly coach jumps are not worth the risk of collision, but she will do them anyway because she has a Cypres.

What would it take for someone to be AAD- dependant in your opinion?

I think I am seeing light at the end of the tunnel here
Derek

[Ron 7]

Quote

Well I'll disagree with you right there. To me, risk heavily depends on odds of surviving

Think of it as the risk of something happening to cause a problem.

An AAD does not lower the risk of a freefall collision. It does not lower the risk of a low pull. Just like Airbags don't lower the risk of a crash.

Quote

I have a problem with the idea that any jump you won't do without an AAD is automatically too risky for you.

How is that to hard to understand? If you think the risk level is so high that you need an AAD then the risk level shoudl be to high to do it at all...Youhave not reduced the risk of something bad happening on that jump by adding an AAD...

What is safer? Avoiding a dangerous situation in the first place, or doing the dangerous things but relying on a good saftey device to keep you from dying?

The SAFEST is to avoid the dangerous situation and then ADD the saftey device.

A guy that drives carefully without airbags is much safer than the guy that runs redlights with airbags.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nicknitro71 0]

Quote

The SAFEST is to avoid the dangerous situation and then ADD the saftey device.

I guess we should all quit jumping off things then...

Memento Audere Semper

903