Back up devices (from incidents)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Lessons are learned only when they're applicable to the incident.

That simply isn't true. Anything can cause discussion and from that discussion anything can be learned. A lesson, even if it wasn't the cause of the original incident, can still prevent another incident.

Derek

[Praetorian 1]

I'd like to think that in the event that I was aware and in control enough at 750ft, having already tried EVERYTHING, and I do mean everything multiple times I'd be stable calm and hoping my cypres saved my ass ... but the more likely acitvity will me flapping my arms and spraynig blood form my destroyed fingers (which I would have destroyed trying to CLAW my pack open) If I pulled at say 3k reguardless of the mal or total, going red/silver should at the worst eat up 1k (even if its a slow mal I fight to 2k before chopping) 2k to 750ft even if you start under a slow mal so you not at freefall speed to begin with is not enough time for me to try everything twice .. or more, give up and try to go stable for the cypres.

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[AndyMan 7]

I don't think anybody disagrees that they should not be relied upon.

I only disagree with two very small points. The first is the assertion that it's innapropriate to add additional safety gear for riskier jumps. That practice is common in every activity I've engaged in.

The second is that I think people who choose to always jump with one should not be ridiculed, mocked, or otherwise criticized in any way. It's their choice. I do not think someone who chooses to jump without one prooves anything, other than a lower risk tollerance.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The first is the assertion that it's innapropriate to add additional safety gear for riskier jumps.

The problem is unlike a safety belt or helmet which are passive safety devices that will offer a certain level of protection without actually having to do anything, an AAD is an active safety device, which has to do something to work. It may not, negating any increase in safety it may offer if it works. An AAD does not necessarily make you safer, a helmet does. That is an important distinction. If the AAD fails to work, for whatever reason, you are no safer because of it. Therefore one should not accept a higher level of risk they normally wouldn’t because they have an AAD.

Quote

The second is that I think people who choose to always jump with one should not be ridiculed, mocked, or otherwise criticized in any way.

I agree and have not ridiculed or even suggested anyone jump without an AAD. I think people should jump them because they may work if they ever need them. If they need it and it works, they are saved. If they need it and it doesn't work, they are no worse off than if they didn't have it in the first place.

Quote

I do not think someone who chooses to jump without one prooves anything, other than a lower risk tollerance.

This my exact point, it may not lower your risk. Because AAD’s have become so reliable, people are beginning to think they will work every time. It may not.

I do not think that someone should increase their acceptable level of risk based on having an AAD in their rig. I think that is a false sense of security and they are relying on the AAD to of set the higher level of risk that they would normally accept.

A skydiver should have the attitude that I they do not pull, they will die. If they don’t because of their AAD or another skydiver saves them (Bill Von), that is gravy. If their AAD saves them when they had the capability to save themselves, they very nearly died and should reconsider their participation in a sport that is unforgiving of such errors.

Derek

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

The problem is unlike a safety belt or helmet which are passive safety devices...

It's no different than safety belts. Safety belts and airbags have their own risks.

Quote

This my exact point, it may not lower your risk.

Clearly, it does lower risk. I'm absolutely amazed and dumbfounded to see this even questioned.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Clearly, it does lower risk. I'm absolutely amazed and dumbfounded to see this even questioned.

I said, "it may not lower your risk." as demonstrated by the recent fatality. That attitude that it WILL lower risk is what I am talking about. The fatality that inspired this thread had an AAD and it did not lower her risk.

Quote

It's no different than safety belts. Safety belts and airbags have their own risks.

Sure, safety belts, airbags and AAD's all have their own risks, but a safety belt doesn’t have to do anything to protect you, it is passive. An airbag must activate to protect you. If for whatever reason it doesn’t activate when you need it, it is worthless and has done nothing to protect you. It is an active safety device. An AAD must activate to protect you. If it doesn't it has done nothing to protect you. It is an active safety device.

I would drive faster (if it didn’t endanger anyone else) if I was wearing a safety belt than if I wasn’t.

I wouldn’t fly an airplane in conditions where without the autopilot I could not control the aircraft. If the autopilot fails, I’m dead.

I will accept a higher level of risk if I can offset that risk with passive safety devices that will work. I will not increase my level of risk based on active safety devices. This is because if they don’t work, my level of risk is higher that I am willing to accept.

AAD’s are great, they may save you if you need it, but I wouldn’t expect it to and I wouldn’t accept a higher level of risk because I had one.

Derek

[billvon 2,477]

>Clearly, it does lower risk.

There is at least one case where someone died because he relied upon his AAD, to the extent that he told friends he would not jump without it because he were afraid he would freeze up when the shit hit the fan.

One day this jumper had to bail out of a cessna below cypres activation altitude. He exited, pulled his cutaway handle and waited a few seconds. Then he opened his main and waited another few seconds. The main deployed, left, and the RSL activated his reserve. It was just starting to open when he impacted.

In this case, it increased risk for this guy. He was doing something he otherwise wouldn't do (skydiving) because his AAD gave him a false sense of security. While I am sure such attitudes are in the minority in mainstream skydiving, they do exist - and for these people, using an AAD increases their risk.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

, they do exist - and for these people, using an AAD increases their risk.

That's not a given. It may still decrease their risk overall, in fact I'd bet it does.

The guy didn't freeze, saying that an AAD increases the risk to someone because they otherwise might not skydive is a silly argument. Would you jump with your standard main and no reserve? No, and I sure wouldn't and most other jumpers wouldn't either. So according to your theory of safety devices a reserve is increasing our risk because without it we wouldn't skydive.

Where do you go with this ludicrous observation? It's utterly useless.

On top of this the incident you described sounds downright bizarre, like the guy made it up as he went along. I suppose we'll never know what he thought he was doing when he cutaway waited then pulled his main, perhaps under pressure he confused his cutaway with reserve handle. Makes more sense to me than alternative theories and the same thing may have happened with or without an AAD.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

I'd like to think that in the event that I was aware and in control enough at 750ft, having already tried EVERYTHING, …. give up and try to go stable for the cypres.

I think you are assuming reliability that may not be there.

One incident, a jumper had a total and then pulled the reserve. Nothing came out. She started pounding the pack with her elbows. Still nothing came out. Then she tried again for the main. She got the main out - just in time.

One incident, a jumper cuts away a mal and pulls reserve. Nothing comes out. He tries to clear a hesitation from his back. Still nothing. Finally, the CYPRES fires. Witnesses saw something shiney fall from him as the reserve opened. Speculation was that a temp pin was left in the reserve pack job.

One incident, a jumper discovered on a repack that the closing loops were not routed through the cutter. [I always check that the loops are routed through the cutters, but I am not sure you can do that on all rigs.]

One incident, a jumper had a total. When he tried for the reserve he tumbled. Then he decided to remain stable and 'wait for the CYPRES to fire'. He lived, but that has to be the most illogical way of saving yourself. He had about 5x as many jumps as you.

Who knows, flipping over on your back might help clear all those flaps holding in a pilot chute on non-pop-top rigs.

I'd fight all the way to the ground. A little instability during reserve deployment would be the least of my concerns.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

but a safety belt doesn’t have to do anything to protect you, it is passive. I had one.

Derek

Oh yes it does. The inertia reel has to function correctly, the materials must maintain their integrity, the latch must maintain its integrity. Mechanical devices are generally less reliable than electronic devices. Most electronic gadgets fail due to failure of their mechanical components.

There seems to be a quite inappropriate differentiation being made bewteen mechanical and electronic devices. A pilot chute is every bit as likely to fail as a CYPRES - read the wingsuit forum for some recent examples.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Oh yes it does.

No, it doesn't. A safety belt doesn't have inertia reels, etc. Take a look inside a race car to see what a safety belt look like. I would trust a safety harness over an airbag any day. If the webbing fails, you are dead anyway from an impact that large.

To make it easier, use the helmet analogy. It doesn;t have to do anything to protect you. It does have it's limits, but it won't fail and offer zero protection like an AAD can.

I think you are missing the point. Using an AAD to offset increased risk is a bad idea since if the AAD fails, you will find yourself with an increased risk without the offsetting safety value.

If you wouldn't do it without an AAD, don't do it with an AAD since your AAD may not work.

Given the choice between jumping with a helmet and no AAD or no helmet and an AAD, I'll take the helmet anytime.

Again, then entire point is skydive like you don't have an AAD, because for all you know, you might not. How many people have tested their AAD down to firing altitude? Are you sure it will work? You should think that if you don't pull, you will die.

Derek

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Most electronic gadgets fail due to failure of their mechanical components.

failure of the battery system (corroded, out of juice) is the most common failure I've seen. Mechanical devices have fewer failure points.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Mechanical devices have fewer failure points.

Isn't that a bit of a generalization? Add software to an electronic device and you add a whole new level of complexity and any number of failure points that can't be inspected. Software has been known to kill even when functioning perfectly. I don't think you can compare the number of failure points in electronic devices vs mechanical devices generally without looking at two particular systems.

Dave

[billvon 2,477]

>That's not a given. It may still decrease their risk overall, in fact I'd bet
> it does.

This guy is dead. You can't decrease his risk.

Other cases - the now-infamous lost prairie four way. Two of us didn't have reserves and landed without a problem. The other two did have cypreses, which fired and caused a downplane in one case and a main/reserve entanglement in the other. I was very glad I did not have a cypres on that dive; it might have complicated an already-serious problem and led to an injury or worse.

A cypres is a very useful device which, ordinarily, makes skydiving safer. In some cases it can do the opposite. It is important to understand what those situations are so you can avoid them. One is overdependence on an AAD.

>The guy didn't freeze, saying that an AAD increases the risk to someone
> because they otherwise might not skydive is a silly argument.

It happened. He is dead because he relied on a cypres to do something it could not do (and was not designed to do.)

>Would you jump with your standard main and no reserve?

Yes, under the right conditions (i.e. a 500+ foot bridge.) I _have_ taken two of my standard mains off bridges in a one container system. I did it because I knew I could rig and pack well enough to make it acceptably safe.

>I suppose we'll never know what he thought he was doing when he
>cutaway waited then pulled his main, perhaps under pressure he confused
>his cutaway with reserve handle.

Perhaps. Nevertheless, per what he told his friends, he would not have been skydiving had he not had an AAD, and he would be alive today.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Mechanical devices have fewer failure points.

Isn't that a bit of a generalization? Add software to an electronic device and you add a whole new level of complexity and any number of failure points that can't be inspected. Software has been known to kill even when functioning perfectly. I don't think you can compare the number of failure points in electronic devices vs mechanical devices generally without looking at two particular systems.

Dave

Sure it's a generalization, though much of the rest of your post lists more reasons why electronic versions have more potential failure points. You need software, you need power, and you can't have moisture in the wrong places. Too much abuse can lead to shorts, though mechanicals can be just as vunerable there.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It happened. He is dead because he relied on a cypres to do something it could not do (and was not designed to do.)

Per the main topic of the month, isn't he dead because he failed to deploy a parachute, and in particular for cutting away instead of deploying the main on what would now be considered an extremely low exit altitude?

[billvon 2,477]

> isn't he dead because he failed to deploy a parachute . . .

Yes. In this case, though, his biggest mistake was not just not pulling, it was getting in the plane knowing he might not perform correctly during a malfunction. It's the old "make good decisions on the ground so you don't have to make them in the air." It was his fault that he made the decision to jump even though he believed he could not perform in an emergency. His cypres gave him the confidence to make that decision.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Oh yes it does.

No, it doesn't. A safety belt doesn't have inertia reels, etc. Take a look inside a race car to see what a safety belt look like. I would trust a safety harness over an airbag any day. If the webbing fails, you are dead anyway from an impact that large.

Tell me the name of a production passenger car that I can buy in a showroom this week that does not have an inertia reel or equivalent system in the seat belts. Seat belt anchors, latches, and webbing have all been know to fail.

Read the wing suit forum thread on the pc/hackey entanglements, to see an example of a mechanical malfunction preventing parachute deployment.

It's a fallacy claiming that a mechanical system is somehow more reliable intrinsically than an electronic system.

It's also a fallacy to believe that humans under stress are less error prone than electronic systems.

...

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

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Most electronic gadgets fail due to failure of their mechanical components.

failure of the battery system (corroded, out of juice) is the most common failure I've seen. Mechanical devices have fewer failure points.

Not replacing batteries is a maintenance issue. Try not changing or replenishing the oil in your car engine and see how long it lasts.

Do you (or your rigger) lubricate and check the cutaway cables on your rig? Have your reserve repacked? That's maintenance.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Tell me the name of a production passenger car

Ferrari F40. I wasn't talking production cars, but since you narrowed it down

Do you think a helmet is less likely to protect a jumper than an AAD? A helmet will offer a level of protection. An AAD may offer zero protection. Accepting a higher level of risk based on having an AAD is foolish. If you won't do it without an AAD, then don't do it with an AAD.

Derek

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Not replacing batteries is a maintenance issue. Try not changing or replenishing the oil in your car engine and see how long it lasts.

Cars have a maintenence cycle, typically of 7500 miles, while JiffyLube still encourages a 3000 mile cycle. Alternatively, you can go by the time interval. Not hard.

But when do most people change the battery in their car? When it fails to start. Battery life is hard to predict. Look at the battery threads for the Neptune for a sport relevent example.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Tell me the name of a production passenger car

Ferrari F40. I wasn't talking production cars, but since you narrowed it down

Do you think a helmet is less likely to protect a jumper than an AAD? A helmet will offer a level of protection. An AAD may offer zero protection. Accepting a higher level of risk based on having an AAD is foolish. If you won't do it without an AAD, then don't do it with an AAD.

Derek

No Ferrari showrooms around here where I can buy one this week.

Helmets and AADs protect from different things. A Helmet will offer zero protection against a double shoulder dislocation on exit.

I don't understand why you insist that AADs be placed in a different category than any other part of the rig.

Pilot chutes fail.
Containers lock
Bags lock
Lines twist
Canopies blow out
Brakes fire prematurely
Cutaway cables jam
Reserve ripcords jam
Harnesses break

These are all mechanical failures, yet you seem to dismiss them and concentrate on AAD failures.

A mechanical malfunction serious enough to require emergency action happens on about 1 skydive in every 500.

Mechanical systems are no more reliable than electronic systems.

...

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

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Not replacing batteries is a maintenance issue. Try not changing or replenishing the oil in your car engine and see how long it lasts.

Cars have a maintenence cycle, typically of 7500 miles, while JiffyLube still encourages a 3000 mile cycle. Alternatively, you can go by the time interval. Not hard.

But when do most people change the battery in their car? When it fails to start. Battery life is hard to predict. Look at the battery threads for the Neptune for a sport relevent example.

Is Jiffylube mandatory?

CYPRES battery is a scheduled maintenance item. ELT battery in my airplane is a scheduled maintenance item. The batteries in my R/C airplanes are tested monthly. The backup batteries in my GPS are tested every time I fly. The batteries in my airplane flashlight are tested before I fly.

Just because YOU don't maintain your batteries...

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Helmets and AADs protect from different things. A Helmet will offer zero protection against a double shoulder dislocation on exit.

That is correct and if you cannot pull, you should assume you are going to die. Anything else is a bonus.

Quote

I don't understand why you insist that AADs be placed in a different category than any other part of the rig.

Pilot chutes fail.
Containers lock
Bags lock
Lines twist
Canopies blow out
Brakes fire prematurely
Cutaway cables jam
Reserve ripcords jam
Harnesses break

You need all those things to jump, they aren't back ups that you can jump without. You don't decide to accept a higher level of risk because you have or don't have a pilot chute. Those item are different from an optional back up safety device.

This isn't about failure rates or what is more reliable. It is about risk assessment and the impact an AAD should or shouldn't have on that assessment.

Let’s say a skydive is beyond what risk you are willing to accept. Thinking, “My other rig has an AAD, so I can make that jump if I use my other rig.” is flawed risk assessment.

You miss the point.

Derek

[metalslug 31]

Quote

Let’s say a skydive is beyond what risk you are willing to accept. Thinking, “My other rig has an AAD, so I can make that jump if I use my other rig.” is flawed risk assessment.

Derek, in your jumping days, did you own more than one type of canopy ?
Lets say... one canopy that you prefered for swooping, another for Birdman and maybe even a third for demo jumps? If so, why did you need more than one canopy?
Are wingsuit and demo jumps an "increased risk" type of jump that justifies a bigger/safer/different canopy to reduce that risk ?
Why not just use your smallest, most elliptical canopy for every kind of jump?

Thinking, “My other rig has the XXXX canopy, so I can make that jump if I use my other rig.” is flawed risk assessment.