AndyMan 7 #76 March 22, 2005 QuoteI'd like people not to make skydives so risky that they need an AAD. I thought skydiving was so risky, "even if you do everything right, you can still die" ? That sounds awfully risky to me. Just as street racing, NASCAR, or F-11 isn't safe, neither is skydiving. Gear that helps people live through their eventual screw-ups is good. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #77 March 22, 2005 Quote I'd like people not to make skydives so risky that they need an AAD. Derek Every skydive is risky. I know you know that. You could be out doing a solo and have a zoomy newbie trying to do headdown at 40 jumps and spear you....thus knocking you out. I did my first 115 jumps off student status without an AAD. A very experienced instructor convinced me my life was worth the investment. Less than a year after I had it installed in my rig a small woman did a helmet-to-helmet during a simple 5-way and knocked me out. I came to and pulled on my own. If the hit was any harder or near breakoff there is a chance my AAD would have fired. I was on the dz a couple years back when a jumper I knew went in due to a collision. Had his Cypres been turned on he would still be here. Because of those two events I will not jump without a Cypres again. I know I can survive without one....I just prefer the back up device just in case. I am not device dependent. I have had a cutaway and pulled the reserve on my own....the thought of waiting for the Cypres never even entered my mind._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #78 March 23, 2005 Fact: since the CYPRES was introduced the number of low/no pull fatalities has declined dramatically. The total number of fatalities (smoothed to reduce statistical noise) is also dropping, about 5% each year. THAT is the only bottom line worth considering. Worrying about whether people have the "right stuff" is a waste of time. If the skydivers that Ron and Derek are so concerned about are so useless, the fatality rates would be soaring, not declining.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #79 March 23, 2005 QuoteJust as street racing, NASCAR, or F-11 isn't safe, neither is skydiving. Gear that helps people live through their eventual screw-ups is good. The big difference is that in street racing your eventual screw-ups put other people in danger. Street racing is stupid. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #80 March 23, 2005 QuoteIf the skydivers that Ron and Derek are so concerned about are so useless, the fatality rates would be soaring, not declining. Have I said AAD's were a bad thing? The attitude of people like you that there are a majic box that will allow you to do anything is dangerous."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pash 0 #81 March 23, 2005 Kallend, Swoop, I can see both sides of your argument. As a newbie, I would hope I would never find myself saying, "well, if I f-up, at least I have an AAD." And I think I would also say, "Every skydive I do, I can do without an AAD and survive because I am not dependent." Is the middle ground: "Don't let the AAD be the lowest common denominator in saving your life." ??? Or as an excellent post suggested - sort of "set it and forget it." I am very new and not current and don't think I will ever chose to skydive without an AAD but I understand the idea that counting on it to save me is seriously flawed. jason Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #82 March 23, 2005 Quote I am very new and not current and don't think I will ever chose to skydive without an AAD but I understand the idea that counting on it to save me is seriously flawed. That is all I am saying. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #83 March 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf the skydivers that Ron and Derek are so concerned about are so useless, the fatality rates would be soaring, not declining. Have I said AAD's were a bad thing? The attitude of people like you that there are a majic box that will allow you to do anything is dangerous. Where did I write that? Explain how this "dangerous" attitude is reflected in declining fatality rates. If you were correct, fatality rates would be increasing. They are not. These "dangerous" skydivers are living longer; I think your idea of what "dangerous" means needs an adjustment.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #84 March 23, 2005 QuoteKallend, Swoop, I can see both sides of your argument. As a newbie, I would hope I would never find myself saying, "well, if I f-up, at least I have an AAD." And I think I would also say, "Every skydive I do, I can do without an AAD and survive because I am not dependent." Is the middle ground: "Don't let the AAD be the lowest common denominator in saving your life." ??? Or as an excellent post suggested - sort of "set it and forget it." I am very new and not current and don't think I will ever chose to skydive without an AAD but I understand the idea that counting on it to save me is seriously flawed. jason Set it and forget it is a good way to end up with 2 canopies out.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #85 March 23, 2005 QuoteWhere did I write that? where did I write AAD's are bad? QuoteExplain how this "dangerous" attitude is reflected in declining fatality rates. If you were correct, fatality rates would be increasing. They are not. Because while skydivers are doing more stupid thinsg the AAD is preventing them from dying. Preventing them from dying is a good thing...Them doing stupid stuff cause they have an AAD is not. QuoteThese "dangerous" skydivers are living longer; I think your idea of what "dangerous" means needs an adjustment. They are still dangerous. The fact that they stupid things makes them dangerous. The fact the AAD saves them means they can continue to do stupid things. If I am speeding and wreak my car, but I am saved by my airbags...Being saved by my airbags does not mean I was driving safely. Being safe, and being saved are two seperate things. I would think you would be able to see that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pash 0 #86 March 23, 2005 QuoteSet it and forget it is a good way to end up with 2 canopies out. Kallend, How so? Would it be from going low and deploying main while AAD fires reserve? Hopefully this is not leading but if that is the reason for 2 out, wouldn't someone going low go for the reserve first normally? I appreciate the chance to learn a little more about this. jason Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #87 March 23, 2005 Quotewouldn't someone going low go for the reserve first normally? Almost certainly not. Because you do what you practice, and most of us have practiced (and executed) opening our mains a whole lot more in the first place. You can do a search (Ron has a good story about being scary low and going for his main just as he decides to go for his reserve). So the deal with the Cypres is that you have to understand its impact on your skydiving overall, in that it gives you more reasons to open a little higher, and a greater possibility of two out. But there is that whole stupid-insurance thing -- it's one of the best forms of stupid-insurance out there. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #88 March 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhere did I write that? where did I write AAD's are bad? QuoteExplain how this "dangerous" attitude is reflected in declining fatality rates. If you were correct, fatality rates would be increasing. They are not. Because while skydivers are doing more stupid thinsg the AAD is preventing them from dying. Preventing them from dying is a good thing...Them doing stupid stuff cause they have an AAD is not. QuoteThese "dangerous" skydivers are living longer; I think your idea of what "dangerous" means needs an adjustment. They are still dangerous. The fact that they stupid things makes them dangerous. The fact the AAD saves them means they can continue to do stupid things. If I am speeding and wreak my car, but I am saved by my airbags...Being saved by my airbags does not mean I was driving safely. Being safe, and being saved are two seperate things. I would think you would be able to see that. So being saved by your AAD is stupid, but dying because you went in with nothing pulled and no AAD is noble? You only know that the "saved" were thinking inappropriate thoughts because they are alive to tell the tale. You have no idea what stupid actions and thoughts preceded the 25 no/low FATALITIES in 1989 or the 14 no/low FATALITIES in 1991 (USPA data). An extreme form of selective data analysis, Ron. Tom Piras is reported to have said "it's only a 4-way" before he turned off his CYPRES. Sandy Wambach is reported to have said "Why would I want one of those" when asked if she had a CYPRES.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itsdave 0 #89 March 23, 2005 good point about the incapacitating incident. i had a right shoulder dislocation a couple of weeks ago and it made me think about the whole AAD thing. my point is that, while i was clearly aware (and glad!) that my cypres was there, i made every effort and managed to pull the main. i suppose what i'm trying to say is that anyone who would give up in a situation when they are hurtling towards the ground at 121 mph just because they can PROBABLY rely on their safety equipment is a total retard. its simple maths: reliance on human capacity = high risk, mechanical engineering = high risk, but human + mechanical reliance = much safer. when i jump i don't rely on any individual piece of equipment (main/reserve/cypres/alti/ whatever), but i do rely on everything working together. if you go into a potentially dangerous situation and give it everything you've got you are a hell of a lot safer than if you cut out certain options due to complacency. so the moral of the story is DON'T THINK YOU CAN PREDICT EVERYTHING. you need any backup equipment you can get because you never know whats going to happen. but along the same lines you don't know that they will function properly - skydiving is not a good sport to cut corners in. i am perfectly aware that a cypres will save my life, but i'm gonna fight like hell before i give it the chance! ps. - this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, i think everyone in this thread agrees with each other. less bitchin' more thinkin' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #90 March 23, 2005 QuoteSo being saved by your AAD is stupid, but dying because you went in with nothing pulled and no AAD is noble? You wanna talk about selecting stuff to use? How about this , and you may quote it "Being saved by your AAD is stupid. AND bouncing is also quite stupid." The quote I wish you would use (But I know you will not) is this one "Allowing yourself to do more dangerous things since you have an AAD is stupid". QuoteYou only know that the "saved" were thinking inappropriate thoughts because they are alive to tell the tale So? That does not change the fact they were being stupid. QuoteYou have no idea what stupid actions and thoughts preceded the 25 no/low FATALITIES in 1989 or the 14 no/low FATALITIES in 1991 (USPA data). Again...so what? Just because some is now alive to tell us (don't get me wrong thats a great thing) does NOT mean that people are not doing more dangerous things since they hear from guys like you that they should rely on AAD's to save them since they are majic. QuoteTom Piras is reported to have said "it's only a 4-way" before he turned off his CYPRES. Do your homework....He was reported to have said that AFTER he was on the ride to altitude, and he had realized he had failed to turn it on....He did NOT turn it off. QuoteSandy Wambach is reported to have said "Why would I want one of those" when asked if she had a CYPRES Sandy didn't want one since it would not fit into her power racer. So far your grade for this assignment is an "F" Doc. How can you not understand that my gripe is with people doing more stupid shit since they have guys like you telling them they will be OK if they have an AAD?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakydiver 0 #91 March 23, 2005 I just think it is hilarious how this very thread pops up at least once a year and has been for a few years now. Even funnier, some of the old players come out to play every time hah! Regardless - Kallend has a good point and so does hook - I think they are mutually exclusive points - supportive of each other to boot. Jump and act like you don't have a cypress. That should be a given for all skydivers. If it isn't your instructors did not hammer into your head enough that the sport is dangerous and you need to be on top of things to minimize that danger. I think this is more important than the fact that low pulls and no pulls are declining. There are more factors involved in that discussion than just Cypresses. In the far far past, low pulls were not anything out of the ordinary and only have become as such in the past 10-20 years. Also within that time period, AADs were introduced - and harddecks became more and more strictly enforced - which still holds true today. Most DZOs or STAs do not tolerate low pullers, and that fact has permeated into the community - perhaps that has just as much to do with the lower rates you speak of Kallend... Regardless, I'll take the lower numbers and if you would like to blame it on the Cypress, that's cool with me. I jump with one, I jump like I don't have one. I pay attention to my altitude first and foremost with my eyes - which was the initial idea of this here thread. Use your f'ing senses first and foremost. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #92 March 23, 2005 QuoteQuoteSo being saved by your AAD is stupid, but dying because you went in with nothing pulled and no AAD is noble? You wanna talk about selecting stuff to use? How about this , and you may quote it "Being saved by your AAD is stupid. AND bouncing is also quite stupid." The quote I wish you would use (But I know you will not) is this one "Allowing yourself to do more dangerous things since you have an AAD is stupid". QuoteYou only know that the "saved" were thinking inappropriate thoughts because they are alive to tell the tale So? That does not change the fact they were being stupid. QuoteYou have no idea what stupid actions and thoughts preceded the 25 no/low FATALITIES in 1989 or the 14 no/low FATALITIES in 1991 (USPA data). Again...so what? Just because some is now alive to tell us (don't get me wrong thats a great thing) does NOT mean that people are not doing more dangerous things since they hear from guys like you that they should rely on AAD's to save them since they are majic. QuoteTom Piras is reported to have said "it's only a 4-way" before he turned off his CYPRES. Do your homework....He was reported to have said that AFTER he was on the ride to altitude, and he had realized he had failed to turn it on....He did NOT turn it off. QuoteSandy Wambach is reported to have said "Why would I want one of those" when asked if she had a CYPRES Sandy didn't want one since it would not fit into her power racer. So far your grade for this assignment is an "F" Doc. How can you not understand that my gripe is with people doing more stupid shit since they have guys like you telling them they will be OK if they have an AAD? There are lots of conflicting stories about Tom Piras. I wasn't there which is why I said "is reported to have said". Undisputed fact is, he had a CYPRES in his rig and it was not turned on. People do stupid shit, Ron, it's part of the human condition. You've admitted to it on DZ.COM. Better they do it with an AAD than without. 1989 no-pull fatalities would certainly have been less if those you call stupid had CYPRES available then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #93 March 23, 2005 QuotePeople do stupid shit, Ron, it's part of the human condition. You've admitted to it on DZ.COM. Better they do it with an AAD than without. And you fail to admit that people do more stupid shit since they have guys like you telling them they will be OK as long as they have a CYPRES Quote1989 no-pull fatalities would certainly have been less if those you call stupid had CYPRES available then. Also take an English class. I didn't call people who bounced or had a CYPRES fire stupid...I said having a fire or bouncing is quite stupid. Do you disagree with that? It seems you think a CYPRES fire is OK."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #94 March 23, 2005 >Also take an English class. Cut it out Ron. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #95 March 23, 2005 I started this thread because I think it is very possible that the incident in questio was caused because the jumper 1) Had a Cypres, 2) Turned it on at home then drove to the DZ which rendered it useless, and 3) She was waiting for the Cypres to fire instead of pulling. Just to clarify, I didn't say that is what happened, it could been any number of things, but this has happened before and is possible. Some jumper's mindsets that their Cypress's WILL save them just like some jumper's mindset's that their RSL WILL deploy their reserve, have caused incidents when their Cypres/RSL DIDN'T save them. That is my point, nothing more, nothing less. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #96 March 23, 2005 Quote3) She was waiting for the Cypres to fire instead of pulling. I don't think you have any reason to presume that to be the case. For example, she could have turned it on at home knowing full well it wouldn't fire, but would pass a gear check, then she intentionally jumped without pulling. Likely? Probably not. Possible? Definately. Either way, we shouldn't make assumptions without evidence. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #97 March 23, 2005 Again: Just to clarify, I didn't say that is what happened, it could been any number of things, but this has happened before and is possible. I didn't "presume" or "assume" anything. I said it was possible and has happened before. People should be aware of this so that they never rely on their AAD or RSL or any other back up devices. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #98 March 23, 2005 QuoteQuote3) She was waiting for the Cypres to fire instead of pulling. I don't think you have any reason to presume that to be the case. Whether it's true in this case or not, it should probably be listed in the lessons learned conclusion. 'In the past people have survived doing nothing while waiting for their AAD to fire. This incident shows that this is not the best course of action. By the time it's clear the AAD will not function, it's too late.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #99 March 23, 2005 Quote Whether it's true in this case or not, it should probably be listed in the lessons learned conclusion. Either that, or it's completely irrelevant. Lessons are learned only when they're applicable to the incident. The fact is, we have no idea why the jumper didn't attempt to pull either main or reserve. We would be far wiser to focus on that than to beat to death a tenuous argument. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #100 March 25, 2005 I agree with Derek, here. (and I'm inclined to agree with him until somebody can prove his assertions wrong, which I think he would entertain as much as I would) I have the damn Cypres in both my rigs to deploy my highly loaded PDR143's in the case I can't. For whatever reason I can't get to my handles, I'm going to try and be stable, belly-to-earth at 750 feet at terminal velocity and I will expect the thingie to do it's duty. That's why I bought it (them). It's not the plan, not plan A, or plan B or even plan C, but plan OH SHIT! Know plan OH SHIT! and have it as a contingency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
