AAD and DZ question

[swooper81 0]

Are there any DZ's out there that require AAD's by all jumpers (ie fun jumpers, students, tandems)? just curious.

[TaylorC 0]

pacific skydivers in pitt meadows BC is making it mandatory for all jumpers to use an AAD in 2007

[nbblood 0]

Yes, there are several that I know of.

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[bigway 4]

plenty. Becoming pretty mandatory around the world these days.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[bozo 0]

Quote

plenty. Becoming pretty mandatory around the world these days.

that is a crock of bullshit.

bozo
Pain is fleeting. Glory lasts forever. Chicks dig scars.

[skypuppy 1]

That's not actually true. There are some countries that have made it mandatory, but even in some of them it isn't enforced to the letter.

By saying it's more prevalent to have mandatory aad's than it really is, you lead people to believe that it's natural or better to have mandatory aad's.

There are many cases where aad's are not desirable, and there have been misfires and deaths from aad's. It is a personal choice.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[bozo 0]

Quote

That's not actually true. There are some countries that have made it mandatory, but even in some of them it isn't enforced to the letter.

By saying it's more prevalent to have mandatory aad's than it really is, you lead people to believe that it's natural or better to have mandatory aad's.

There are many cases where aad's are not desirable, and there have been misfires and deaths
from aad's. It is a personal choice.

aint that what I said ?

bozo
Pain is fleeting. Glory lasts forever. Chicks dig scars.

[daremrc 0]

Quote

Quote

That's not actually true. There are some countries that have made it mandatory, but even in some of them it isn't enforced to the letter.

By saying it's more prevalent to have mandatory aad's than it really is, you lead people to believe that it's natural or better to have mandatory aad's.

There are many cases where aad's are not desirable, and there have been misfires and deaths
from aad's. It is a personal choice.

aint that what I said ?

honestly asking a question here...

Does it make sense to extend a parallel between compulsory AAD usage, and compulsory seatbelt, airbag, or helmet usage?

i.e. yes, there are instances where an AAD could hurt or kill you. There is also the arguement that seatbelts could kill you in a fiery wreck that you would have otherwise been ejected from. There is also the argument that helmet usage in race cars or cycles could kill you by way of the extra weight on your head, coupled with inertia, could snap your neck.


I understand the personal choice aspect of the debate, I also understand the idea that in the vast majority of situations, using the other safety devices mentioned above will lead to a better, not worse, outcome.
I was once a proponent of abolishing cycle helmet laws, the thing that swayed my opinion in the other direction is seeing the results of helmetless cycle crashes, and realizing that they have an effect on all riders, even the ones who may never crash. The effect is felt in higher insurance costs bore by all motorists, not even just the riders.

I'm not trying to threadjack here, nor am I advocating compulsory AAD usage, but in what circumstances would an AAD be more of a liability than a risk? The only one I can think of is HP landings where the jumper might 'trick' the AAD into thinking they are in freefall when they're actually in a steep dive.

It would be cool if someone educate me here, because I don't know nearly enough about the implications of AAD usage & will be buying a rig of my own in the next 6 months.

Good judgement comes from experience, and most of that comes from bad judgement.

[billvon 2,394]

>but in what circumstances would an AAD be more of a liability than a risk?

When you pull low, primarily. I was once on a 4-way that pulled very low. The two people without AAD's were fine. One person with an AAD had a main/reserve entanglement that fortunately cleared before he landed. The other landed a downplane, but it began low enough that he was not seriously injured.

Other pssibilities include CRW and very high performance landings.

[bozo 0]

To add a little more to my stoic earlier post, there are a few dropzones that require AADs for experienced jumpers....but the great majority still leave that a personal decision of the exp. jumper.

Students and Tandems are regulated by a different set of rules with regards to AADs.
On the other side of that coin the great majority of DZs do require them, for students and tandems,which anybody with any sense would have to agree with.

bozo
Pain is fleeting. Glory lasts forever. Chicks dig scars.

[peckerhead 0]

Quote

Quote

plenty. Becoming pretty mandatory around the world these days.

that is a crock of bullshit.

It is happening here in the good ol USA. There are 3 DZ's in the state of Virginia that require manditory AADs for ALL jumpers regardless of experience.

If you travel abroad and you want to jump you will face this more often.

It is growing like a cancer. No gadget, no jump!

[Squeak 17]

at My home DZ yup all jumpers (except CReW Rigs) require AAD

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

plenty. Becoming pretty mandatory around the world these days.

that is a crock of bullshit.

Yup as bullshit as seatbelts

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Are there any DZ's out there that require AAD's by all jumpers (ie fun jumpers, students, tandems)? just curious.

AFAIK it is a requirement to have AADs on tandem rigs.
And in my opinion every reasonable DZ would have AADs on student rigs.

Regarding fun jumpers - it depends. For example, Adventure Center Skydiving requires an AAD unless you have a D license.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

i.e. yes, there are instances where an AAD could hurt or kill you. There is also the arguement that seatbelts could kill you in a fiery wreck that you would have otherwise been ejected from. There is also the argument that helmet usage in race cars or cycles could kill you by way of the extra weight on your head, coupled with inertia, could snap your neck.


I understand the personal choice aspect of the debate, I also understand the idea that in the vast majority of situations, using the other safety devices mentioned above will lead to a better, not worse, outcome.
I was once a proponent of abolishing cycle helmet laws, the thing that swayed my opinion in the other direction is seeing the results of helmetless cycle crashes, and realizing that they have an effect on all riders, even the ones who may never crash. The effect is felt in higher insurance costs bore by all motorists, not even just the riders.

No, it doesn't. Insurance costs are lower for lidless victims due to the higher death rate. Don't make emotional arguments on this.

The analogy is poor, anyway. A skilled rider can't avoid all accidents, and can't use his skill to make up for the lack of a helmet. And there are virtually no valid scenarios where the full face helmet increases the risk. The rider sees better (no dust, rocks, bugs in eyes), hears better.

But the skydiver can avoid going low, or deal with it. And someone that does throw out their main at 10-1500 is better off without the AAD. Helmets don't misfire at the rate AADs do either.

[Beatnik 2]

Quote

But the skydiver can avoid going low, or deal with it. And someone that does throw out their main at 10-1500 is better off without the AAD.

I don't believe that anyone should be throwing out there main at an altitude of 1000-1500 feet. If someone would be doing this they would be better off with an AAD. This is the type of thing that has caused deaths before. People go low and instead of going for plan b which they are trained to do at this altitude people go for their main, which might I add they pack for a nice slow and soft opening. This results in a very bad scenario. I am not trying to attack your post as I agree with it but this one part I do not agree with.

With the AAD's today becoming more and more advanced from the ones of yesteryear. There aren't many reasons not to have one. There are certain skydiving activities that AAD's do not benefit i.e. CReW. There are AAD's coming out for the higher speed portion of the sport such as high performance landings. The speed Cypres 2 and the Swoop mode on the Argus come to mind.

Even though were are a small few but it would affect the people that do vintage gear jumps. What would we do in a situation like this? There is no nice way of sticking AAD's in the vintage gear and they would be limited to mainly pin pullers and not cutters, which since they are mechanical, they can have more tendencies to fire at inappropriate times.

I think AAD's should be a personal choice and not something that is forced upon us. A mandatory AAD requirement does put tight constraints on certain aspects of this sport and where do you draw the line to which activities require AADs and which don't? It is easy to say this one and that one but for instance high performance landings, sure high speeds can be achieved but would you require someone who is learning them to have an AAD? These issues start to become the issue of the dropzone and no matter what anyone likes, their dropzone their rules.

This is just my $0.02 and for the record I don't jump with an AOD.

[peckerhead 0]

Quote

Yup as bullshit as seatbelts

Now that is bullshit!

AAds are not seatbelts.......

Seatbelts are seatbelts.

[daremrc 0]

Quote

Quote

i.e. yes, there are instances where an AAD could hurt or kill you. There is also the arguement that seatbelts could kill you in a fiery wreck that you would have otherwise been ejected from. There is also the argument that helmet usage in race cars or cycles could kill you by way of the extra weight on your head, coupled with inertia, could snap your neck.


I understand the personal choice aspect of the debate, I also understand the idea that in the vast majority of situations, using the other safety devices mentioned above will lead to a better, not worse, outcome.
I was once a proponent of abolishing cycle helmet laws, the thing that swayed my opinion in the other direction is seeing the results of helmetless cycle crashes, and realizing that they have an effect on all riders, even the ones who may never crash. The effect is felt in higher insurance costs bore by all motorists, not even just the riders.

No, it doesn't. Insurance costs are lower for lidless victims due to the higher death rate. Don't make emotional arguments on this.

without getting into the cycle helmet debate, go check out the average cost of a closed head injury as well as the percentage of riders that dont carry the medical insurance to cove these costs. It's not an emotional debate at all once you pull out the calculator and realize that when an individual cant cover their own medical expenses, then the rest of us do. And yes, while we may both disagree, there are peopel out there who make the argument that helmet use is dangerous.



back on topic, thanks for the examples of situations where an AAD could cause more harm than good. Things to consider whan buying a new rig...

Good judgement comes from experience, and most of that comes from bad judgement.

[DBCOOPER 1]

Their DZ their rules.Doing something that you wouldn't want an AAD,turn it off.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[skypuppy 1]

No, it doesn't. Adding a seatbelt to the cost of a 20000 dollar car adds what, less than 2 per cent to the overall cost. Adding an airbag, what, maybe 5 or 8 percent, being generous? Spread out over all the cars made, the cost of these safety improvements is negligible. Not so with aads.

A helmet is fairly cheap.

Adding a thousand dollar aad to a rig that may cost 3 or 4 thousand, or in some cases a used rig that costs 1000 or less, means you're increasing the cost by 30 percent or even up to 100 percent, for something that could kill you in your chosen discipline.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

I don't believe that anyone should be throwing out there main at an altitude of 1000-1500 feet. If someone would be doing this they would be better off with an AAD. This is the type of thing that has caused deaths before.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I bow down to your higher experience. Last time I checked the minimum opening altitude according to USPA was still 2000 feet. That means if you attempt to activate once, fail, and try again, you are possibly down in this range. Are you saying this is too low too?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Yossarian 0]

on the other hand, i think weston in the UK has just banned Vigils.

[Beatnik 2]

***That means if you attempt to activate once, fail, and try again, you are possibly down in this range. Are you saying this is too low too? ***

I am not trying to run through every possible situation and am not going to even waste the time with the possibilities. However, I do know some people that would quite possibly be alive today if they would went for their reserve instead of had a main streamer behind them when they bounced. Do what ever your training tells you I am not trying to rewrite the book but when you have a slow opening main that opens in around 1000 ft. I don't think you should be going for it if you are past your hard deck.

[billvon 2,394]

>Adding an airbag, what, maybe 5 or 8 percent, being generous?

Airbag systems cost on the order of $2000 if you include the sensors, firing unit, airbags themselves etc. That's about 15% of the cost of a cheap car. AAD's are cheaper but a larger percentage of the rig cost (at least on most rigs.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

without getting into the cycle helmet debate, go check out the average cost of a closed head injury as well as the percentage of riders that dont carry the medical insurance to cove these costs. It's not an emotional debate at all once you pull out the calculator and realize that when an individual cant cover their own medical expenses, then the rest of us do. And yes, while we may both disagree, there are peopel out there who make the argument that helmet use is dangerous.

People can make that argument, but it's on par with the crowd that thinks it's better to go without the seat belt so they can be 'safely thrown through the window.' It's just lame justification to go lidless, a desire I can understand, but one that is purely of added risk.

Though I use a Cypres 2 and reject the gear dependency claims made against them, I can't ignore all the negative risks and would never mandate their use. With the Vigil misfires and the Cypres swooping death, I don't see the risk/reward justifying a requirement.

BTW - the bikers are uninsured at similar levels to the motorists (iow, the general population) that crash, so I see it as a societal concern, not a motorcycling one. The costs of injured bikers and skydivers is a drop in the bucket next to those logged by uninsured drunk drivers. The AMA (motorcycling, not medical) argues quite well against the burden to society angle that keeps coming up over helmet laws.