ladyskydiver 0 #26 October 8, 2005 Good question...even though I have a Cypress, I'm not sure if I would. Mandating an AAD is not going to cure the "problem." All it is going to do is add more expense to an already expensive sport. I've got a Cypress, and I've: forgotten to turn it on - at least 6 times turned it on...it shut itself off, and I still jumped - once Even though I have an AAD, it doesn't mean that I'll even remember to turn the thing on or won't jump without it being on. And as has been proven by my current record listed above, I will jump without it being on. Ok...so the DZ mandates an AAD, who is going to be double checking that: the person actually has 1 installed instead of a sticker the person turns the AAD on... ...and leaves it on Yes, we could say the S&TA, but does the S&TA have time to double check every single jumper (especially if they are staff and jumping)? We could say the person who is at the plane ensuring everyone's geared up correctly? Whoops! Not all DZ's have someone who does that. And if they do, what about those jumpers that have their AAD's mounted in their rigs in such a way that it's against their back? Are we going to have them slip their rig off a bit to make sure the AAD's on? And then wait for them to fix their gear to ensure it's on properly before they get back on the plane? Well...while we are at it, how about let's ensure all leg straps are on correctly before someone gets on the plane? I see a ton of people get on a plane without their rig completely on - hmm...plane emergency 1000 ft., pilot says "GET THE FUCK OUT" and their rig isn't on properly. Seems to me that the energy people are expending on trying to mandate this piece of equipment or that piece of equipment might be better off ensuring that people get their chest straps routed correctly (you can search and see that I didn't have it routed correctly on a student jump and had it come undone in freefall) or ensure the jumpers rigs are completely on or ensure that a jumper gets all the best training possible. A piece of equipment - electronic/mechanic - is not 100% failsafe. There is absolutely nothing in the sport guaranteed 100% - not even your harness or canopies. So...you want 100% safety? DO NOT JUMP (errr....wait on that one...I've seen how some people drive so driving's not safe, walking's not safe - I've seen people injure themselves walking...hmmm...so I guess the only way to be 100% safe is to not be alive)! Otherwise, the reality is that we can try and lessen the incidents of something happening to someone (and I already am sick of the deaths and injuries that are happening in our sport). We can not guarantee even with all the equipment (including bells and whistles) and all the training (including spending time in the hanging harness and having pictures of malfunctions put over you to ensure you react correctly) that a person will do the appropriate things (or the equipment will react appropriately) when and if the time comes.Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #27 October 8, 2005 QuoteI was a student with 13 jumps, doing 10 second delays, when I had trouble locating my ripcord. Even then I knew enough to pull the reserve. The fact that there are, among us, brain dead idiots who won't even try to pull the silver in an emergency is no justification for forcing us to become reliant on a prohibitively expensive piece of hardware. There are those of us who trained in today's world who have the same mentality that you had. I did static line progression and started a little over a year ago. I went unstable and couldn't find the rip cord on my first five second delay, and pulled silver, as I was instructed (try twice, pull silver). I was rewarded with positive feedback by my instructor for that (he looked at the Cypres, saw it didn't fire, and said "Good girl, you saved your own life.") I was told that, had I had a Cypres fire, the decision to allow me to continue my progression might have been different. But because I knew that I was in trouble and needed to get a canopy out and took action to do so, they knew that I "got it" and could grow up to be a safe skydiver. So I'm not so sure there's a change in culture that's allowing or encouraging people to rely on AADs, but that there are people in the sport who do rely on them. That scares me, too. I choose to jump with an AAD, but have jumped without one while waiting on a repair, and I like to think I "jump like I don't have one" on every skydive. As some have already said, I don't necessarily agree with forcing someone to jump with an AAD, but, ultimately, that's not my decision. DZs are businesses and the owners of those businesses can choose to run them as they want. I don't have to like it."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,412 #28 October 8, 2005 >Ok...so the DZ mandates an AAD, who is going to be double >checking that: >the person actually has 1 installed instead of a sticker Checked at gear check. >the person turns the AAD on... >...and leaves it on Honor system. Typically the DZO or someone will ask "everyone have their AAD on?" Does that mean you can not turn it on, jump and get away with it? Probably. You can also probably get away with pencil packing your reserve, or not doing the Capewell service bulletin, or opening at 1500 feet a lot. >Well...while we are at it, how about let's ensure all leg straps are on > correctly before someone gets on the plane? This is done at several DZ's I can think of. The loader often catches unconnected chest straps. >A piece of equipment - electronic/mechanic - is not 100% failsafe. Of course. It is up to you to determine which backups you want. It is up to the DZO to determine what he wants jumped at his DZ. If you do not like his requirements you can go somewhere else. If lots of people don't like his requirements, he goes out of business and someone else takes over. Problem solved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyskydiver 0 #29 October 9, 2005 Quote>Well...while we are at it, how about let's ensure all leg straps are on > correctly before someone gets on the plane? This is done at several DZ's I can think of. The loader often catches unconnected chest straps. By me having said "Not all DZ's have someone who does that.," it therefore implies that there are DZ's that do. SkyDive Chicago comes to mind as 1 DZ that has such a person. Quote>A piece of equipment - electronic/mechanic - is not 100% failsafe. Of course. It is up to you to determine which backups you want. It is up to the DZO to determine what he wants jumped at his DZ. If you do not like his requirements you can go somewhere else. If lots of people don't like his requirements, he goes out of business and someone else takes over. Problem solved. I'm not saying that a DZO can't decide how he wants to run his dropzone. I'm pointing out the flip side of the coin and that there is no fail safe guarantee and that it'll cost money - on either the jumper who chooses to continue jumping there (assuming they do not have an AAD) or the DZO (by those that choose to jump elsewhere) or the sport (by those that see all the additional equipment that is required and can't afford to add in all the snazzy items at once) or by those that quite frankly do not feel that the "benefit" outweighs the "risks" or the "finances" and choose not to have an AAD. This argument for/against AAD's seems to be based out of an emotional response to a situation - usually someone going in - that no-one understands why they didn't pull the pretty silver handle. Emotional arguments that will lead to a financial impact need to have a cost-benefit analysis done. To date, I haven't seen any cost-benefit analysis done. All I've seen are emotional arguments on both sides of the coin.Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,412 #30 October 9, 2005 >To date, I haven't seen any cost-benefit analysis done. This is skydiving. We don't do cost-benefit analyses. Wind high? The S+TA goes out with a wind meter and sees if it 'feels' too gusty. Cloudy? The DZO or the pilot gaze at the sky until it looks OK. Student rigs getting old? The chief instructor, rigger or DZO keep them going until they think it's time to replace them. Grounding a jumper? S+TA makes his best call. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 October 9, 2005 I think I would have less of a problem with this policy if it wasn't so hypocritical. The most common reason given for DZ's instituting this policy is safety. Yet at the same time, they refuse to ban hook turns which kill and maim far more jumpers than no pulls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyyhi 0 #32 October 9, 2005 I have a functioning AAD so yes I would still jump there. . . HOWEVER, I cannot count on one hand how many times I have forgotten to turn the damn thing on. I NEVER forget to do a thorough gear check. I just don't always remember to turn on my cypres. Its not about safety. . .Its just that I had to jump my personal gear for several months before it had the cypres and so it is not the first thing I think about. . . I am very glad that I do not think that I can rely on it in any way. . .I am happy it is a part of my rig, but I do not depend on it in the slightest. . .just my humble opinion. . .________________________________________ Take risks not to escape life… but to prevent life from escaping. ~ A bumper sticker at the DZ FGF #6 Darcy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #33 October 9, 2005 Quote....The most common reason given for DZ's instituting this policy is safety. Yet at the same time, they refuse to ban hook turns which kill and maim far more jumpers than no pulls. I agree. However, FWIW, I say, owner's DZ, owners rules...when it comes to the point where politics interferes with the fun, it's time to move on...say, to RoamingDZ.com.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nate_1979 9 #34 October 9, 2005 Quote I am very glad that I do not think that I can rely on it in any way. . .I am happy it is a part of my rig, but I do not depend on it in the slightest. . .just my humble opinion. . . I also have never ever thought that I could rely on mine.. I like having it, but hell, in two of the four jumps I did yesterday my properly operating turned on cypress probably would not have saved my life due to the ground elevation below me during the dive... I have no problem with DZs requiring them, my DZ does, and if getting a cypress changes someones outlook on what they can / can not do during a jump to survive I think it's time to hang up the gear and go try something else. FGF #??? I miss the sky... There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #35 October 9, 2005 AADs are already mandatory for Canadian students and they are mandatory for all skydivers in Quebec. CSPA is currently debating whether to make them mandatory for all Canadian skydivers. One possible option is to make them optional for D licensed jumpers, or POPS or people who made a thousand jumps before Cypres was invented ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #36 October 9, 2005 QuoteI like having it, but hell, in two of the four jumps I did yesterday my properly operating turned on cypress probably would not have saved my life due to the ground elevation below me during the dive... You can offset ground elevation to account for higher terrain. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nate_1979 9 #37 October 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteI like having it, but hell, in two of the four jumps I did yesterday my properly operating turned on cypress probably would not have saved my life due to the ground elevation below me during the dive... You can offset ground elevation to account for higher terrain. Derek And increase my risk of a pre-mature fire when I'm actually in freefall or opening canopy over the DZ? I'll pass.. I'm not landing from an area that is different from where I take off or anything, there is just alot of areas of high elevation surrounding the DZ and I just found myself over them a couple times yesterday. FGF #??? I miss the sky... There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iceburner 0 #38 October 9, 2005 I got off my student status this summer, got a rig this summer, and was required to get an AAD....it was one hell of a chunk of change, and had i not been required, i probably wouldn't have gotten an AAD. However, now that i have one, i'm under the impression that if it fires, it was worth the buy....although i'm not planning on it ever needing to fire (i will pull silver long before ever relying on the AAD). I can see why a lot of people are upset about having AAD's required. Part of what makes skydiving fun is that it's dangerous (or appears dangerous)...not that an AAD takes away from this, but untill a 100% effective AAD comes out, i dont think they should be required. I'm already broke from doing all this in 1 summer, and it's about 1200 bucks i could have saved. I have faith in myself, and i believe it should be up to the jumper to have an AAD or not. If they go in w/a no pull, it's most likely their fault (lack of awareness, not doing emergancy procedures, etc). I know there are other instances where AAD's have saved lives, and "would have" saved lives, but flying w/out an AAD is a risk, one which i would have been willing to take....if i truely had the option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #39 October 9, 2005 You obviously need a lot more jumps, a lot more experience and to read/learn a lot more...I just do hope, you always will be capable to pull silver before AAD fires. Hopefully, newbies will not trust in your statements. And yes, skydiving "appears" to be dangerous. From time to time, I mean. As per your post, ... main thing is, you have faith into yourself.... Holy Moses, did you ever listen to any instructor?? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lifewithoutanet 0 #40 October 9, 2005 QuoteI think I would have less of a problem with this policy if it wasn't so hypocritical. The most common reason given for DZ's instituting this policy is safety. Yet at the same time, they refuse to ban hook turns which kill and maim far more jumpers than no pulls. Know what sounds hypocritical to me? "Whuffo you dive that canopy close to the ground?" You sound exactly like the non-skydivers who want to protect us all from ourselves. Pulling silver is as conscious a decision as pulling a front-riser or a toggle. An AAD will protect you if you can't do the former, but has no grounds in your argument otherwise. You're talking apples and fcuking bowling balls. -C. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #41 October 9, 2005 Quote You obviously need a lot more jumps, a lot more experience and to read/learn a lot more...I just do hope, you always will be capable to pull silver before AAD fires. Hopefully, newbies will not trust in your statements. And yes, skydiving "appears" to be dangerous. From time to time, I mean. As per your post, ... main thing is, you have faith into yourself.... Holy Moses, did you ever listen to any instructor?? I really can't imagine what he wrote that would cause you to respond this way. What do you want him to say? That he's going to rely on the AAD to get his canopy out for him? I'm also not sure that someone with only three years in the sport should be referring to anyone else as a newbie, either. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #42 October 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think I would have less of a problem with this policy if it wasn't so hypocritical. The most common reason given for DZ's instituting this policy is safety. Yet at the same time, they refuse to ban hook turns which kill and maim far more jumpers than no pulls. Know what sounds hypocritical to me? "Whuffo you dive that canopy close to the ground?" You sound exactly like the non-skydivers who want to protect us all from ourselves. Ah yes those horrible swoopers, what a menace we are. I mean according to this thread, 3 out of the reported 25 fatalities were because of the evil hook turners. Obviously 3 is more than we'd like to see, but I thought we were going in the right direction this year when it comes to fatalities of this nature. We should all be hung and dried because we clearly don't know what we're doing. I can't tell you how many times I've killed myself doing a hook turn. All DZs need to ban us from ever thinking of touching our risers. Clearly the only way to fly a canopy is by the toggles and God forbid anyone who would ever dream of jumping a canopy smaller than a 150. Hmmm ... I'm thinking of buying a new canopy (a 90ish something JVX with an RDS system and HMA lines) and start doing 450s (once I practice the 450s up high first). Of course there's a chance I'll be going too fast for my Cypres under this scenario. I wonder if the DZOs that require AADs will let me do hop n' pops at their DZs with either no AAD or having it turned off. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #43 October 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think I would have less of a problem with this policy if it wasn't so hypocritical. The most common reason given for DZ's instituting this policy is safety. Yet at the same time, they refuse to ban hook turns which kill and maim far more jumpers than no pulls. Know what sounds hypocritical to me? "Whuffo you dive that canopy close to the ground?" You sound exactly like the non-skydivers who want to protect us all from ourselves. Pulling silver is as conscious a decision as pulling a front-riser or a toggle. An AAD will protect you if you can't do the former, but has no grounds in your argument otherwise. You're talking apples and fcuking bowling balls. -C. Apparently you and a few other completely missed the point and/or failed to comprehend what I'm saying. I support a skydivers right to do whatever they want with the canopy. You want to swoop and you understand the risks? Go for it. I don't want to protect you from yourselves. But it is very hypocritical for a DZO to require and AAD for safety reasons and then permit hook turns. If you still don't understand, PM me and I'll try to simplify it for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #44 October 10, 2005 QuoteAh yes those horrible swoopers, what a menace we are. I mean according to this thread, 3 out of the reported 25 fatalities were because of the evil hook turners. Obviously 3 is more than we'd like to see, but I thought we were going in the right direction this year when it comes to fatalities of this nature. We should all be hung and dried because we clearly don't know what we're doing. I can't tell you how many times I've killed myself doing a hook turn. All DZs need to ban us from ever thinking of touching our risers. Clearly the only way to fly a canopy is by the toggles and God forbid anyone who would ever dream of jumping a canopy smaller than a 150. First of all, as I have already said, I support your right to swoop if you want. No where have I ever indicated otherwise. In fact if I was jumping at a DZ that banned swooping, I'd probably stop jumping there to support your right to swoop. I do however take issue with your contention that swooping isn't as dangerous as jumping without an AAD. You quote fatality statistics which do not give an accurate picture of the danger. What you are forgetting to take into account is the injuries. Some very serious and life changing that occured while someone was swooping. Just scan through the incidents on this site at all the people who have been injured and the causes. Then figure the number that never get posted here because they were only a broken leg or hip. As I said, swoop all you want, but don't kid yourself as to the dangers. Thats the first step on the road to becoming an" incident" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #45 October 10, 2005 Hey I don't need you to tell me how unsafe swooping is. I am a swooper and am very well aware of the dangers. It's not like I just started into this. I've been doing it a while, started on bigger wings before moving to smaller ones, have sought advanced coaching and have dedicated hundreds and hundreds of jumps towards learning the skill. I do see where there was some original confusion to what you were saying versus what Colin might have been getting at. Yes I agree that it is ironic that a DZ would require an AAD yet permit a certain type of high performance swooping. Thanks to a recent fatality, we are learning that people pushing the limits of swooping shouldn't be using the conventional AAD. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lifewithoutanet 0 #46 October 10, 2005 QuoteApparently you and a few other completely missed the point and/or failed to comprehend what I'm saying. I support a skydivers right to do whatever they want with the canopy. You want to swoop and you understand the risks? Go for it. I don't want to protect you from yourselves. But it is very hypocritical for a DZO to require and AAD for safety reasons and then permit hook turns. If you still don't understand, PM me and I'll try to simplify it for you. I just don't agree with the context around your argument. A DZO is going to have many, many responsibilities surrounding safety and ultimately it comes down to picking your battles. It's not as black and white as requiring an AAD and not allowing hook turns. I think I'm still missing part of your point, and I'm open to hear it, PM or publicly. -C. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #47 October 10, 2005 Look at all the injuries and fatalities because of hook turns that have been reported on this site in the last 5 years. Look at all the saves by an AAD. Now ask yourself a question: If you were a DZO and were truely interested in making one change that would reduce the chance of injury and death, would it be to require an AAD for experienced jumpers or prevent people from doing hook turns? Based on this, I find it hypocritical to require an AAD for safety reasons. My guess is that DZO's want to promote a "safety conscience" atmosphere to attract new jumpers and to add a layer of defense in case a lawsuit is brought by a lowtime jumper. At the same time they don't want to run the risk of experienced jumpers going to another DZ because they can't swoop. Sure, it's their DZ and they can do whatever they want. Thats not the issue. To ban someone without an AAD for "safety reasons" while at the same time allowing jumpers to swoop is hypocritical IMO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #48 October 10, 2005 I also meant to mention the "safety issues" the Vigil and Cypres have had regardless of how minor, reduce the safety arguement for AADs even further. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,412 #49 October 10, 2005 >I find it hypocritical to require an AAD for safety reasons. Is a skydiver that uses an RSL but not an AAD hypocritical? How about one who uses both but jumps a small canopy? How about one who sits out high wind days but is willing to do a raft dive? Or one who lets new jumpers do 4-way belly dives but not 4-way freefly dives? Or an S+TA who grounds a newbie for jumping a small canopy but lets Clint Clawson jump whatever he wants? Everyone, DZO's, S+TA's and skydivers alike. make their own decisions on safety. Just because you disagree with their decisions does not make them hypocrites. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #50 October 10, 2005 Quote>I find it hypocritical to require an AAD for safety reasons. Is a skydiver that uses an RSL but not an AAD hypocritical? How about one who uses both but jumps a small canopy? How about one who sits out high wind days but is willing to do a raft dive? Or one who lets new jumpers do 4-way belly dives but not 4-way freefly dives? Or an S+TA who grounds a newbie for jumping a small canopy but lets Clint Clawson jump whatever he wants? Everyone, DZO's, S+TA's and skydivers alike. make their own decisions on safety. Just because you disagree with their decisions does not make them hypocrites. I know of no DZ that requires an RSL for "safety reasons". In fact you just made my point. It should be the jumpers decision. I know of no DZ that "lets" jumpers do 4 way bell dives, but not 4 way freefly dives. An S&TA who bans a low time jumper from jumping a small canopy, but allows Clint Clawson to jump whatever he wants isn't being hypocritical because he is doing it for safety reasons which are apparent. Please address the issue and explain to me the merits of requiring AADs for experienced jumpers but allowing hook turns for "safety" reasons. I would have no problem with a DZ that required AADs and banned hook turns as much as I would a DZ that allows hook turns and doesn't require AADs. But don't tell me I have to have an AAD for "safety reasons" while people are screwing themselves in doing hook turns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
