Skydiving without AAD's

[airtwardo 6]

like by providing an ACAD(auto cut-away device ).

***




I'll shoot video!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Trae 1]

inrep to -
"And there no question that deaths from a problem the Cypres is trying to solve have virtually been eliminated. There is no marked increase in anything related."

The thing is I am questioning it . AND I'm suggesting that AAD's may actually be responsible for killing people --- however indirectly. Too big a thought ? Full of sheet? Life just aint so simple as get an AAD and now I'm a safe skydiver.

I believe AAD's have allowed a lot of dangerous. reckless, careless people to inhabit the sport of skydiving under the mistaken belief it is now "safer"....cause when you get unconscious from the careless beggars bangin' into you you'll be alright cause you're got an AAD. DUR

The stat's to prove this are beyond me and it is after all only a feeling I have formulated from experience.

Some-one got some "proof" that skydiving is "safer" now ...like gravity stopped sucking did it?
Bounce-proof are we all ?

I like how those little cracks in the electronics inside Cypree got all covered up from the general skydiving community. But what would happen without the AAD security blanket I wonder.? And why do you have to keep sending it back to the factory all the time for new stuff like batteries...nice and dependant aren't we. Some set up those guys have got and lots of willing suckers.

Soon it'll be compulsory and you won't be allowed to skydive without one...Good for business don't you think?
The next thing is a personal attack on me for questioning a dependancy of others.??? Try playing the ball on this one if you know where and what the ball is.

Me...I'm gonna buy shares in an AAD company and laugh all the way to the bank.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The thing is I am questioning it . AND I'm suggesting that AAD's may actually be responsible for killing people --- however indirectly. Too big a thought ? Full of sheet? Life just aint so simple as get an AAD and now I'm a safe skydiver.

Questioning it is fine. But you've put up no substance. No pulls rarely happen these days. And it's a stretch to blame canopy deaths on them. Thus leaving you with a dramatically lower death rate, directly contradicting your statement that they were going up. At best you can make an indirect argument that AADs make people feel too safe, so we're no longer filtering away bozos at the door.

I don't buy it. Everyone is still scared shitless when the door opens for their first X jumps. Rational thought disappears at that moment.

Quote

Me...I'm gonna buy shares in an AAD company and laugh all the way to the bank.

Are we even at 100,000 cypres units yet? Lifetime gross sales of 100-150M US isn't exactly a goldmine for investors. And the barriers Vigil has faced (will Argus?) are a bit scary from the investor perspective.

[billvon 2,446]

>>The thing is I am questioning it . AND I'm suggesting that AAD's
>> may actually be responsible for killing people --- however indirectly.

>Questioning it is fine. But you've put up no substance. No pulls rarely
> happen these days. And it's a stretch to blame canopy deaths on
> them.

We recently had three fatalities where the jumper simply took too long to perform emergency procedures. At least two of them had functioning cypreses. Two of them were cutaways and long delays; given that many people think an AAD will fire if you cut away from a main, might they have had in the back of their minds "I will try to get stable; I have the cypres as a backup in case I get too low?" One of them was a difficult pull and low reserve deployment. On that one, did the backup of her cypres reassure her that she had a few more seconds to fix the problem?

We'll never know. I only know of one case where we know reliance on a cypres led to someone's death (the jumper Ron knew.) We should consider the possibility that it may be a factor in other deaths.

[kelpdiver 2]

those are possibles for such an argument. Would they be classified as a low/no pull, or in some other malfuction category? But they're 'maybes,' and it's still not double digits in the category.

[Trae 1]

inrep to 'But you've put up no substance'

Since when does the questioner have to answer their own question around here? (This last ? IS a rhetorical ?)

My concern here is genuine. I too get to see the results of over confidence that I attribute to AAD's amongst other things .

Didn't see such carry on from low jump number people before AAD's became prevalent.

If AAD's become compulsory I think its just a cop-out by the powers that be ....to cover their butts legally and not for any real gain in safety levels except for people who probably shouldn't go skydiving .(not a call I'd like to make )

I know its a hard one but it's not gonna go away .

Skydiving is dangerous AAD or no AAD. Somewhere along the line better training ,less wool over the eyes and less reliance on AAD's just may give us a recognisable (not electrical) improvement in safety levels.

Hey this actually feels like a discussion not just a disagreement or argument ...thank you.

• Quote

[EvilLurker 2]

Well, if you get knocked unconscious/rendered unable to pull during a skydive (I'm ignoring the low cutaway scenarios here), the chances of an AAD saving your life are pretty good (especially a CYPRES). Without one, you're dead. The "overconfidence" factor making people freeze up and wait for the AAD to save their lives exists, I've read incident reports where the jumper stated that "I waited for my AAD to fire". In these cases, it did fire. I guess you have a point, regarding a limited number of jumpers. I don't see how you're going to foster "less reliance on AAD's", though. At my DZ, the DZO said that anyone who had a CYPRES fire wouldn't be jumping at his DZ again, maybe that could be turned into a USPA policy. I'd have to say that I like my AAD just for the fact that if I take a knee in the head or get a broken arm, etc. I have a good chance of living. It's no substitute for altitude awareness, and if I had a CYPRES fire, it would be my last jump. Maybe I'm not typical?
Hey, you should read through this list and note the number of student/tandem saves. Most all of them would be dead without a CYPRES:

http://www.cypres-usa.com/saves05b.pdf

293 saves, maybe some of them would have gotten a reserve out in time, but many wouldn't have from reading the reports. What do you say to that?

[Trae 1]

I must have the slowest friggin' link in the world ...but I will persist. and read what you suggested.

As regards ""less reliance on AAD's", what I meant (I wish I could put my thoughts into words better ) was less MENTAL reliance.
It is not my particular feeling that AAD's are BAD as such. I've used them for students and tandems and have physically, mentally and legally relied on them in these uses.

Of course if you are knocked out or broken up a bit in freefall an AAD will give you at least a chance of survival...very good ..surviving that is.

Getting right down to the nitty gritty though I feel AAD's have fostered a sense of increased invulnerability which makes it more likely that we will be hurt by an out of control skydiver or other accident that wouldn't have happened if we were all being MORE careful. eg by not progressing too far too fast.. (like night driving too fast for the head lights)
I wonder if we as a group recognise this potential problem.

Bit of a mind loop I suppose and certainly not a reason to not use AAD's but making these things compulsory when they can kill you goes against my better instincts. Bit like making RSL's compulsory when in some situations they too CAN kill you.

As for the 239 lives saved I wonder how many wouldn't have skydived without AAD's and therefore wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place.? Not all of them I'm prepared to concede.

I suppose I'm reacting a bit to the people in positions of power & influence that want to force us to use an AAD. The next step along such a train of thought could be to force us to stop skydiving altogether .....as it's just not safe enough.
As for that fascist DZO you mentioned ....I wonder if he has an AAD.?

Cheers for the pertinent and thoughtful points you have made.

• Quote

[Trae 1]

OK I've had a chance to read through the list of cypres saves..
Did you think this list would discount my idea that there are more dangerous, careless etc skydivers around because AAD's have become prevalent.?

If you did I think you should have another read of the list yourself.

It reads to me like a collection of complete skydiving idiots.

As I indicated earlier I feel the Student AAD's and Tandem AAD's are a good idea. Students and tandem passengers need as much protection as possible.

Student Cypres activations account for approximately 33% of the saves in the list.
Tandem activations account for approx. 8% .

The rest (59%) are so called Expert Cypres activations. Of these very few are because the skydiver was unconscious.

I got sick of reading how these people were saved because they lost height awareness or couldn't work out what to do next when experiencing a malfunction or simply waited for the AAD to save their lives.

I feel my concerns are fully borne out by the statistics in this list.
It is now my feeling that most of these people were not trained correctly or forgot their training somehow.
Perhaps the gaps in their knowledge were not picked up due to the inexperience and incompetence of their instructors...perhaps.

A bit like the blind leading the blind.

Greed for $$$ ,pushing students through courses not properly trained and general instructor incompetence may be factors in this problem.

I'm so glad I did the static -line course and was taught by people (ex-army) who really knew what they were doing and weren't just pretending.

The civi-instructors didn't demonstrate the same degree of professionality.(6 syllables in that word ..wow )

This sport really is dangerous --its a pity some parts of it appear to be on the edge of negligence as well.

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

Would you skydive without an AAD ?

Yes. Over 2000 jumps without one. When my current Cypres units expire this year, I won't be replacing them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Since when does the questioner have to answer their own question around here? (This last ? IS a rhetorical ?)
...
Hey this actually feels like a discussion not just a disagreement or argument ...thank you.

Well, you didn't ask it as a question - you put it out as a theory. That makes it fair game!

So then it comes down to how much laziness does it encourage (measureable or presumed) and second, is the new situation better or worse?

Scuba divers used to go down without pressure gauges or a second regulator for sharing air. Now those are standard equipment. Back then, divers definitely were better at following their dive plan, sharing air off a single reg, and doing free ascents to the surface. But they also died a lot more often. The new reality is better. Admittedly, it's much cheaper than a Cypres.

I wouldn't agree with making AADs compulsory. But penalties for AAD abuse (saves) seem fair enough.

[EvilLurker 2]

Quote

As for the 239 lives saved I wonder how many wouldn't have skydived without AAD's and therefore wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place.? Not all of them I'm prepared to concede.

A lot of the students would most likely have not been jumping if an AAD hadn't been invented. I agree.

Quote

As for that fascist DZO you mentioned ....I wonder if he has an AAD.?

I can't remember. I doubt it, as he would have had to quit jumping if his fired. He never stated you HAD to use an AAD at his DZ, just that you had better not have it fire. I agree. He was a military rigger, been running a DZ for 20+ years without a fatality, so he was doing something right. His point was, if you're boneheade enough to forget to pull, you just died. He didn't want dead people stinking up his operation. I would imagine if a jumper was knocked out in freefall and their AAD saved them, he would have made an exception. Maybe.

Quote

Getting right down to the nitty gritty though I feel AAD's have fostered a sense of increased invulnerability which makes it more likely that we will be hurt by an out of control skydiver or other accident that wouldn't have happened if we were all being MORE careful. eg by not progressing too far too fast..

That's hard to argue with, and I have a feeling you're right. If I know that, in the event I hit the door or get kicked, etc. I'm going to burn in and die, I'm going to be a lot more cautious about what I attempt. That's probably true of most skydivers, whether they admit it or not. If you're talking about being complacent about altitude awareness because I have a CYPRES in case I go low, hell no, not guilty. I'm also not going to quit on my EPs and wait for a CYPRES fire, I'm going to be pulling handles and fighting for my life until impact. If the CYPRES fires and saves me, I'm one lucky dog.
Compulsory AADs? I'm against it, but if a DZO makes that rule, I'm at their mercy.

[EvilLurker 2]

Quote

The rest (59%) are so called Expert Cypres activations. Of these very few are because the skydiver was unconscious.

I read about 30 saves that were due to unconscious/injured/hard pulls that I could see happening to myself, all of them experienced skydivers with Expert Cypres.

Quote

I got sick of reading how these people were saved because they lost height awareness or couldn't work out what to do next when experiencing a malfunction or simply waited for the AAD to save their lives.

Yes, there's quite a string of them. They're still alive, but I doubt if many of them are still skydiving.

Quote

I feel my concerns are fully borne out by the statistics in this list.
It is now my feeling that most of these people were not trained correctly or forgot their training somehow.
Perhaps the gaps in their knowledge were not picked up due to the inexperience and incompetence of their instructors...perhaps.

Well, it's hard to judge how someone will react to an emergency situation, it's even hard to judge how you would personally react. Unless you're going to come up with some kind of test to judge that, what's the solution? Limit first jump students to SWAT team members, firefighters and Navy SEALS?

Quote

Greed for $$$ ,pushing students through courses not properly trained and general instructor incompetence may be factors in this problem.

Well, it's a business (and not a very profitable one), so I guess we can expect that. You can really only do so much training on the ground, but I suspect you're right, from watching quite a few FJC's, that the phrase "maybe you should take up bowling" might be smart in a lot of cases prior to putting some students in an airplane. I don't remember seeing any people talked out of jumping due to their ground performance.

Quote

I'm so glad I did the static -line course and was taught by people (ex-army) who really knew what they were doing and weren't just pretending.

I did IAD with an Army instructor and civilian JMs, but they were all old-school and didn't skimp on the feedback. A lot of people don't take well to that attitude, but I'm ex-military, too, so I prefer it.

Quote

The civi-instructors didn't demonstrate the same degree of professionality.(6 syllables in that word ..wow )

I don't think I'd agree with a blanket statement like that, I've seen quite a few EXCELLENT civilian instructors around. It depends on the person and the environment they're working in, I'd say.

This sport really is dangerous --its a pity some parts of it appear to be on the edge of negligence as well.

I see where you're going: minus AADs a lot of these new people would not get put into an aircraft and out the door, unless the sport was willing to accept another 90 or 100 student deaths over the last 15 years, and a substantially increased number of tandem fatalities. That's a tough one to answer. Interesting question, though.

[Trae 1]

in reply to "I read about 30 saves that were due to unconscious/injured/hard pulls that I could see happening to myself, all of them experienced skydivers with Expert Cypres."

I suppose I did leave out the qualifiers in some of my statements. I should perhaps have included "In my experience " This may have been better english. I agree that generalised blanket statements are rarely totally precise .


So at what point do we allow for freedom of choice and when does compulsory AAD's become a reasonable proposition?

It's my feeling that there are those amongst us with a suitable command of the language that allows them to create their own little niche of influence. The result being that rest of us become dependent on their way of thinking.

There's a degree of "baffling them with bullshit" going on here and not from my side of the discussion.

I just hope we don't end up in a situation where we end up "believing our own bullshit ".

30 "REAL" expert saves does sound much more realistic than the approx. 180 claimed.
Please remember I did ask if anyone with a flair for statistics could help here as I realise my maths sucks.(an opening to shoot my perspective down)

So 300 minus approx 120 student and tandem saves minus 30 "unavoidable incidents ?" leaves approx 150 people who PERHAPS should not have put themselves or been put into into such a dangerous situation.
So about half the C saves it could be argued are a result of people getting themselves into a situation beyond their abilities for whatever reason.

It could be argued that a sport that fosters such irresponsibility is acting in a negligent manner.

It's my guess that if this had been another dangerous pastime such as BASE jumping these 150 less capable types would have the lowest life expectancies.

It interests me to see the apologistic nature of some of the replies. Thank you for at least conceding some of my points .

Would it be a fair guess that you have some form of legal experience with these issues?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So 300 minus approx 120 student and tandem saves minus 30 "unavoidable incidents ?" leaves approx 150 people who PERHAPS should not have put themselves or been put into into such a dangerous situation.
So about half the C saves it could be argued are a result of people getting themselves into a situation beyond their abilities for whatever reason.

Or 150 people that screwed up. Not all incidents happen to inexperienced people trying stuff beyond their ability. This is especially true in the canopy world.

[Zenister 0]

"progressing too far too fast" is entirely related to success or failure.

Quote

there are more dangerous, careless etc skydivers around because AAD's have become prevalent.?

no.

There are more incidents because there are more skydivers and more skydives per year not because AADs exist. Although safety advances to ALL aspects of skydiving equipment is a prime reason why there are more skydivers and more skydives, AAD usage is not the prime cause for what may have been more low/no pull fatalities.. 150 possible low/no pulls out of how many jumps/jumpers in that time range?

Even people who "(ex-army) who really knew what they were doing" have fucked up and gone in.. loss of awareness is not always a failure of training..

i've had both world class training from military and civilian instructors, but you are making a huge leap to state that the quality of instruction might be lacking simply because the instructors were civilians. 'Professionalism' isnt directly related to military service.


If a DZO requires AADs that is their choice. Tis their business after all, and I am not required to jump there if i dont want an AAD...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[EvilLurker 2]

Quote

30 "REAL" expert saves does sound much more realistic than the approx. 180 claimed.

Well, no, there were actually 180 people's lives saved, out of that, 30 of them had incidents where they were incapable of getting a parachute over their heads due to factors beyond their control (which I concluded "could have been any one of us, no matter the experience level/ability to respond") The other 150 were a mix of loss of altitude awareness (probably 75+% of them were going to die, some may have gotten a reserve pull without the CYPRES), and the trusting ones that gave up and waited for a CYPRES fire (device dependance). Maybe some of them would have fought harder to get something over their heads if they didn't have an AAD. Hard to say. But yes, about 30 people that were saved by a CYPRES that would have deployed safely, minus their injury, over a 14 year span.

Quote

leaves approx 150 people who PERHAPS should not have put themselves or been put into into such a dangerous situation.
So about half the C saves it could be argued are a result of people getting themselves into a situation beyond their abilities for whatever reason.

I'd have to agree with that statement. In an earlier time, these people would have been statistics in the low pull/no pull catagory.

Quote

It could be argued that a sport that fosters such irresponsibility is acting in a negligent manner.

I believe it could be. I also believe that there should be some serious consequences for allowing your CYPRES to deploy a reserve if you are not injured/unconscious, with the possibility of being permanently grounded.

Quote

It's my guess that if this had been another dangerous pastime such as BASE jumping these 150 less capable types would have the lowest life expectancies.

I'd say with that kind of response, most of them would be dead or very seriously injured.

Quote

Would it be a fair guess that you have some form of legal experience with these issues?

No, I'm an electronics technician.

Quote

Thank you for at least conceding some of my points .

I agree with a lot of your points, but that doesn't make us right, necessarily. From the CYPRES save list, and running a quick estimate vs. the number of jumps, the chances of an experienced skydiver being saved by a CYPRES looks very low. If you maintain altitude awareness, it is REALLY low. I have one because I suck at RW and could well be the low guy on a funnel, so it's for peace of mind.
Hey, are you in Melbourne? My wife's from there.

[Trae 1]

Thanks for such intelligent and considered answers.(especially Evillurker and Kelpdiver ) And Zenister has summed up a common stance as well.
I feel I've really learnt something here not simply re-inforced held positions.

OK so I've got a leaning towards military type training...I've seen such methods work very well with extreme safety records compared to some civil training methods.

Of course a lot of civi's are ex-mil so it'd be unfair to pick on the civi's in any generalised form....... just high-lighting some perceived deficiencies.

I'm supposing the next step after recognising this potential threat to our overall safety standards is to devise some way of recognising and dealing with the people who need extra guidance....not just by relying on AAD's.

Some type of skydiving aptitude test could help here.
I'm not suggesting over doing it with too high a standard (who sets the level?) We all (?) are capable of learning from our mistakes and no skydiver (experienced or student ) I've met likes being told they can't skydive.

In martial arts the Sensai is often an extremely perceptive individual. When a few of these teachers put their heads together they can be almost 100% right in their judgements..and still accept that they may be wrong sometimes.

Perhaps if skydiving is going to rise above the "cowboys of aviation" tag we could learn something from such physical arts....as in suitable progression tables geared towards safety as a seprate issue to the current performance oriented tables.(as long as it doesn't mean paying more to any greedy big-headed bull-shit artists)

Aikido lays some reasonable claims to being the highest form of martial art. The Aikido doctrine of non-aggression and healing through conflict avoidance could provide something for us to to aim for.

Again Cheers for the informative chat

in reply to "Hey, are you in Melbourne? My wife's from there."

Nope but a female (or two) of our species I like a lot is.

[popsjumper 2]

Yes. But I much prefer to have one, armed and ready

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Sky15 0]

Never have owned one in 1,500 jumps. Neither has my husband, who's been jumping 36 years and has almost 9,000 jumps.

Not against them, wouldn't mind having one. Can't find one used and can't afford it.
Did get a full face for RW though just recently.