Chrisky 0 #26 September 13, 2003 I meant: It's bad that some people have trouble accepting other peoples' attitudes, but that's the way the world is. Apart from that, lacking safety attitude needs to be handled.The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #27 September 13, 2003 That sounds pretty accurate, to me. I fall frimly into the second group. I did my first jump in 99, and didn't make a skydive withouth a cypres until jump number 478, a 10 second delay on the way back from Roger's memorial. I was too lazy to figure out the difference in ground elevations, so left it turned off. To me, I trust my Cypres in the exact same way that I trust my harness and container, my 3 rings, my reserve canopy. Trusting our gear comes with the teritory, and the Cypres is just another piece of gear. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,397 #28 September 14, 2003 I don't fall into either category. I started jumping with a 24-foot bellywart reserve and a 28-foot C-9 main. The AAD was the old Sentinal which had to be manually turned off after opening, because it would fire at 1000 feet regardless of velocity. Experienced jumpers never used them. Since then: - I have personally known a number of people who were saved by the Cypres; Two of them at my own DZ this year. - I have known several people who died, but would probably still be alive if they had had a Cypres, including a personal acquaintance whom I watched die in TX in the late 80's. - I can describe two jumps from the past on which I would have triggered a Cypres if I had been wearing it. On one, I got my reserve open at 400 feet. - I had a freefall collision just two months ago, in which my hard helmet collided with the hard helmet of another jumper. Both of us had 800+ jumps. I saw stars and my head was ringing for three days afterward. I'm surprised I didn't lose consciousness. It brought home the fact that shit happens, even with experienced participants. - I don't personally know anyone who has ever had a Cypres fire except in a low/no pull situation. In summary, I can't find any reason to jump without a Cypres."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #29 September 14, 2003 QuoteSo back to the topic at hand, I really don't understand why all of a sudden there is this massive debate on the merits of using a Cypres. A woman is alive today because she jumps with one. Yet she's being criticized by some because she exited the airplane wrong, konked here head on the elevator, got knocked out and was saved by a $1000 device. Come on people, stop judging each other and try accepting people for who they are. This shouldn't be such a big deal as long as the person isn't harming anyone else. Who is saying that a CYPRES does not have merits? Not me. I have one. My issue is with those that treat them like a manditory part of a rig, and YES, I do know people that have had fires and treated them like no big deal. Now about this person who is alive thanks to the CYPRES...Well Im glad she is not dead...But can you see how she could have done things differently? I was told about the tail on A/C being low. We were told because we didn't have AAD's and we spent more time working out ways that we could get hurt, so we could avoid getting hurt. Thats not the case today. The CYPRES has built into some of this new generation of skydivers a feeling of saftey. Well this sport is not safe, and I wish people would quit acting like it is. I wish people would THINK about the ways that they can get hurt so that they never NEED a CYPRES to save them...But this is a part of this sport that is quickly going away.. Why worry about it since the CYPRES will save you? I know of skydivers today that don't know how to put together 3 rings. How the hell does that happen? Simple, they don't have to think about them, so they don't learn about them and some of the problems that can happen with them. The same thing is happening with CYPRES kids. They don't think about all the ways that they can get knocked out or loose altitude awarenes, since they have a CYPRES to save them, and Pro Tracks and Neptunes to tell them when to break off, or pull or deal with the malfunction. I can tell when to break off by looking at the ground. I have several hundered jumps with no ADD, RSL, Altimeter ect. I think they are all cool things that do bring saftey to this sport, but as the sport gets safer, people start trusting the toys, and quit thinking saftey. It happens. "I went low cause I didn't hear my PRO Track!" How about looking at your altimeter, or better yet looking at the ground? "I didn't pull my reserve since I knew my RSL would pull it" I have heard this....And I have seen a CYPRES fire once since THIS rig didn't have an RSL on it. So you see my issue is not with a CYPRES at all, or an AAD or an RSL or anyother neat new toy that makes skydiving safer....My issue is with those that trust the toys to keep them safe insted of learning about this sport and the equipment in it. And after learning this knowledge, using it to plan safer dives by knowing about all the things that can go wrong and avoiding them insted of trusting cool toys to keep them safe. Think about how much safer this sport could be if you used your head to avoid dangerous situations AND had the cool saftey toys? Plan your skydives as if you don't have any of these cool toys. Would I do headdown without an audible or CYPRES? If the answer is no, then maybe you should work on the skills you need to feel comfertable doing it before you do? Would I do a 100 way without a CYPRES? If the answer is no, then maybe you should not do the 100 ways even with one? This is why I turned down an invite to the 300 ways. I asked myself would I go if I didn't have a CYPRES? The answer was no, so I didn't go. How hard is that? If I will not do it without a CYPRES, Why do it with one? Ron"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
skybytch 259 #30 September 14, 2003 Quote I really think a lot of people just think it's macho to jump with no cypres. They LOVE to tell people they don't have a cypres. Yup.. I thought I was really macho when I didn't have a Cypres. And my overall self esteem dropped tremendously when I got one. You're generalizing and stereotyping. Some people don't agree with your views on AAD's. Some of them have been in the sport since before you or I were born. You don't have to listen to their rants, but you might want to - never know, you could learn something. What did I learn from listening to "old farts" talk about AAD's? I learned that having an AAD doesn't mean I won't die skydiving, and I also learned that having an AAD could possibly CAUSE me to die skydiving. I turn my Cypres on before every day of jumping. I know the risks of having it on there, and I've accepted those risks. It makes my mother happy that it's in there. She doesn't need to know that it probably won't work when I'm jumping my wingsuit. And I can't believe that I'm once again posting in a Cypres debate thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nullified 0 #31 September 14, 2003 QuoteComparing a CYPRES to a seatbelt is soooo off. When I drive up I-5 3 hours to the DZ, I'm trusting my life to Hundreds of thousands of other drivers. reply] Yeah, but would you get behind the wheel of a formula racing car and push it to it's limits with a dozen or more other drivers all doing the same thing, and not wear your restraining device or a helmet??? Stay safe. If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nullified 0 #32 September 14, 2003 Quote This is why I turned down an invite to the 300 ways. I asked myself would I go if I didn't have a CYPRES? The answer was no, so I didn't go. How hard is that? Ron Ron, I truly respect and admire you for that. I'm feeling burnt out on this AAD debate, probably because we all seem to be saying the same thing over and over. There are a group of AAD users who I think we all agree upon. I just don't agree that everyone who won't jump without an AAD is one of them. For what it's worth, I've jumped without and I'm sure that I will again. As long as I have a rig with a function AAD though, I will turn it on every time I show up at the DZ...unless I forget to! Stay safe. Best, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites alan 1 #33 September 14, 2003 QuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. There are those who jumped in pre-AAD days, who consider the CYPRES to be a fancy add-on. While many of them use one, at some subconscious level, this group is uncomfortable since they see the CYPRES as taking away part of the skydiver's ethos. To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig, and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating that they don't need one. Roger Nelson?alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nullified 0 #34 September 14, 2003 QuoteQuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. There are those who jumped in pre-AAD days, who consider the CYPRES to be a fancy add-on. While many of them use one, at some subconscious level, this group is uncomfortable since they see the CYPRES as taking away part of the skydiver's ethos. To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig, and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating that they don't need one. Roger Nelson? I'm not sure what you mean by, "Roger Nelson?" If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,646 #35 September 14, 2003 QuoteQuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. There are those who jumped in pre-AAD days, who consider the CYPRES to be a fancy add-on. While many of them use one, at some subconscious level, this group is uncomfortable since they see the CYPRES as taking away part of the skydiver's ethos. To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig, and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating that they don't need one. Roger Nelson? ????? What does that mean? Roger always used a CYPRES since I knew him. Always. But then, he was clearly someone who didn't believe in "we do it this way because we've always done it this way".... 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 alan 1 #36 September 14, 2003 Quote????? What does that mean? Roger always used a CYPRES since I knew him. Always. But then, he was clearly someone who didn't believe in "we do it this way because we've always done it this way". QuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. You seem to be painting with an overly wide brush. What side of the debate would Roger have fallen into? He certainly would not fall into the category of those who started jumping post-AAD days. By default, that should put him in the side of the pre-AAD philosophy. He didn't seem to fit there though, but then I didn't know him near as well as you. I had hoped to stimulate you into thinking about your theory a little more. Perhaps there are one or more categories you may have missed and many, many people who might fit into that/those category(s). Then again, since I only charge $30 for a reserve repack and understand the concept of deceleration(and am willing to defend my positions), I've been relegated to the status of rude, common troll. I'm outa here now Doc, I'm sure there are already those salivating at the thought of telling the world how I have somehow now besmirched the name and memory of a man I respected. It was a mistake to post in the first place.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites alan 1 #37 September 14, 2003 QuoteAnd there are those who started jumping after the CYPRES became commonplace, and to whom the CYPRES is just another part of the rig, like the toggles or pilot chute. Sure, you can steer and land a parachute without toggles, and you COULD deploy your main without a pilot chute, but why would you want to unless there was a clear and obvious benefit to doing so? This group sees no clear and obvious benefit to jumping without a CYPRES. Would you consider yourself in this group? Even when you are doing 10 way speed and borrow a rig, one without a CYPRES?alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diverdriver 5 #38 September 14, 2003 Alan, I kinda thought that's where you were going with that. If you had just added the comment "where would he have been grouped?" It would have been more clear.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,646 #39 September 14, 2003 QuoteQuote????? What does that mean? Roger always used a CYPRES since I knew him. Always. But then, he was clearly someone who didn't believe in "we do it this way because we've always done it this way". QuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. You seem to be painting with an overly wide brush. What side of the debate would Roger have fallen into? He certainly would not fall into the category of those who started jumping post-AAD days. By default, that should put him in the side of the pre-AAD philosophy. He didn't seem to fit there though, but then I didn't know him near as well as you. I had hoped to stimulate you into thinking about your theory a little more. Perhaps there are one or more categories you may have missed and many, many people who might fit into that/those category(s). Then again, since I only charge $30 for a reserve repack and understand the concept of deceleration(and am willing to defend my positions), I've been relegated to the status of rude, common troll. I'm outa here now Doc, I'm sure there are already those salivating at the thought of telling the world how I have somehow now besmirched the name and memory of a man I respected. It was a mistake to post in the first place. I'm sure that the brush was overly wide - but it was only meant to include those who participated in these CYPRES debates. Roger did not fall into that category. He used a CYPRES, promoted its use to jumpers at his DZ, but didn't mandate it, certainly had jumped without one, but to the best of my knowledge never entered either side of the "debate".... 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 billvon 2,426 #40 September 14, 2003 >To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other >parts of the rig . . . . I don't think it's much different than, say, an RSL. It's a great backup, but if you need it to ensure you will open your reserve, something's wrong. >and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating > that they don't need one. To take your statement literally - absolutely. If you cannot demonstrate that you can open your main or reserve on your own 100% of the time, there is a _serious_ problem that must be addressed. This is the primary reason that students are required to use AAD's - so discovering that they can't open their own parachute isn't fatal, and they can either get remedial training or get the bowling ball speech. To take your statement the way I think you meant it (i.e. this group thinks you should make a jump without a cypres) I don't quite agree. I think you should be _able_ to make one without a cypres, and have no issues with safety doing so. If that's the case, no problem. If a jumper is unwilling to make the safest possible jump without a cypres, there's a chance (IMO) that they are putting more faith in the device than is wise. If they have no problems jumping without a cypres, and their DZ allows it, jumping without one can be a good exercise in self-reliance. Take a pilot of an aircraft that requires a working autopilot to be legal. The pilot should be able to safely land the plane himself without the autopilot and have no serious issues doing so. He doesn't have to actually do it; indeed, he may be in a position where operation without a working autopilot is against FAA or company rules. As long as he _can_ do that he's in good shape; the autopilot simply adds a layer of redundancy and lessens his workload. If he considers himself unable to land the aircraft himself, and therefore would never consider trying it, there's a problem - one that should be remedied. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,646 #41 September 14, 2003 QuoteQuoteAnd there are those who started jumping after the CYPRES became commonplace, and to whom the CYPRES is just another part of the rig, like the toggles or pilot chute. Sure, you can steer and land a parachute without toggles, and you COULD deploy your main without a pilot chute, but why would you want to unless there was a clear and obvious benefit to doing so? This group sees no clear and obvious benefit to jumping without a CYPRES. Would you consider yourself in this group? Even when you are doing 10 way speed and borrow a rig, one without a CYPRES? Yes - I jumped without a CYPRES because the benefit was clear and obvious - I needed to train with my team and needed to borrow a rig. I do not consider "just to show that you can do it" to be a clear and obvious benefit.... 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 diverdriver 5 #42 September 14, 2003 QuoteTake a pilot of an aircraft that requires a working autopilot to be legal. The pilot should be able to safely land the plane himself without the autopilot and have no serious issues doing so. He doesn't have to actually do it; indeed, he may be in a position where operation without a working autopilot is against FAA or company rules. As long as he _can_ do that he's in good shape; the autopilot simply adds a layer of redundancy and lessens his workload. If he considers himself unable to land the aircraft himself, and therefore would never consider trying it, there's a problem - one that should be remedied. Aircraft that have autopilots that can land the plane are not common. They are usually airliners. And those airliners have two pilots as it is. Mostly the regulation about having an autopilot is that you are flying in a single pilot situation. It is mostly used for cruise flight and is hardly ever certified for auto-land. And I don't know of a single pilot that is legal to land in zero zero so the auto-pilot IS required to land the plane in those cases. So yah, they are device dependant if they want to land in those conditions. And they certainly don't seem to have a problem letting the computer do it. It is more accurate and able to make fine corrections than the human can solely by the instruments. So, really, there is no problem because that is exactly what is happening. We pilots aren't allowed to do it. We have to let the computer land in the poorest of ceiling and visibility conditions.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites alan 1 #43 September 14, 2003 Thanks for the red highlight.......that wasn't clear to me from your ORIGINAL post. I have particpated in these debates, where would you put me? BTW, does your theory only include the rec.skydiving and dropzone.com debates? YOU have participated in these debates, have you not? Would you consider yourself in this group? QuoteYes So your THEORY says this: "This group sees no clear and obvious benefit to jumping without a CYPRES." You admit to being part of that theoretical group and in the same breath say: "I jumped without a CYPRES because the benefit was clear and obvious - I needed to train with my team and needed to borrow a rig." So, maybe there is another group who have particpated in these debates who have started jumping after the CYPRES became commonplace, and to whom the CYPRES is just another part of the rig, like the toggles or pilot chute. Sure, you can steer and land a parachute without toggles, and you COULD deploy your main without a pilot chute, but WILL BECAUSE THEY SOMTIMES SEE A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS BENEFIT TO DOING SO! Just a thought, feel free to ignore me. I stayed away from the red stuff, I give you enough credit to believe you can read the shouting without it.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,646 #44 September 15, 2003 Quote>To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other >parts of the rig . . . . I don't think it's much different than, say, an RSL. It's a great backup, but if you need it to ensure you will open your reserve, something's wrong. >and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating > that they don't need one. To take your statement literally - absolutely. If you cannot demonstrate that you can open your main or reserve on your own 100% of the time, there is a _serious_ problem that must be addressed. This is the primary reason that students are required to use AAD's - so discovering that they can't open their own parachute isn't fatal, and they can either get remedial training or get the bowling ball speech. To take your statement the way I think you meant it (i.e. this group thinks you should make a jump without a cypres) I don't quite agree. I think you should be _able_ to make one without a cypres, and have no issues with safety doing so. If that's the case, no problem. If a jumper is unwilling to make the safest possible jump without a cypres, there's a chance (IMO) that they are putting more faith in the device than is wise. If they have no problems jumping without a cypres, and their DZ allows it, jumping without one can be a good exercise in self-reliance. Take a pilot of an aircraft that requires a working autopilot to be legal. The pilot should be able to safely land the plane himself without the autopilot and have no serious issues doing so. He doesn't have to actually do it; indeed, he may be in a position where operation without a working autopilot is against FAA or company rules. As long as he _can_ do that he's in good shape; the autopilot simply adds a layer of redundancy and lessens his workload. If he considers himself unable to land the aircraft himself, and therefore would never consider trying it, there's a problem - one that should be remedied. The B2 cannot be flown without the flight control computers. The USAF's best pilots are device dependent - oh no!... 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 mikeat10500 9 #45 September 15, 2003 QuoteTo me, I trust my Cypres in the exact same way that I trust my harness and container, my 3 rings, my reserve canopy. Trusting our gear comes with the teritory, and the Cypres is just another piece of gear. _Am I trusted my three rings today...pulled the cutaway handle and cleared the cables....no cutaway!!! Story to follow in CRW thread. P.S. Landed my lopo 26' in the swamp. You can laugh now.----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cssriggers 0 #46 September 15, 2003 QuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. There are those who jumped in pre-AAD days, who consider the CYPRES to be a fancy add-on. While many of them use one, at some subconscious level, this group is uncomfortable since they see the CYPRES as taking away part of the skydiver's ethos. To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig, and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating that they don't need one. And there are those who started jumping after the CYPRES became commonplace, and to whom the CYPRES is just another part of the rig, like the toggles or pilot chute. Sure, you can steer and land a parachute without toggles, and you COULD deploy your main without a pilot chute, but why would you want to unless there was a clear and obvious benefit to doing so? This group sees no clear and obvious benefit to jumping without a CYPRES. Hey, Kallend. This discussion seems to have gotten rather heated and I'm late, but I still wanna join in (and maybe get this more on track??) I'd probably be considered firmly in your first group - an old fart. (?I'm not THAT old.) But, my Cypres is certainly not just a "fancy add-on" and I don't see it as taking away from the "skydiver's ethos." I simply hope it will always remain a personal choice. I do take a HUGE exception to your description of the second group. None of my students - and none of our newer jumpers - consider a Cypres "just another part of their rig - like the toggles or pilot chute." They understand that it's an electronic backup, something that *MIGHT* save their life in a worst-case scenario. They understand this, just like they understand their three pull priorities. They turn it on, check the numbers, and keep it in mind. This idea of equating an AAD with toggles or PC really scares the hell out of me. I also believe there is a greater dichotomy in skydiving theory between "old farts" and newer jumpers aside from AADs. A common refrain amongst older riggers/instructors I've heard is "Tandems and Cypreses have ruined our sport." (!) While attending a 4-way tunnel camp in Orlando 2 years ago, the first words out of the mouth of our esteemed coach (a US 4-way champion) were, "Cypreses take all the sport out of skydiving." I totally don't agree with either of these sentiments ... but ...on the other hand it takes a lot of guts to hang off the strut of a C182 all alone. Not many people do that anymore. This may sound harsh, but I've seen people progress in this sport who really don't need to be here .. who really don't understand what it's all about. I think most of us have. To me, it's not about having a Cypres vs. not having one; growing up with one vs. never having one - I believe this Cypres issue is an overt symptom of a much bigger ideological schism in our sport. I believe it's about the now quite common idea that anyone can do a tandem and anyone can become a skydiver, vs. the idea that some people just aren't meant for this sport. I belive it's about the safety of our sport; the safety of each of us. It's about taking responsibility for ourselves, and for all of the other poor souls in the plane with us, and in the air with us. I know some scary "old farts" that I'd rather not be in the air with. I'd gladly jump with any of our new skydivers. Bottom line - all gear/Cypres issues aside - when you leave that plane, you need to have the personal responsibility to do certain things to keep yourself alive. After you do that, you need to make sure you don't do anything that could cause anyone else to die or get hurt. These Cypres discussions have gotten rather heated. I think a lot of the "old fart" concerns have to do a lot more with personal responsiblity and realizing the gravity (no pun intended) of the sport than they do with using/not using an AAD. -JohnAlpha Mike Foxtrot, JHL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,646 #47 September 15, 2003 Quote feel free to ignore me. OK, I will.... 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 1,646 #48 September 15, 2003 QuoteQuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. There are those who jumped in pre-AAD days, who consider the CYPRES to be a fancy add-on. While many of them use one, at some subconscious level, this group is uncomfortable since they see the CYPRES as taking away part of the skydiver's ethos. To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig, and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating that they don't need one. And there are those who started jumping after the CYPRES became commonplace, and to whom the CYPRES is just another part of the rig, like the toggles or pilot chute. Sure, you can steer and land a parachute without toggles, and you COULD deploy your main without a pilot chute, but why would you want to unless there was a clear and obvious benefit to doing so? This group sees no clear and obvious benefit to jumping without a CYPRES. Hey, Kallend. This discussion seems to have gotten rather heated and I'm late, but I still wanna join in (and maybe get this more on track??) I'd probably be considered firmly in your first group - an old fart. (?I'm not THAT old.) But, my Cypres is certainly not just a "fancy add-on" and I don't see it as taking away from the "skydiver's ethos." I simply hope it will always remain a personal choice. I do take a HUGE exception to your description of the second group. None of my students - and none of our newer jumpers - consider a Cypres "just another part of their rig - like the toggles or pilot chute." They understand that it's an electronic backup, something that *MIGHT* save their life in a worst-case scenario. They understand this, just like they understand their three pull priorities. They turn it on, check the numbers, and keep it in mind. This idea of equating an AAD with toggles or PC really scares the hell out of me. I also believe there is a greater dichotomy in skydiving theory between "old farts" and newer jumpers aside from AADs. A common refrain amongst older riggers/instructors I've heard is "Tandems and Cypreses have ruined our sport." (!) While attending a 4-way tunnel camp in Orlando 2 years ago, the first words out of the mouth of our esteemed coach (a US 4-way champion) were, "Cypreses take all the sport out of skydiving." I totally don't agree with either of these sentiments ... but ...on the other hand it takes a lot of guts to hang off the strut of a C182 all alone. Not many people do that anymore. This may sound harsh, but I've seen people progress in this sport who really don't need to be here .. who really don't understand what it's all about. I think most of us have. To me, it's not about having a Cypres vs. not having one; growing up with one vs. never having one - I believe this Cypres issue is an overt symptom of a much bigger ideological schism in our sport. I believe it's about the now quite common idea that anyone can do a tandem and anyone can become a skydiver, vs. the idea that some people just aren't meant for this sport. I belive it's about the safety of our sport; the safety of each of us. It's about taking responsibility for ourselves, and for all of the other poor souls in the plane with us, and in the air with us. I know some scary "old farts" that I'd rather not be in the air with. I'd gladly jump with any of our new skydivers. Bottom line - all gear/Cypres issues aside - when you leave that plane, you need to have the personal responsibility to do certain things to keep yourself alive. After you do that, you need to make sure you don't do anything that could cause anyone else to die or get hurt. These Cypres discussions have gotten rather heated. I think a lot of the "old fart" concerns have to do a lot more with personal responsiblity and realizing the gravity (no pun intended) of the sport than they do with using/not using an AAD. -John Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I think you may have redrawn with more precision the demarcation lines that I tried to identify. There are clearly two sides to this debate, and the two sides start out with such different axioms that I'm not sure they can be reconciled by logic and debate. Just a thought - for all those who think that a lot of current skydivers should never have become skydivers because of a bad attitude towards personal responsibilty for keeping themselves alive, how do you account for the almost monotonic decline in accident rate over the last 15 years?... 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 freakydiver 0 #49 September 15, 2003 "the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig" Would completely agree. I see a benefit to jumping without one (many actually) but honestly just prefer to have one since I've had a tendency to get whacked on my head in other sports I participate in. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nightjumps 1 #50 September 15, 2003 Old Fart (Pro-Cypres) responds: For me, the cypres is only about one thing... Passing through 750' with no canopy out. Your fault, my fault, Pro-cypres, Anti-Cypres, Pro-RSL, Anti-RSL, Pro-Gun, Anti-gun, Pro-Salt, Anti-abortion, Pro-Whales.... It doesn't matter. The ONLY thing that matters to me and me only at that moment that I find myself going through 750' without a canopy is - "Cypres, do your job." We can sort out the rest when I get on the ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Nullified 0 #32 September 14, 2003 Quote This is why I turned down an invite to the 300 ways. I asked myself would I go if I didn't have a CYPRES? The answer was no, so I didn't go. How hard is that? Ron Ron, I truly respect and admire you for that. I'm feeling burnt out on this AAD debate, probably because we all seem to be saying the same thing over and over. There are a group of AAD users who I think we all agree upon. I just don't agree that everyone who won't jump without an AAD is one of them. For what it's worth, I've jumped without and I'm sure that I will again. As long as I have a rig with a function AAD though, I will turn it on every time I show up at the DZ...unless I forget to! Stay safe. Best, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #33 September 14, 2003 QuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. There are those who jumped in pre-AAD days, who consider the CYPRES to be a fancy add-on. While many of them use one, at some subconscious level, this group is uncomfortable since they see the CYPRES as taking away part of the skydiver's ethos. To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig, and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating that they don't need one. Roger Nelson?alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nullified 0 #34 September 14, 2003 QuoteQuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. There are those who jumped in pre-AAD days, who consider the CYPRES to be a fancy add-on. While many of them use one, at some subconscious level, this group is uncomfortable since they see the CYPRES as taking away part of the skydiver's ethos. To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig, and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating that they don't need one. Roger Nelson? I'm not sure what you mean by, "Roger Nelson?" If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #35 September 14, 2003 QuoteQuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. There are those who jumped in pre-AAD days, who consider the CYPRES to be a fancy add-on. While many of them use one, at some subconscious level, this group is uncomfortable since they see the CYPRES as taking away part of the skydiver's ethos. To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig, and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating that they don't need one. Roger Nelson? ????? What does that mean? Roger always used a CYPRES since I knew him. Always. But then, he was clearly someone who didn't believe in "we do it this way because we've always done it this way".... 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
alan 1 #36 September 14, 2003 Quote????? What does that mean? Roger always used a CYPRES since I knew him. Always. But then, he was clearly someone who didn't believe in "we do it this way because we've always done it this way". QuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. You seem to be painting with an overly wide brush. What side of the debate would Roger have fallen into? He certainly would not fall into the category of those who started jumping post-AAD days. By default, that should put him in the side of the pre-AAD philosophy. He didn't seem to fit there though, but then I didn't know him near as well as you. I had hoped to stimulate you into thinking about your theory a little more. Perhaps there are one or more categories you may have missed and many, many people who might fit into that/those category(s). Then again, since I only charge $30 for a reserve repack and understand the concept of deceleration(and am willing to defend my positions), I've been relegated to the status of rude, common troll. I'm outa here now Doc, I'm sure there are already those salivating at the thought of telling the world how I have somehow now besmirched the name and memory of a man I respected. It was a mistake to post in the first place.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #37 September 14, 2003 QuoteAnd there are those who started jumping after the CYPRES became commonplace, and to whom the CYPRES is just another part of the rig, like the toggles or pilot chute. Sure, you can steer and land a parachute without toggles, and you COULD deploy your main without a pilot chute, but why would you want to unless there was a clear and obvious benefit to doing so? This group sees no clear and obvious benefit to jumping without a CYPRES. Would you consider yourself in this group? Even when you are doing 10 way speed and borrow a rig, one without a CYPRES?alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #38 September 14, 2003 Alan, I kinda thought that's where you were going with that. If you had just added the comment "where would he have been grouped?" It would have been more clear.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #39 September 14, 2003 QuoteQuote????? What does that mean? Roger always used a CYPRES since I knew him. Always. But then, he was clearly someone who didn't believe in "we do it this way because we've always done it this way". QuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. You seem to be painting with an overly wide brush. What side of the debate would Roger have fallen into? He certainly would not fall into the category of those who started jumping post-AAD days. By default, that should put him in the side of the pre-AAD philosophy. He didn't seem to fit there though, but then I didn't know him near as well as you. I had hoped to stimulate you into thinking about your theory a little more. Perhaps there are one or more categories you may have missed and many, many people who might fit into that/those category(s). Then again, since I only charge $30 for a reserve repack and understand the concept of deceleration(and am willing to defend my positions), I've been relegated to the status of rude, common troll. I'm outa here now Doc, I'm sure there are already those salivating at the thought of telling the world how I have somehow now besmirched the name and memory of a man I respected. It was a mistake to post in the first place. I'm sure that the brush was overly wide - but it was only meant to include those who participated in these CYPRES debates. Roger did not fall into that category. He used a CYPRES, promoted its use to jumpers at his DZ, but didn't mandate it, certainly had jumped without one, but to the best of my knowledge never entered either side of the "debate".... 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
billvon 2,426 #40 September 14, 2003 >To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other >parts of the rig . . . . I don't think it's much different than, say, an RSL. It's a great backup, but if you need it to ensure you will open your reserve, something's wrong. >and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating > that they don't need one. To take your statement literally - absolutely. If you cannot demonstrate that you can open your main or reserve on your own 100% of the time, there is a _serious_ problem that must be addressed. This is the primary reason that students are required to use AAD's - so discovering that they can't open their own parachute isn't fatal, and they can either get remedial training or get the bowling ball speech. To take your statement the way I think you meant it (i.e. this group thinks you should make a jump without a cypres) I don't quite agree. I think you should be _able_ to make one without a cypres, and have no issues with safety doing so. If that's the case, no problem. If a jumper is unwilling to make the safest possible jump without a cypres, there's a chance (IMO) that they are putting more faith in the device than is wise. If they have no problems jumping without a cypres, and their DZ allows it, jumping without one can be a good exercise in self-reliance. Take a pilot of an aircraft that requires a working autopilot to be legal. The pilot should be able to safely land the plane himself without the autopilot and have no serious issues doing so. He doesn't have to actually do it; indeed, he may be in a position where operation without a working autopilot is against FAA or company rules. As long as he _can_ do that he's in good shape; the autopilot simply adds a layer of redundancy and lessens his workload. If he considers himself unable to land the aircraft himself, and therefore would never consider trying it, there's a problem - one that should be remedied. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #41 September 14, 2003 QuoteQuoteAnd there are those who started jumping after the CYPRES became commonplace, and to whom the CYPRES is just another part of the rig, like the toggles or pilot chute. Sure, you can steer and land a parachute without toggles, and you COULD deploy your main without a pilot chute, but why would you want to unless there was a clear and obvious benefit to doing so? This group sees no clear and obvious benefit to jumping without a CYPRES. Would you consider yourself in this group? Even when you are doing 10 way speed and borrow a rig, one without a CYPRES? Yes - I jumped without a CYPRES because the benefit was clear and obvious - I needed to train with my team and needed to borrow a rig. I do not consider "just to show that you can do it" to be a clear and obvious benefit.... 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
diverdriver 5 #42 September 14, 2003 QuoteTake a pilot of an aircraft that requires a working autopilot to be legal. The pilot should be able to safely land the plane himself without the autopilot and have no serious issues doing so. He doesn't have to actually do it; indeed, he may be in a position where operation without a working autopilot is against FAA or company rules. As long as he _can_ do that he's in good shape; the autopilot simply adds a layer of redundancy and lessens his workload. If he considers himself unable to land the aircraft himself, and therefore would never consider trying it, there's a problem - one that should be remedied. Aircraft that have autopilots that can land the plane are not common. They are usually airliners. And those airliners have two pilots as it is. Mostly the regulation about having an autopilot is that you are flying in a single pilot situation. It is mostly used for cruise flight and is hardly ever certified for auto-land. And I don't know of a single pilot that is legal to land in zero zero so the auto-pilot IS required to land the plane in those cases. So yah, they are device dependant if they want to land in those conditions. And they certainly don't seem to have a problem letting the computer do it. It is more accurate and able to make fine corrections than the human can solely by the instruments. So, really, there is no problem because that is exactly what is happening. We pilots aren't allowed to do it. We have to let the computer land in the poorest of ceiling and visibility conditions.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #43 September 14, 2003 Thanks for the red highlight.......that wasn't clear to me from your ORIGINAL post. I have particpated in these debates, where would you put me? BTW, does your theory only include the rec.skydiving and dropzone.com debates? YOU have participated in these debates, have you not? Would you consider yourself in this group? QuoteYes So your THEORY says this: "This group sees no clear and obvious benefit to jumping without a CYPRES." You admit to being part of that theoretical group and in the same breath say: "I jumped without a CYPRES because the benefit was clear and obvious - I needed to train with my team and needed to borrow a rig." So, maybe there is another group who have particpated in these debates who have started jumping after the CYPRES became commonplace, and to whom the CYPRES is just another part of the rig, like the toggles or pilot chute. Sure, you can steer and land a parachute without toggles, and you COULD deploy your main without a pilot chute, but WILL BECAUSE THEY SOMTIMES SEE A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS BENEFIT TO DOING SO! Just a thought, feel free to ignore me. I stayed away from the red stuff, I give you enough credit to believe you can read the shouting without it.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #44 September 15, 2003 Quote>To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other >parts of the rig . . . . I don't think it's much different than, say, an RSL. It's a great backup, but if you need it to ensure you will open your reserve, something's wrong. >and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating > that they don't need one. To take your statement literally - absolutely. If you cannot demonstrate that you can open your main or reserve on your own 100% of the time, there is a _serious_ problem that must be addressed. This is the primary reason that students are required to use AAD's - so discovering that they can't open their own parachute isn't fatal, and they can either get remedial training or get the bowling ball speech. To take your statement the way I think you meant it (i.e. this group thinks you should make a jump without a cypres) I don't quite agree. I think you should be _able_ to make one without a cypres, and have no issues with safety doing so. If that's the case, no problem. If a jumper is unwilling to make the safest possible jump without a cypres, there's a chance (IMO) that they are putting more faith in the device than is wise. If they have no problems jumping without a cypres, and their DZ allows it, jumping without one can be a good exercise in self-reliance. Take a pilot of an aircraft that requires a working autopilot to be legal. The pilot should be able to safely land the plane himself without the autopilot and have no serious issues doing so. He doesn't have to actually do it; indeed, he may be in a position where operation without a working autopilot is against FAA or company rules. As long as he _can_ do that he's in good shape; the autopilot simply adds a layer of redundancy and lessens his workload. If he considers himself unable to land the aircraft himself, and therefore would never consider trying it, there's a problem - one that should be remedied. The B2 cannot be flown without the flight control computers. The USAF's best pilots are device dependent - oh no!... 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
mikeat10500 9 #45 September 15, 2003 QuoteTo me, I trust my Cypres in the exact same way that I trust my harness and container, my 3 rings, my reserve canopy. Trusting our gear comes with the teritory, and the Cypres is just another piece of gear. _Am I trusted my three rings today...pulled the cutaway handle and cleared the cables....no cutaway!!! Story to follow in CRW thread. P.S. Landed my lopo 26' in the swamp. You can laugh now.----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cssriggers 0 #46 September 15, 2003 QuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. There are those who jumped in pre-AAD days, who consider the CYPRES to be a fancy add-on. While many of them use one, at some subconscious level, this group is uncomfortable since they see the CYPRES as taking away part of the skydiver's ethos. To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig, and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating that they don't need one. And there are those who started jumping after the CYPRES became commonplace, and to whom the CYPRES is just another part of the rig, like the toggles or pilot chute. Sure, you can steer and land a parachute without toggles, and you COULD deploy your main without a pilot chute, but why would you want to unless there was a clear and obvious benefit to doing so? This group sees no clear and obvious benefit to jumping without a CYPRES. Hey, Kallend. This discussion seems to have gotten rather heated and I'm late, but I still wanna join in (and maybe get this more on track??) I'd probably be considered firmly in your first group - an old fart. (?I'm not THAT old.) But, my Cypres is certainly not just a "fancy add-on" and I don't see it as taking away from the "skydiver's ethos." I simply hope it will always remain a personal choice. I do take a HUGE exception to your description of the second group. None of my students - and none of our newer jumpers - consider a Cypres "just another part of their rig - like the toggles or pilot chute." They understand that it's an electronic backup, something that *MIGHT* save their life in a worst-case scenario. They understand this, just like they understand their three pull priorities. They turn it on, check the numbers, and keep it in mind. This idea of equating an AAD with toggles or PC really scares the hell out of me. I also believe there is a greater dichotomy in skydiving theory between "old farts" and newer jumpers aside from AADs. A common refrain amongst older riggers/instructors I've heard is "Tandems and Cypreses have ruined our sport." (!) While attending a 4-way tunnel camp in Orlando 2 years ago, the first words out of the mouth of our esteemed coach (a US 4-way champion) were, "Cypreses take all the sport out of skydiving." I totally don't agree with either of these sentiments ... but ...on the other hand it takes a lot of guts to hang off the strut of a C182 all alone. Not many people do that anymore. This may sound harsh, but I've seen people progress in this sport who really don't need to be here .. who really don't understand what it's all about. I think most of us have. To me, it's not about having a Cypres vs. not having one; growing up with one vs. never having one - I believe this Cypres issue is an overt symptom of a much bigger ideological schism in our sport. I believe it's about the now quite common idea that anyone can do a tandem and anyone can become a skydiver, vs. the idea that some people just aren't meant for this sport. I belive it's about the safety of our sport; the safety of each of us. It's about taking responsibility for ourselves, and for all of the other poor souls in the plane with us, and in the air with us. I know some scary "old farts" that I'd rather not be in the air with. I'd gladly jump with any of our new skydivers. Bottom line - all gear/Cypres issues aside - when you leave that plane, you need to have the personal responsibility to do certain things to keep yourself alive. After you do that, you need to make sure you don't do anything that could cause anyone else to die or get hurt. These Cypres discussions have gotten rather heated. I think a lot of the "old fart" concerns have to do a lot more with personal responsiblity and realizing the gravity (no pun intended) of the sport than they do with using/not using an AAD. -JohnAlpha Mike Foxtrot, JHL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #47 September 15, 2003 Quote feel free to ignore me. OK, I will.... 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 1,646 #48 September 15, 2003 QuoteQuoteI have read countless CYPRES debates here and on the Wreck over the last several years. I have come to the conclusion that the two sides have a fundamentally different philosophy concerning rigs. There are those who jumped in pre-AAD days, who consider the CYPRES to be a fancy add-on. While many of them use one, at some subconscious level, this group is uncomfortable since they see the CYPRES as taking away part of the skydiver's ethos. To this group, the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig, and all skydivers should prove themselves worthy by demonstrating that they don't need one. And there are those who started jumping after the CYPRES became commonplace, and to whom the CYPRES is just another part of the rig, like the toggles or pilot chute. Sure, you can steer and land a parachute without toggles, and you COULD deploy your main without a pilot chute, but why would you want to unless there was a clear and obvious benefit to doing so? This group sees no clear and obvious benefit to jumping without a CYPRES. Hey, Kallend. This discussion seems to have gotten rather heated and I'm late, but I still wanna join in (and maybe get this more on track??) I'd probably be considered firmly in your first group - an old fart. (?I'm not THAT old.) But, my Cypres is certainly not just a "fancy add-on" and I don't see it as taking away from the "skydiver's ethos." I simply hope it will always remain a personal choice. I do take a HUGE exception to your description of the second group. None of my students - and none of our newer jumpers - consider a Cypres "just another part of their rig - like the toggles or pilot chute." They understand that it's an electronic backup, something that *MIGHT* save their life in a worst-case scenario. They understand this, just like they understand their three pull priorities. They turn it on, check the numbers, and keep it in mind. This idea of equating an AAD with toggles or PC really scares the hell out of me. I also believe there is a greater dichotomy in skydiving theory between "old farts" and newer jumpers aside from AADs. A common refrain amongst older riggers/instructors I've heard is "Tandems and Cypreses have ruined our sport." (!) While attending a 4-way tunnel camp in Orlando 2 years ago, the first words out of the mouth of our esteemed coach (a US 4-way champion) were, "Cypreses take all the sport out of skydiving." I totally don't agree with either of these sentiments ... but ...on the other hand it takes a lot of guts to hang off the strut of a C182 all alone. Not many people do that anymore. This may sound harsh, but I've seen people progress in this sport who really don't need to be here .. who really don't understand what it's all about. I think most of us have. To me, it's not about having a Cypres vs. not having one; growing up with one vs. never having one - I believe this Cypres issue is an overt symptom of a much bigger ideological schism in our sport. I believe it's about the now quite common idea that anyone can do a tandem and anyone can become a skydiver, vs. the idea that some people just aren't meant for this sport. I belive it's about the safety of our sport; the safety of each of us. It's about taking responsibility for ourselves, and for all of the other poor souls in the plane with us, and in the air with us. I know some scary "old farts" that I'd rather not be in the air with. I'd gladly jump with any of our new skydivers. Bottom line - all gear/Cypres issues aside - when you leave that plane, you need to have the personal responsibility to do certain things to keep yourself alive. After you do that, you need to make sure you don't do anything that could cause anyone else to die or get hurt. These Cypres discussions have gotten rather heated. I think a lot of the "old fart" concerns have to do a lot more with personal responsiblity and realizing the gravity (no pun intended) of the sport than they do with using/not using an AAD. -John Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I think you may have redrawn with more precision the demarcation lines that I tried to identify. There are clearly two sides to this debate, and the two sides start out with such different axioms that I'm not sure they can be reconciled by logic and debate. Just a thought - for all those who think that a lot of current skydivers should never have become skydivers because of a bad attitude towards personal responsibilty for keeping themselves alive, how do you account for the almost monotonic decline in accident rate over the last 15 years?... 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
freakydiver 0 #49 September 15, 2003 "the CYPRES is philosophically different from the other parts of the rig" Would completely agree. I see a benefit to jumping without one (many actually) but honestly just prefer to have one since I've had a tendency to get whacked on my head in other sports I participate in. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nightjumps 1 #50 September 15, 2003 Old Fart (Pro-Cypres) responds: For me, the cypres is only about one thing... Passing through 750' with no canopy out. Your fault, my fault, Pro-cypres, Anti-Cypres, Pro-RSL, Anti-RSL, Pro-Gun, Anti-gun, Pro-Salt, Anti-abortion, Pro-Whales.... It doesn't matter. The ONLY thing that matters to me and me only at that moment that I find myself going through 750' without a canopy is - "Cypres, do your job." We can sort out the rest when I get on the ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
