Re: [scooterskydives] CYPRES Save!

[billvon 2,400]

>my rigger always askes if I want him to reassembly without the
>cypress and my answer is always NO!

It always worries me when I hear about people who won't, under any circumstances, jump without a cypres. I'm all for people making their own choices about safety, but if a jumper out there categorically refuses to jump without a cypres under _any_ conditions (or an RSL, or two audible altimeters) it makes me wonder if they are relying on the device to do more than it can do.

[mirage62 0]

"it makes me wonder if they are relying on the device to do more than it can do."

Nope, just increasing the odds when we can, as we see fit.

But don't worry, I often wonder why other skydivers who think that my having a cypress means that I am device dependant are in denial about the reality of skydiving and what THEY can do.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[TaeKwonDoDo 0]

Gang -

There is a huge debate in the Gear and Rigging forum on the Need/Wants of a Cypress - I'm sure someone here is reading it. If not, check it out - This accident makes the case for having one if any ever did.

It's ironic that this accident happened and was posted almost simultaneously 1/2 way through this debate.

Not the moderator - but I don't think we should continue the debate here... the one in gear and rigging is pretty entertaining...

- Jeff

"That's not flying, it's falling with style."

[billvon 2,400]

>But don't worry, I often wonder why other skydivers who think that my
> having a cypress means that I am device dependant are in denial
> about the reality of skydiving and what THEY can do.

Perhaps, perhaps. Still, everyone I know who has bought a cypres in the past few years buys it "in case they get knocked out" and every single person who I know who _has_ needed a cypres simply forgot to pull. I can think of half a dozen just in the Socal area.

You can argue that it doesn't matter why they get it; if it saves their life it's all good. And that's definitely true. Still, based on what I've seen, far more people are relying on their cypreses to pull for them than went in when I started. "Hey, that's why I have a cypres!" has become the reason for jumping in clouds, jumping with zoomy dangerous jumpers, and just freeflying until you hear a beep (or until a reserve appears.) And that's a net decline in safety.

The reality of skydiving is that twelve years ago, we didn't have cypreses - and people weren't going in at the rate we're having cypres firings now. So us old timers had a pretty realistic view of the dangers of hitting the ground at 120mph; we were pretty good at avoiding it. Nowadays, for many people, a device allays that fear, and does a pretty good job of preventing such events. Bad or good overall? Does the safety the device give you make up for the complacency it brings to the sport? I suppose time will tell.

[marks 0]

device dependant...??

im not device dependant unless you consider my canopie a device!

im definatly canopie dependant.... and i use a cypress... well i dont use it ... i have a cypress..

[reACTed 0]

I really think you shouldn't rely on AAD's but in a worst case scenario when all odds are against you (like in Caryn's situation) it's kind of nice that is does work, right?

I wouldn't say Caryn was lucky, but unlucky to get unconscious after the exit and the Cypres did what it's supposed to do. I wouldn't think that as being overrelying on technical devices (not that I'm implying that you were suggesting that in this case/incident).

I think that if you set up a poll with the question: Would you like to have a Cypres in this (ontopic)situation? Everyone would say yes. I think that's the whole point.

edit: in reply to your post after that: ofcourse having a Cypres doesn't mean you can take more risks, if that are the people you were mentioning then I totally share your opinion (for what it's worth ).

krek wak wou o_0

[chaoskitty 0]

If you are going to argue CYPRES in this incident, you have to argue HELMET as well. Caryn's helmet saved her life before her cypres did. I know we dont speculate in this forum, but I saw the bump on her head about an hour after it happened. Theres no way to convince me that she would have survived that whack to the noggin without a helmet.
Also, the fact that she landed in a tree instead of the wal mart parking lot surely prevented further injuries. She did quite well for being unconscious!

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

>my rigger always askes if I want him to reassembly without the
>cypress and my answer is always NO!

It always worries me when I hear about people who won't, under any circumstances, jump without a cypres. I'm all for people making their own choices about safety, but if a jumper out there categorically refuses to jump without a cypres under _any_ conditions (or an RSL, or two audible altimeters) it makes me wonder if they are relying on the device to do more than it can do.

Bill I respectfully disagree with you. I categorically won't take off in a plane without a seatbelt on. Does that make me a hazard in the air to other pilots? I don't think it does. I feel that we should not demean anyone for choosing a Cypres to be installed and on for all the jumps they make. We don't need seatbelts to ride in cars. But it's that one car ride that you will need that seatbelt. I do not see it as device dependancy. I know how to hit the gas and use the breaks on my car. I certainly don't use my seatbelt to stop me because I don't know how to avoid running into a wall. But if someone or something wants to shove me into a wall then the belt (and airbag) are there.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[Aviatrr 0]

Quote

It always worries me when I hear about people who won't, under any circumstances, jump without a cypres. I'm all for people making their own choices about safety, but if a jumper out there categorically refuses to jump without a cypres under _any_ conditions (or an RSL, or two audible altimeters) it makes me wonder if they are relying on the device to do more than it can do.

Bill, I have a couple questions for you.....do you wear a seatbelt while you drive? If so, why? Don't you trust your own driving and your ability to avoid all the dangerous situations? Do you ride motorcycles? If so, do you wear a helmet? Why? Don't trust yourself to avoid all the dangerous drivers in cars? Why do you jump a container with a reserve - not confident in your own packing?

I don't have a problem in the world with people that refuse to jump without a Cypres. I used to think it was a dangerous attitude, but now I think of it as stacking the positives in your favor.

Of course, I don't expect an answer to any of the questions I asked....just trying to prove a point. I occasionally jump without a Cypres, but normally jump with one. Do I act any differently without the Cypres? Nope. Do I understand the implications in that one in a million situation where the Cypres would save my life? Certainly!

Mike

[billvon 2,400]

>Bill, I have a couple questions for you.....do you wear a seatbelt
>while you drive?

Usually, yes. Not if I have to just back it down the driveway. If I insisted that I wear a seatbelt before I even started the engine, purely for safety reasons, something might be awry there. I might have an unrealistic view of what a seatbelt does, for example.

>If so, why?

To reduce my injuries in a crash.

>Don't you trust your own driving and your ability to avoid all the
>dangerous situations?

No. I can control what I do, but not what others do around me.

>Do you ride motorcycles? If so, do you wear a helmet?

Again, usually.

>Why do you jump a container with a reserve - not confident in your
> own packing?

I don't always jump with a reserve. I do usually because it's a good backup.

>Of course, I don't expect an answer to any of the questions I
> asked....just trying to prove a point.

Well, you're gettin em anyway!

>I occasionally jump without a Cypres, but normally jump with one. Do
> I act any differently without the Cypres? Nope. Do I understand the
> implications in that one in a million situation where the Cypres would
> save my life? Certainly!

Well, good for you! I'm not worried about the people who will jump without one but use one because they want the backup. I'm worried about the people who feel that skydiving is not safe enough to participate in unless they have a cypres. If skydiving isn't safe enough for someone to do even one hop and pop without a cypres - it's not safe enough for them _with_ one either.

[diverdriver 5]

But this hop and pop damn near killed this jumper. Isn't that reason enough to say yes, even an hop and pop has some risk and having an operating Cypres is a good thing in general?

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[Aviatrr 0]

Quote

Usually, yes. Not if I have to just back it down the driveway. If I insisted that I wear a seatbelt before I even started the engine, purely for safety reasons, something might be awry there. I might have an unrealistic view of what a seatbelt does, for example.

False analogy. That's like comparing to somebody that will not even put a rig on unless it has a Cypres installed and functioning.

Quote

I can control what I do, but not what others do around me.

So, in other words, you couldn't control somebody corking directly under you on a freefly jump while you are head down? Sounds like a reasonable reason for a Cypres to me.

Quote

I don't always jump with a reserve. I do usually because it's a good backup.

Just like a Cypres is. Take BASE jumping out of the equation, and I'd be willing to bet that you never jump without a backup canopy(when you plan on deploying one of them for a sport jump - does not apply to bailout rigs).

Quote

Well, you're gettin em anyway!

I would have been disappointed if I hadn't gotten answers to those questions from you!

Quote

Well, good for you! I'm not worried about the people who will jump without one but use one because they want the backup. I'm worried about the people who feel that skydiving is not safe enough to participate in unless they have a cypres. If skydiving isn't safe enough for someone to do even one hop and pop without a cypres - it's not safe enough for them _with_ one either.

While I agree that there are some people out there that have false ideas as to what a Cypres will do for them, I think most people have realistic expectations of them. If they get knocked out, it will PROBABLY deploy the reserve. If they brain fart and forget to pull, it will PROBABLY deploy the reserve. If they try to fight a mal way too low and have a high enough vertical speed, it MAY deploy the reserve. It's like a third layer of protection(IMO, training is the first, survival instinct is the second). I don't fault the people that will not jump without a Cypres. All it takes is one jump without to prove that they were right(for THEM, and THEIR situation that is).

There are even some jumps that I have done that I prefer NOT to have a Cypres, for various reasons. Everybody has a different level of comfort in this sport. If they don't feel comfortable jumping without a Cypres, I support them. I may question it in some instances, but I support them and understand their reasoning. Maybe this will change if I ever become an instructor...but I don't think I'll ever find that part out.

Mike

[billvon 2,400]

>So, in other words, you couldn't control somebody corking directly
> under you on a freefly jump while you are head down?
>Sounds like a reasonable reason for a Cypres to me.

Or a reason to not jump with someone who will cork under you. If you decide to jump with someone who might cork because "hey, I have a cypres" then use of the device is making you a less safe skydiver. If you do both i.e. refuse to jump with people who might cork when you're head down _and_ use a cypres, you're ahead of the game, and the cypres is increasing your margin of safety.

>Just like a Cypres is. Take BASE jumping out of the equation, and I'd
> be willing to bet that you never jump without a backup canopy(when
> you plan on deploying one of them for a sport jump - does not
> apply to bailout rigs).

I won't answer that question on the grounds that I could get in trouble.

But if hypothetically I had been in the past in a position to make a C+P from a small plane at a low altitude with a BASE rig I'd have no problem at all. Heck, it's safer than your average BASE jump - there's nothing to hit. And it's a much better way to test a BASE pack job than using it on a low object for the first time.

Of course, on 99.4% of the jumps I have made, I've use a reserve, because the odds aren't in your favor of doing 3400 jumps and never needing one.

>While I agree that there are some people out there that have false
> ideas as to what a Cypres will do for them, I think most people have
> realistic expectations of them.

I think that's true as well. The people who do have a false idea of what a cypres can do for them worry me - and I know they exist. One way that I have of determining this is to ask the "would you do an ideal jump without one?" (ideal being whatever sort of jump they consider safest - C+P from an otter or whatever.) If they answer that they would, they are definitely in the first group. If they refuse to ever jump without a cypres - there's a chance they are in the second group.

>There are even some jumps that I have done that I prefer NOT to
> have a Cypres, for various reasons. Everybody has a different level
> of comfort in this sport. If they don't feel comfortable jumping
> without a Cypres, I support them.

I do too; people can jump with whatever they want to in terms of safety gear once they are off student status. But then again, I think people should do other dangerous stuff (learn flat turns by doing them, land crosswind and downwind on perfect days to see how it's done etc) and I don't think they're idiots if they refuse to do it. These are just suggestions I make because I think those skills are useful to have if you want to downsize. Similarly, I suggest that they make one jump without backups like an altimeter or an AAD (not all on the same jump of course.) I think that even contemplating making such a jump can sometimes tell people a lot about where their dependencies lie.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Or a reason to not jump with someone who will cork under you.

Pardon me but what a load of BS. I've seen experienced rw folk hit on building big ways, just like I've seen, and been hit by, experienced vrw folk. I avoid those situations as best I can, but we are jumping with PEOPLE and they make MISTAKES.

It happens, that's why I have a cypress. I don't have a cypress for ME - I have it because of YOU.

I cannot believe that you truely think you have the control of your surroundings that you think you do (unless all you do is solo's).

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[mikkey 0]

Quote

The reality of skydiving is that twelve years ago, we didn't have cypreses - and people weren't going in at the rate we're having cypres firings now.

Bill,
Do you have any stats on this? AFAIK the fatality statistics from the 70's and 80's had a high percentage of "no pull". I do not know how they compare to the number Cypres saves. I read something about that there were 300-400 documented Cypres saves world-wide. Don't know how many in the US. How does that compare to the
with the reduction of fatalities due to "no pull" - anyone have stats?

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[wmw999 2,123]

I just happen to have the 1992 US fatality report in front of me.

15% low pull/no pull (4 jumpers).
4 of the problems with mains jumpers were potential Cypres saves (i.e. they never tried to pull their reserves with high speed mals). The breakaways from slow mals are unlikely to be Cypres saves, since they were all below 1000' (the highest would have been iffy, at 800). That's in this particular case, though. But three of them (from what I can tell) would possibly have been RSL saves.

So that's 8 Cypres fires in 1992 (they were brand new then, and they weren't even mentioned in the summary). I'll bet there are quite a bit more than 8 fires a year. Some of those would have been low, survivable, openings 12 years ago. And some might be people relying on their safety belt.

The total number of fatalities was 27.

This is fairly consistent with history (well, other than the tandem). I've read every fatality summary since the mid-70's. Dealing with malfunctions was normally the highest.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ron 7]

Quote

15% low pull/no pull (4 jumpers).
4 of the problems with mains jumpers were potential Cypres saves (i.e. they never tried to pull their
reserves with high speed mals).

And how many of these were "knocked out"?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[lawrocket 3]

I may be misunderstanding, but I thnk that billvon is stating Booth's Law #2

Mr. Booth is quite a bright fellow...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

And how many of these were "knocked out"?

None most likely. But here we're trying to establish how many real people might have been saved, not just the folks who know they will only need the Cypres if they are knocked out.

Unfortunately, I don't have any older ones. My memory is that this is a little higher than usual for "AAD might have helped" but I could be wrong.

No one ever thinks they might just not react properly. If we did, we might not be jumping. But it is a risk you take, along with messing up the landing.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,400]

>Pardon me but what a load of BS. I've seen experienced rw folk hit
>on building big ways, just like I've seen, and been hit by,
> experienced vrw folk.

Of course. But I saw ten times the collisions on the Montana big-ways than I saw on the 300-way. Why? Because the people on the 300 way were better. The organizers picked people who would not collide with each other. The idea that collisions just happen, nothing you can do to avoid them, is a load of crap. You can drastically reduce the odds of being hit by jumping with good people. Real skydivers do that on real dives and it works.

>It happens, that's why I have a cypress. I don't have a cypress for
> ME - I have it because of YOU.

Unfortunately, history has shown that if you need a cypres, it will be because YOU forgot to pull. I know, everyone's an exception, but that's the statistical truth.

>I cannot believe that you truely think you have the control of your
>surroundings that you think you do (unless all you do is solo's).

I do because I have been trained to do that. I can avoid a student's pilot chute 100% of the time (OK, say 99.9% of the time) because we train ourselves to do that as AFF-JM's. After low time organizing for six years I can dodge people trying to dock on me at 40mph. That means that I'm more likely to be able to deal with someone who can't stop than someone with 200 jumps. And THAT means that the 200 jump guy should think twice about jumping with a zoomy jumper.

I don't buy the "Hey, shit happens! Nothing anyone can do about accidents." Bullshit. Training and experience make you a better and safer jumper, and then shit happens less often. Good judgement keeps you from needing experience you don't have yet. If you buy a cypres to avoid using that good judgement, the device has made you a more dangerous, rather than a safer, jumper.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

You can drastically reduce the odds of being hit by jumping with good people. Real skydivers do that on real dives and it works.

Very, very true BUT you cannot ELIMINATE them and that is my point.

Quote

Unfortunately, history has shown that if you need a cypres, it will be because YOU forgot to pull. I know, everyone's an exception, but that's the statistical truth.

I don't doubt that - in fact it unfortunately seems the norm. Just don't insult me by lumping me in that group. If my cypress fires, it better be because I was incapacitated.

Quote

I don't buy the "Hey, shit happens! Nothing anyone can do about accidents." Bullshit. Training and experience make you a better and safer jumper, and then shit happens less often.

Very true, but the point I'm trying to make is that they STILL happen. Unless you are perfect?

Quote

If you buy a cypres to avoid using that good judgement, the device has made you a more dangerous, rather than a safer, jumper.

Not arguing with that at all.

Performance Designs Factory Team

[CanEHdian 0]

Quote

The idea that collisions just happen, nothing you can do to avoid them, is a load of crap. You can drastically reduce the odds of being hit by jumping with good people. Real skydivers do that on real dives and it works.

You just said it yourself -- you can only_reduce_the_odds -- therefore, we can not eliminate them... and not just in this case, but in all aspects of the sport.

"You can do everything right - and still die" - you've said this yourself Bill.

Shit can happen - period.
AADs can add extra protection if so - period.

It's every individual's right to decide on what level of risk they are comfortable with... and that should be respected.

Cheers,
CanEHdian

Time's flying, and so am I...
(69-way, 108-way and 138/142-way Freefly World Records)

[petetheladd 0]

Because of the cypress, This guy was saved - hands down no argument.

However, compared to all the skydives made, his incident was pretty unusual.
Not only that but the circumstances were also unusual.

Now if you want to use this as the poster child for always having a cypress when skydiving and refusing to jump without one is cool - then go ahead.

You could then point to the rare occasions when someone went in due to double mal, got side-swiped undercanopy, rig sabotage and say this proves you should never jump as These people did everything right and still died.

However I would refute it thus -

Look at all the skydivers on a DZ.

P.S. and Yes, If this happened to me, I would be ecstactic I had a functioning cypress.

No, Not without incident

[billvon 2,400]

>I don't doubt that - in fact it unfortunately seems the norm. Just
> don't insult me by lumping me in that group. If my cypress fires, it
> better be because I was incapacitated.

You're not in that group yet, but chances are if you ever have a cypres fire you will be. No reflection on your skills or anything, just statistics. It's like saying you're more likely to break your leg than your jaw skydiving. It's not because you can't land or anything, it's just statistically the more likely thing to break.

>Very true, but the point I'm trying to make is that they STILL
>happen. Unless you are perfect?

No one's perfect. It is possible to be good enough that the odds of your getting killed are astronomically high. Using a cypres is part of that; having the skills to not need one is another part of that.

[billvon 2,400]

>It's every individual's right to decide on what level of risk they are
>comfortable with... and that should be respected.

No argument there.

It is my opinion that someone who cannot pull reliably and pull stable should not be a skydiver - yet I have jumped with such people. They are still in the air. I respect their right to take whatever chances they want, but that doesn't mean I think it's OK.

It is my opinion that if someone cannot land crosswind and make a flat turn at 50 feet, they should not downsize. I will tell people this, but will not physically stop them if they downsize. It's their life. It doesn't mean I will hold my tounge when I see them jumping a Stilettio 97 at 50 jumps out of "respect" or something.

It is my opinion that any experienced jumper should be able to make a jump of their choosing without a cypres. If they decide to never, ever jump without a cypres, and will ground themselves if their cypres fails self-test, that's their choice, and I respect that. I think they may be over-reliant on a device in that case, and I will tell them that. But they can still do whatever they want. (They will anyway.)