JeffCa

I don't think #4 is actually something that you need to do because of the double-sided RSL, but maybe somebody will correct me. It's just a recommended practice that Jump Shack suggests for *any* RSL. You only have to disconnect if you have a 2-out, before you consider cutting the main.

It should also be pointed out that a Racer double-sided RSL can be converted to a single-sided RSL, which eliminates these particular risks (while introducing others that are flaws of "regular" RSLs). It can be done in 2 ways, either in the field by the jumper, or with a modification by a rigger. Contact Jump Shack for details.

I'm jumping with the double-sided RSL, and am aware of the requirements for 2-out and pilot chute in tow. I'm strongly considering changing it over to a single-sided next time I'm at the DZ with my rig, by clipping both shackles to the reserve side. Mike at Jump Shack also sent me a diagram for a rigger to make a single-sided lanyard.

D22369

You notice how much you sound like a non jumper speaking about skydiving in general? - to them its pure stupidity to jump from an airplane no matter what.

You will never understand people who just want to live by their own rules.

Roy

Sounds more like you don't care if you live, by your own rules. You're OK with dying for lack of a small safety device, and screw anybody who is left to face the consequences. It's not that you want your own rules, it's that you're making what I consider to be a really incomprehensible decision that shows a lack of respect for your own life and the consequences that your death could bring, all so you can feel good about not having a hidden safety device. My own rules include using that little device, it's an intelligent decision. Making my own rules does not include stupid choices.

Can we please stop with the suggestion that we should all quit skydiving? I cannot understand how you think giving up the activity completely is the same as installing an AAD. Driving without a seatbelt is real driving. Well, if we have to wear a seatbelt, we'd all be safer not driving anyway! Let's quit driving. I get the feeling that it's all-or-nothing for you, and that "compromise" or "finding a happy medium" are not really options in your world. Seriously, you make using an AAD sound like getting castrated. I wonder how you feel about other safety rules that you think affect only yourself, but actually affect others, too.

Edit: I asked my girlfriend, who took AFF but is not an active jumper, about this. We've been all over the world together, skydiving, scuba diving, abseiling, riding in some guy's homemade submarine 600m below the ocean, bungee jumping, etc. She is the adventurous type. My question was what she would think if I decided to jump without an AAD because it thrills me more. She said, "I'd think you're [expletive deleted] stupid, and that you don't care about our life together." Yet she's fine with me skydiving in general.

Edit again: She added later, "What am I supposed to tell people at your funeral? That you chose (to be) stupid? Chose (to be) stupid over me?"

billindenver

Every argument these guys use for having the 'responsibility' to buy an AAD can also be used for NOT SKYDIVING AT ALL. What's on my back is none of your business.

People are still under some strange delusion that their actions, in this case possible death at a DZ, will affect nobody but themself. I just cannot bring myself to think in that manner, and I have a hard time understanding how anybody can. Would any of you "don't regulate me" people care to go on the threads of the latest no-AAD fatality's friends who are grieving with his death and tell them that it's none of their business that he died? That it was his decision and they're nanny-staters who should just get over it? They seem to be suffering right now, it has clearly affected them.

And again, another person who makes no distinction between giving up skydiving completely, and doing exactly the same skydive with a small safety device hidden in their rig. Completely baffling that it makes sense to some people. We're going to skydive, so let's see what practical and simple measures we can take to improve our safety. Driving? Wear a seatbelt and drive. Riding a motorcycle? Wear a helmet and ride. Climbing? Use ropes and climb. Skydiving? Use an AAD and jump. How do you get from there to giving it up completely?

skypuppy

******Actually the sport would probable shrink. Fatalities are not necessarily bad for business. The media coverage can really help a drop zone. Also notice that fatality rates go through waves with the introduction of new technology but with that factored out they remain relatively steady. As the gear becomes safer skydivers become more dangerous to compensate for it. The term is risk homeostasis. The truth of the mater is that we like the fact that it's dangerous and that people occasionally die. I can only conclude that we like death in our sport and will alter our behavior to maintain it at a certain rate.

Lee

Booths Law, no?

USPA reports that membership is at an all-time high, and also that fatalities (averaged over each decade) are at an all-time low. Do you think there's a point where this correlation starts to reverse?

no. after a fatality, number of students increases because of the publicity. It's well documented

So then, if I'm understanding correctly, the current state of peak participation corresponding with peak safety is a mere coincidence, controlled by other factors which somehow manage to reverse the expected trend of participation decreasing as safety increases?

D22369

skydiving even with all the safety devices could be considered a pretty selfish act, if you have anybody who cares about you or relies on you.

every skydive has the potential to go catastrophically wrong and end your life no matter what safety devices you use.

You really don't make a distinction between quitting the activity altogether, or doing it with a small safety device in your rig? Or free climbing vs. climbing the same rock with gear? I am having a very difficult time distinguishing this from, "I don't want to wear my seatbelt in my car, don't force me, you nanny-stater". It's selfish to force somebody to give up an activity that they love, but also selfish to not take reasonable precautions to make it safer. If anybody doesn't agree, then we're very different people, and I honestly think they don't care much for the others in their life, nor for their own life or the consequences of their death on anybody else.

D22369

when I was younger I enjoyed freeclimbing - climbing in safe mode never interested me.

This is my life, I will jump free from the nanny state mentality as long as I can - when they become mandatory I will Base exclusively.

Roy

I always find it strange when people write about "nanny state" in the world of skydiving. You really water down the term when you use it like that. If we were nanny state, there wouldn't be any skydiving. Ask most of our mothers. There is nothing wrong with making a safety device mandatory if a DZ or organisation chooses, especially because the consequences of you not having one can fall on other people. It could be considered a pretty selfish stance to take, if you have anybody who cares about you or relies on you.

As for the freeclimbing... when I was a kid, my dad took me camping at a lake with a huge cliff. A guy was freeclimbing up it. He fell and hit the water, died on impact. I was on the beach beside his sobbing girlfriend, who was crying about how much she loved him. He was a selfish ass for not taking any safety precautions, not using widely available, practical rock climbing gear. The consequences of his decision were not only his, but also hers.

RiggerLee

Actually the sport would probable shrink. Fatalities are not necessarily bad for business. The media coverage can really help a drop zone. Also notice that fatality rates go through waves with the introduction of new technology but with that factored out they remain relatively steady. As the gear becomes safer skydivers become more dangerous to compensate for it. The term is risk homeostasis. The truth of the mater is that we like the fact that it's dangerous and that people occasionally die. I can only conclude that we like death in our sport and will alter our behavior to maintain it at a certain rate.

Lee

Booths Law, no?

USPA reports that membership is at an all-time high, and also that fatalities (averaged over each decade) are at an all-time low. Do you think there's a point where this correlation starts to reverse?

chuckakers

***How about mandatory FUNCTIONAL helmets. As I recall their is a safety standard for almost every other helmet on the market. Skydiving helmets are a fucking joke. How about requiring them to at least meet the required standards of a bicycle helmet. Or even better motorcycle helmets. I knew people who would be alive today if they had been wearing more then a camera mount on their head.

Lee

I've had this conversation countless times.

I won't offer an opinion on mandates, but I do believe the company that develops the first truly protective (DOT?) helmet that accommodates the needs of the skydiving environment will own the market.

But what if it doesn't look cool? Or the colour selection isn't appealing?

Not sure how I want to respond to your survey, but I often wonder how much the sport could advance in terms of participation and membership if we were to drastically cut the fatality rate. You might have noticed that the media loves stories about a skydive gone bad. Every death is bad public relations, turning people off to giving skydiving a try. So what if we did ban swooping, and did mandate AADs, RSLs, etc., and managed to cut our fatality rate in half? Would we see the sport explode with popularity, as it has in recent years compared with the less-safe decades past? Would we have more and better DZs, more and better aircraft, etc.? Imagine if skydiving deaths were so rare that most people had never even heard of one. What could the sport be like then?

nolhtairt

It's already mandatory by the FAA, isn't it? So it's a moot point.

Yes, but the question is should they be mandatory? It's a hypothetical discussion.

grimmie

You should get with a Base jumper at your DZ and check out the gear.

OK.... Care to get me started on what I might discover if I do? That's what this thread is for. I'm not seeing many merits of BASE gear here, so please explain.

Bluhdow

***Not a problem, if everyone jumps BASE canopies, keeps their gear in tip top shape and leaves the velcro rigs (hey, I still jump one) at home... But we all know that will never happen.

This is about as strong of an endorsement as I can get. A DZO, experienced BASE jumper, and with more sky jumps than the rest of the posters combined.

If you want to cherry-pick opinions, you can also find biologists who don't believe in evolution. Flat Earth society supporters? No problem! We need to look at the consensus of experts, not what lone individuals think.

Bluhdow

***I'm not familiar with BASE gear. Will anybody argue that a BASE rig is statistically safer than the (incredibly reliable) standard skydiving configuration?

I'll argue that sh*t all day long.

Unless you have a good understanding of BASE gear, and experience with it, your "ahhhhh I need my reserve!" response is simply a knee-jerk reaction supporting what you're already comfortable with.

The vast majority of BASE fatalities don't result from the gear. Same for sky gear. It's the pilot that usually does themselves in, not the plane.

I don't really feel it's my part here to do the research or prove anything. You're putting forward a very controversial idea, against all conventional wisdom, and the laws of some nations. It should be your job to support it, and I'm placing the burden of proof on you. Can you support your point, or is it just that you "feel" that BASE gear is safer? I guess you could be the hero of the PIA if you show us how we're all doing it wrong.

I want to point out that your original post in the other thread did not qualify that you meant BASE gear only. Your arguments that everything also has to be done exactly right for this to work just supports the idea that the gear is not as safe as skydiving gear. Both seats of gear might work perfectly if everything is done and maintained perfectly, but your qualification of the point pretty much establishes which one is more forgiving of any factor being not perfect. "BASE gear work just as well, if this and if this, and if that". And cars don't need seat belts if you don't hit anything. We're trying to reduce fatalities overall, for the entire industry, not make sure cowboys who want to jump their BASE gear can do so, many of them no doubt getting themselves killed in the process.

Edit: One can ask questions, such as:

1. Which set-up is more likely to let you survive a canopy collision and wrap?

2. Which one will let you survive a hard pull when pilot chute can't be deployed? Pilot chute in tow?

3. Which one is more likely to let you survive broken lines or blowing a hole in the canopy? Or do BASE canopies have unbreakable lines?

4. Do BASE rigs support AADs, for the unconscious scenario, among others?

and so on and so forth.

BASE gear might be as safe in a perfect world where everything is perfect.

grimmie

Single parachute systems are jumped thousands of times per year without incident.

Thousands? Contrast that to the millions of times a year that standard skydiving configurations are jumped. Do you have the figures on this? If we were jumping BASE rigs, what would the annual fatality rate be, given the number of skydives stays the same?

grimmie

Not a problem, if everyone jumps BASE canopies, keeps their gear in tip top shape and leaves the velcro rigs (hey, I still jump one) at home... But we all know that will never happen.

So in other words, the margin for error is now razor-thin, and the equipment is much less forgiving of any problems or anything that isn't perfect. This would be a big pro for 2-canopy rigs.

I'm not familiar with BASE gear. Will anybody argue that a BASE rig is statistically safer than the (incredibly reliable) standard skydiving configuration? If it isn't, then using BASE gear is just more likely to result in the DZO needing to take care of your body and deflect bad publicity.

I made this thread to divert a conversation away from an incident thread in which a poster is advocating for single-canopy rigs to be allowed for jumping at DZs.

Go for it.

DougH

This has turned into a moronic pissing contest.

It doesn't really matter how little some people get a chance to jump in Japan, or the local single 182 tandem factory.

If it takes them 3 years to hit 200 then they definitely weren't experienced enough at year 1 or 2. They can stick to taking landing photos if they have a photographers itch to scratch!

Doug, please chill (I count 7 exclamation points in your full comment). At my DZ in Japan, we don't have rules about minimum jumps for camera. In addition, I'm already over 200 jumps and do own a GoPro. Yet I have NEVER jumped with a camera and don't want to. The comments about difficulty getting the jump numbers were an aside to the thread after suggestions were made that it's easy at any DZ in the world and that there must be something wrong with our dedication if we can't get 100 jumps or more per year. I know that to be wrong, so commented. It had nothing to do with cameras and not everybody who takes exception to something in this thread is dying to find an excuse to jump with one. The sensitivity around this topic is pretty severe.

Not a comment on the OP itself, but another question. Is the amount of damage seen in the photos a big deal? Do they need replacement at this time?

DougH

Sorry, nope. It is easy even at a most cesna dz's that aren't total tandem factories.

The111

Also, 200 jumps in 2+ years is less than 1 jump per week. To say that even the world's smallest Cessna DZ can't do better than that is insane.

The111 should check the math again.

It can be very difficult to get 100+ jumps in a year. Try jumping in Japan. We only have a small number of jumpers each year who break the 100-jump mark, most of those just barely pass it (I think about 15 did 100+, with only 2 doing 150+). Combine a mainly weekend-only DZ, limited loads due to airport rules, too many fun jumpers for our load capacity, and shitty climate, and it gets tough. I worked really hard last year just to get in 90 jumps.

If something doesn't look right, ask your instructor! Even if you're wrong, you'll at least learn WHY you were wrong.

chuckakers

***...checking my Vigil...

I didn't know a Vigil could give jump data.

It logged a 3s freefall on my last wingsuit jump from 12,200'. Not very useful.

This is funny. There's a pretty good freeflier at my DZ who jumps a lot. One morning, it's just the two of us at the DZ, plus the tandems. I ask him to jump with me. He tells me he'd rather jump solo.

I think to myself that I just got told, "Not if you were the last fun jumper on Earth!"

I've seen a number of these videos of the student PC getting caught in the instructor's camera. Is it really necessary for the main-side instructor to have a camera? And if it is, perhaps a better mount than the terrible one in this video would be a good idea?

chuckakers

Former DZO and devil's advocate here...

"Little Johnny, we are a very competent skydiving operation dedicated to your safety. By the way, would you like to buy some life insurance that covers skydiving deaths?"

I get the logic but not sure it's the best thing to offer people that often show up wondering whether they will be driving home or having a relative pick up their car on their behalf.

Chuck, it's not even just the "offer" of insurance. The OP has suggested that DZ's could add an extra fee (to the already ridiculous prices) so that they profit from every policy sold. This would encourage DZOs to use salesmanship, and possibly some hard sales techniques, to upsell their tandem packages with these policies. So now you have a conflict between the industry trying to convince people that they're safe, and the capitalist desire to convince them that it's dangerous and you need to buy insurance. How would that play out at the reception desk?