Awesome letter in Parachutist about mandatory AAD at some Dz

[Ron 10]

  Quote

Any one who thinks skydiving should be 100% safe has lost touch with the sport

I guess I have lost touch with the sport.

I would gladly never have to go to another skydiving funeral.

Have you been to one yet? Ever see a guy disapear behind a tree line? Ever tried to save someones life...only to fail and be rewarded with the sight of lifeless eyes in your thoughts when you close your eyes? Ever have to explain to a family how their loved one died? Ever had to do any of this?

If not, I suggest you drop the macho BS attitude. I think most serious skydivers would love for the sport to stop killing our friends.

All of this I agree with:

  Quote

If you feel you need a device to save you then Skydiving is not for you. I don’t think this sport was meant to be for everyone. It is for people who can asses risks and then make the decision to take them or not. Some simply should not be in this sport and a device should not be the reason they change their minds.

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

[mark135 0]

  Quote

When I got into the sport I was in a low income bracket and could barely afford to scrape enough cash together to by a second hand rig. My progression in the sport was often stunted by financial constraints. If having an AAD had been mandatory I would probably have given up the sport as the extra cash was simply not available. I realize people will respond with "you can't afford to not have one", but the truth was that I could not afford one. I have ran into many people who have had the same dilemna. Mandatory for student rigs is fine but individual liscenced jumpers should be left to decide for themselves or the sport will lose a significant amount of members due to excess startup costs.

Richards

Ditto

_______________


"It seemed like a good idea at the time"

[ROK 0]

Let me preface what I'm about to say with, I don't have an AAD.

If I were a DZO, I would make them mandatory. It's your choice whether you turn them on or not. I can't imagine the psyhcological effect of watching people lose their lives when a passive devise may have meant saving it. How much is one life worth?

Does having an AAD take away from the thrill of the sport? Banning hook turns would. I believe that they're different issues.

I've used several excuses to not buy and install an AAD. I probably have listened more to the "con" side than any other, but the truth is that I just didn't want to spend the money "right now". $1400 is a lot of $20 jumps.

I may not have many jumps, but I do have enough to know that things happen very quickly in this sport. I consider myself to be a fast thinker, and calmer, and cooler than a lot of people in high stress situations, but after reading what everyone has written, I'm just being plain dumb for not spending the money and picking up that little bit of insurance that may save my life.

I'm getting an AAD.

[DJL 235]

The only problem I have with a DZ doing this is that at one DZ I know of they're more about telling visiting jumpers what to do than really caring about safety. It just seemed like another power trip.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Taylor610 0]

OK how about from me with 3800 jumps and 15 years in the sport?

Like it or not, the fact is that you would save more lives and call the ambulance out to the DZ A LOT less if you banned hook turns instead of making people wear AAD's.

  Quote

Absolutely Ron, let's you and I have a nice long debate about the "facts" you are talking about. Before we start, I think you will agree with a few "facts"

1. DZs nor DZO's do complete and accurate reporting of AAD fires and the lives they saved. Fact. Dzs nor DZO's do complete and accurate reporting of injuries received doing hook turns. Fact.

2. High performance landings (hook turns) cannot be compared to AAD usage in anyway shape or form, because there is no one true definition (yet) of what a high performance landing (or hook turn) actually is. Fact.

3. This one is the most important, you may continue to try to drag a thread drift into the discussion, however my point is valid and a simple fact, if a business owner, decides that a particular rule will be enforced a his/her business, it is his right. Fact. It does not make him a Safety Nazi, a bad person, or any of the other things that have been said in this tread by other posters. It does make him a business owner, who is responsible for the success/failure of his business and the person who has to make decisions whether they are the popular one or not. Fact.

You can continue to brow beat the facts, I don't care. The discussion at hand has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not hook turns are dangerous, you and others in this thread are trying to attach one safety issue to another. That is not nor has it ever been my point. My point again is one of simple fact, the DZO has the right to require something, the right to ban something and the right to make business decisions for his/her business. Fact!

If you think I am whining, that is fine, your opinion on this matter will never change my mind. That also is a fact.

Like it or not, the fact is that you would save more lives and call the ambulance out to the DZ A LOT less if you banned hook turns instead of making people wear AAD's.
***

Like it or not, you have no data that can confirm that statement. People wear AADs that save lives and are not reported. Until we have complete and accurate reporting on all incidents in the sport, we do not have a data base that will either prove or disprove either side of the story. Fact.

I think that PM's would be a better place to discuss these issues. I certainly don't mind sharing my personal experiences, why I decided to make AADs mandatory at my DZ and if anyone is interested, let me know. I will be happy to answer any questions via PM's. This is the bonfire. Let's keep it that way.

• Quote

[Tonto 1]

  Quote

exactly
7% of fatalities have been no pulls vs 34% on landing.

Unless the fatality is killed in the aircraft or in freefall - they all die on landing.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[lawrocket 3]

  Quote

Technique first, not toys.

Do you have a problem with "Technique first, then toys?" The two are not mutually exclusive.

Fact - no pull/low pull fatalitites have dropped since the advent of the AAD. Whether this is due to the advent of the AAD is arguable - there are too many variables with regard to that.

But, the point is that no-pull or low-pull fatalities have dropped significantly. This tends to show rather conclusively that loss of altitude awareness/lack of technique is not a new problem, but an old one.

AADs were created to do something about this problem. AADs have undoubtedly had some success. There are people who should have been dead that are alive because of them. AADs have certainly allowed people to hear the "Take Up Bowling" speech that otherwise would have been splattered.

When technique fails, it's nice to have insurance. 30 or 40 years ago, that insurance was unavailable, and people bounced. Insurance is available now, and people still bounce. But LESS people bounce.

Edited to add: We all rely on devices to save our lives while skydiving. They're called parachutes. We've even got two of them in the event one of them fails. Good technique would only require one, and yet we have reserves.

We also have altimeters - more devices. And we rely on them when our gut instinct is wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skydivermom 0]

As a newbie it has been very interesting reading this thread, and that article. I often get confused as I hear so many different opinions and ideas from experienced skydivers, and sometimes I don't know what to think.

I will be having an AAD installed on my rig, as I have two very good reasons to do so (Andrew - 7 and Timothy - 3). I owe it to them big time! I realize I could still die doing this, but it'd be a shame for anyone to say - "If she only had an AAD"

Mrs. WaltAppel

All things work together for good to them that love God...Romans 8:28

[Ron 10]

  Quote

1. DZs nor DZO's do complete and accurate reporting of AAD fires and the lives they saved. Fact. Dzs nor DZO's do complete and accurate reporting of injuries received doing hook turns. Fact.

DZ's are not required to report injuries nor AAD fires. FACT. Some DZ's report AAD fires FACT.

The simple fact is that since neither are required to be reported you can't claim your side wins that bit. The only thing required to be reported is death. Not AAD fires or ambulance rides.

  Quote

2. High performance landings (hook turns) cannot be compared to AAD usage in anyway shape or form, because there is no one true definition (yet) of what a high performance landing (or hook turn) actually is. Fact.

That is BS. A "Hook Turn" is a performance landing. You can try and debate it all ya want but lawyer like definition tricks will not be your saving grace.

They CAN both be compared since both kill and injure. And since we are comparing that they can easily be compared. Now you are correct that they are totally different things. One is a passive device that might save you if you screw up and the other will kill you if you screw up. But you can easily compare the two.

  Quote

3. This one is the most important, you may continue to try to drag a thread drift into the discussion, however my point is valid and a simple fact, if a business owner, decides that a particular rule will be enforced a his/her business, it is his right. Fact. It does not make him a Safety Nazi, a bad person, or any of the other things that have been said in this tread by other posters. It does make him a business owner, who is responsible for the success/failure of his business and the person who has to make decisions whether they are the popular one or not. Fact.

Have I said ONE word to the contrary? I have said that if you wanted to save lives you would ban Hook Turns. And that is FACT. Notice that landings is the #1 cause of death in this sport? People choose to wear an AAD more often than not. So if you REALLY wanted a "safe" DZ you would ban hook turns since most people wear an AAD anyway.

  Quote

Like it or not, you have no data that can confirm that statement. People wear AADs that save lives and are not reported. Until we have complete and accurate reporting on all incidents in the sport, we do not have a data base that will either prove or disprove either side of the story. Fact.

That does not support YOUR side either. And the incident reports of deaths show that for the last 10 or so years the leading cause of death was under a canopy. So the numbers available don't help you at all.

  Quote

I think that PM's would be a better place to discuss these issues. I certainly don't mind sharing my personal experiences, why I decided to make AADs mandatory at my DZ and if anyone is interested, let me know

Again, I AGREE with your right. It is your right as A DZO.

And I have been to your DZ and I liked it. This rule would not keep me from jumping there, it would only keep me from jumping one of my rigs there.

However, I don't agree that it is the magical move to save people. And the current numbers available show that.

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

[CanuckInUSA 0]

There's nothing wrong with jumping with an AAD. Just make sure you're not reliant on it and also realize that there are a few rare cases (usually as a result of something that you've done) where the AAD can do you harm. But as I said, there's nothing wrong with jumping with an AAD and it just could save your life one day if you get knocked out in freefall.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,075]

>This one is the most important, you may continue to try to drag a
>thread drift into the discussion, however my point is valid and a
> simple fact, if a business owner, decides that a particular rule will be
> enforced a his/her business, it is his right. Fact. It does not make
> him a Safety Nazi, a bad person, or any of the other things that
> have been said in this tread by other posters.

That is absolutely true. What _you_ have to understand, though, is that if a person chooses not to follow your rules, and jumps somewhere else, that does not make them unsafe, and it does not mean they have a bad attitude. Indeed, they may be _safer_ than the other jumpers at your DZ. As you've said above - it is your decision, and you can make it for any reason you choose. But just because you make it a rule does not mean that that rule is safer (or less safe) than the rules somewhere else.

>>Like it or not, the fact is that you would save more lives and call
>>the ambulance out to the DZ A LOT less if you banned hook turns
>> instead of making people wear AAD's.

>People wear AADs that save lives and are not reported. Until we have
> complete and accurate reporting on all incidents in the sport, we do
> not have a data base that will either prove or disprove either side of
> the story. Fact.

No, but we do have people who can see that the above is true. Go to any big DZ, count the number of ambulance rides there are, and see how many were due to high performance landings and how many were due to not having an AAD. Within one weekend you'll see that high performance landings produce an order of magnitude more injuries (and deaths) than a lack of AAD's.

Again, do whatever you want at your DZ.

[Ron 10]

  Quote

Do you have a problem with "Technique first, then toys?" The two are not mutually exclusive.

Nope. I have always said that you should train like you don't have them. Then you should make a choice if you want one then add it if you like.

I have two rigs, one has an AAD the other does not. Given the choice of the two, I grab the one that has an AAD. However, if the rig is not there, I jump the other one.

The problem is not when people have an AAD. It is when they allow an AAD to replace training or good judgment.

If someone allows themself to do a more dangerous jump *just* because they have an AAD...Then we have a problem.

  Quote

Edited to add: We all rely on devices to save our lives while skydiving. They're called parachutes. We've even got two of them in the event one of them fails. Good technique would only require one, and yet we have reserves.

Big difference between an ACTIVE device and a passive device. And a big difference between a device NEEDED to participate and a backup. A parachute is needed (a reserve is needed due to the FAA). An AAD is not needed to skydive.


Back to topic...I think the DZO has the right to require AAD's. I also think the jumper has the right to not jump one for whatever reason.

If those two can't work together, so be it. The jumper will jump somewhere else and the DZO will not let him jump there.

Both win. I don't think that anyone should jump on the DZO's back. He has that right.

But a legal question....If a person at a manditory AAD DZ has a problem and dies DUE to the AAD...Is the DZO in a legal sticky place?

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

[lawrocket 3]

  Quote

But a legal question....If a person at a manditory AAD DZ has a problem and dies DUE to the AAD...Is the DZO in a legal sticky place?

There's no such thing as an unsticky legal place. Damned if DZO does, damned if DZO doesn't. The DZO will likely escape liability, but it doesn't mean that $50k hasn't been shelled out for that escape of liability.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Taylor610 0]

DZ's are not required to report injuries nor AAD fires. FACT. Some DZ's report AAD fires FACT.

  Quote

Exactly, and so long as that holds true then there is no data to suppot any of your speculations.

That is BS. A "Hook Turn" is a performance landing. You can try and debate it all ya want but lawyer like definition tricks will not be your saving grace.
***

Wrong, sometimes people do what would be defined as a hook turn in one book, as an avoidance procedure, sometimes out of panic, sometimes out of stupidity, sometimes for no explainable reason. It was not an intentional hook turn rather a reaction to a situation that they had encountered. It is not a lawyer type definition trick it is plain and simple. You made my point valid for me by saying that incidents are not reported. Thanks!

OK, I'm done with this whole thread, have a fun time everyone doing what ever it is you want to do where ever it is you want to do it. So long as it is allowed.

[gjhdiver 0]

  Quote

If you don't want to wear and AAD, fine, pack your gear bag up and take your $20 and bad attitude somewhere else. I don't want to clean up your mess. Understand this, it is the Business Owners right to decide what he expects of his customers. If you don't want to do business there, fine, go away, but quit your whining. The DZO is being a smart business man, not a nazi.

I ran one of the largest DZs in the world for a few years. We didn't require AADs, but we did require proper training. We had several fatalities, and none of them would have been prevented by an AAD. IMHO, requiring AADs is a waste of time and makes no business sense whatsoever, unless you're in the business of selling them.

It's a pointless argument though. DZO's are free to make whatever decisions they like, even when it drives perfectly good safe and current jumpers elsewhere.

[Ron 10]

  Quote

Wrong, sometimes people do what would be defined as a hook turn in one book, as an avoidance procedure, sometimes out of panic, sometimes out of stupidity, sometimes for no explainable reason.

A "panic turn" would not be a hook turn...Thanks for making the definition so easy.

  Quote

You made my point valid for me by saying that incidents are not reported. Thanks!

And since NEITHER AAD fires nor hook turns are reported at all DZ's unless they end in death....Well the available numbers show your stance is not valid either.

Your choice to require AAD's is most likely a reaction to the fatlality your DZ had with that girl.

But the numbers that include outside your DZ show a totally different picture at what is most dangerous. AND your love of landings might cloud your vision even more.

Like I said before...You have a right to require AAD's. Hell, I SUPPORT your right. I just think its not the best way to reduce injuries and fatalities. And that the most immediate need you avoid for wierd reasons.

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

[windcatcher 0]

  Quote

This is an issue that really pisses me off because some jerkoff with a coach rating recently told a friend who doesn't have an AAD that having a USPA license is a "license to kill yourself".

This is probably the same type of skydiver that claims jumping an out-of-date reserve one weekend after it expires makes the jumper suicidal

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[waltappel 1]

  Quote

  Quote

This is an issue that really pisses me off because some jerkoff with a coach rating recently told a friend who doesn't have an AAD that having a USPA license is a "license to kill yourself".

This is probably the same type of skydiver that claims jumping an out-of-date reserve one weekend after it expires makes the jumper suicidal

You are really trying to get me started on my soapbox, aren't you?

Honestly, I haven't met the guy and hope it's a while before I do. The impression I got is that his BS was in the context of a testosterone-fueled skygod bravado that women in this sport are sometimes subjected to. No doubt I will get some rocks thrown my direction for making that statement, but we all know it happens.

Some guys are just assholes and seem to get off on bullying low-timers--especially women.

I'm not saying it's common, but it happens whether we like it or not.

What really disturbs me beyond the complacency toward what were considered fundamental survival skills in the sport years ago, is the emotional rhetoric that permeates discussions on gear-related safety. Look in this thread. It's like listening to several broken records simultaneously and none of those broken records are talking about what incident data shows.

One poster even suggests that the data is meaningless because of inconsistencies in reporting. No doubt it is flawed, but it's what we have to work with, so it's worth a look, IMO.

Your example is especially good in that it's easy to imagine but yet would be incredibly ignorant on the part of anyone making such a claim.

Walt

[stoneycase 0]

  Quote

I ran one of the largest DZs in the world for a few years. We didn't require AADs, but we did require proper training. We had several fatalities, and none of them would have been prevented by an AAD. IMHO, requiring AADs is a waste of time and makes no business sense whatsoever, unless you're in the business of selling them.

It's a pointless argument though. DZO's are free to make whatever decisions they like, even when it drives perfectly good safe and current jumpers elsewhere.

normally, when i'm trying to examine the evidence in support of an argument i try to go the source. i noticed in this thread a bunch of excellent sources (as usual) but this one totally stood out. of course so does Taylor610's (from the opposite side of the fence)

i don't jump an ADD. i don't plan on buying one anytime soon.

i've jumped at a few dz's, a handful or so, and none have required AAD's. if they had, i would've walked. sorry, no need to pay to rent your gear just to support your "device dependent safety precautions". it's your business, run it how you want (for all i care you could have everyone stand on their head, in a nice neat line conducting pin checks while we all wait for the plane, but i'd probably walk from that too )

imho, you'll get a lot farther in preaching and requiring adequate training, sound decision making, and proper execution of emergency procedures than you will in requiring a device be used by all skydivers. but im just a noob, with barely enough time in to not kill myself. don't listen to me.

why not, instead of requiring an ADD, throw all your "new arrivals" into the hanging harness and throw the mal pictures at 'em? to me, that seems a little more benficial than checking to see if their AAD pocket has something it.

does the DZO policy of requiring AAD's just reinforce the cultural value of - "safety through devices, rather than safety through proper training"? put simply, if DZO's give the perception that the AAD is mandatory if "you want to be safe" than what does that say about device-dependency in the sport?

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

[Andy9o8 2]

I agree that there may be too much "dependency" on AADs (in the sense that Ron cautions against) in the current generation of people who started jumping after Cypreses came into popular use.

Nevertheless:

  Quote

the point is that no-pull or low-pull fatalities have dropped significantly. This tends to show rather conclusively that loss of altitude awareness/lack of technique is not a new problem, but an old one.

...and so far, 94 posts and counting, I haven't seen anyone refute this, nor have I seen anyone persuasively attribute it to any significant factors other than AADs.

[waltappel 1]

  Quote

I agree that there may be too much "dependency" on AADs (in the sense that Ron cautions against) in the current generation of people who started jumping after Cypreses came into popular use.

Nevertheless:

  Quote

the point is that no-pull or low-pull fatalities have dropped significantly. This tends to show rather conclusively that loss of altitude awareness/lack of technique is not a new problem, but an old one.

...and so far, 94 posts and counting, I haven't seen anyone refute this, nor have I seen anyone persuasively attribute it to any significant factors other than AADs.

I don't know that I'll refute it, but I will throw a couple of things into the mix. Loss of altitude awareness is not a new problem, true, but we have found new ways of inducing it.

Freeflying often involves not only loss of visual contact with the ground, but significantly higher freefall speeds that shorten the amount of "working time" on a skydive.

Incidents of four-way teams going low seem to happen much more often now. I'm not sure why that is.

Along with the more widespread use of the AAD among experienced jumpers, there has been a significant increase in the use of audible altimeters. Many freeflyers wear two because of their heightened awareness that their type of skydiving can involve frequent loss of visual contact with the ground.

The real value of an audible altimeter is in *preventing* a jumper from getting into a situation where an AAD might be required to save his life and I think that they offer far more bang for the buck when compared to an AAD.

How many times have AADs *prevented* someone from going low? We'll never know, but I'm sure the number would be enormously high compared to AAD saves.

How many jumpers who have been saved by AADs as a result of loss of altitude awareness were wearing functioning audible altimeters. I'm guessing here, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number is quite low.

Walt

[ROK 0]

How many jumpers who have been saved by AADs as a result of loss of altitude awareness were wearing functioning audible altimeters. I'm guessing here, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number is quite low.

Walt

[lawrocket 3]

It seems that everyone here is agreeing on some points. People should not rely on AAD's to deliver them safely to the planet. They should rely on themselves and their eyes and instinct.

However, to assist them in altitude awareness, they have visual altimeters. On top of that, there are audibles that can be relied upon in the event you lose altitude awareness even with the visual altimeters.

Note that these are all like AAD's - especially the dytters. Here you have people relying on a piece of equipment to tell them when to pull. The AAD isn't there to remind. It just goes.

I don't recall anybody thinking that audibles are a bad thing, for they lead to complacency. They are a tool to be used. Just like an AAD.

Still, I think I see a better point - I don't know of DZs that require audibles.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[waltappel 1]

  Quote

Still, I think I see a better point - I don't know of DZs that require audibles.

Preventing people from getting themselves into deep shit just isn't as dramatic as pulling them out at the last moment, so the rhetoric isn't as strong.

Walt

[Andy9o8 2]

A couple more random thoughts.

  Quote

Freeflying often involves not only loss of visual contact with the ground, but significantly higher freefall speeds that shorten the amount of "working time" on a skydive.

Well then if there are more ways than in yesteryear to induce loss of altitude awareness, logically there’d be more lo-pull and no-pull situations. And maybe there are. Yet something has to be counteracting that to induce fewer no-pull fatalities.

  Quote

Incidents of four-way teams going low seem to happen much more often now. I'm not sure why that is.

Not sure either. Maybe they’re relying on audibles more now than in earlier days when all altimeters were visual, so in earlier years jumpers visually kept themselves more altitude aware. Or maybe competition RW jumps are more complex than they used to be, resulting in higher concentration on the dive flow, at the expense of altitude awareness. Or maybe the lower exit altitudes of past years (around 7,500 at a Cessna DZ in 1976 compared to 13,500 at a turbine DZ today) kept jumpers a little more “on edge” about altitude right out the door, since they knew they’d only have about 25 seconds working time before breakoff altitude. Or maybe a combination of all of these, or more.