aad and the tragedy in zhills

[pchapman 279]

Yeah last I heard nothing had been publicly released.

John Sherman knew some of the rigs involved when the whole issue of the USPA & PIA warning came up but wasn't able to provide more info. (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3838087#3838087) The rig list doesn't really say much other than that some popular rigs are popular on the list too.

To find data one would have to painstakingly dig through USPA and dz.com accident reports to try to find descriptions that would seem to indicate a possible slow to open reserve. Also possibly useful is that document from an unknown author that attacks Airtec, called "CYPRES_AAD_FACT_SHEET ". I think it has plenty of BS in it and I don't trust what it says. It also focuses on the idea that Cypres' are not firing when they should, rather than the idea of reserves taking too long to extract. But it is a starting point for looking for a list of accidents where there was an AAD in the rig but the jumper died.

[shibu 1]

Quote

Quote

Here is the USPA advisory about the situation, issued three years ago yesterday. Just adding for more information and context:

http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Skydiver%20Advisory3-31-2010.pdf

Some where there should be a collection of incident reports for all the instances where the reserve failed to deploy in time after an AAD fired. These reports should indicate the container and reserve combination, and which AAD it had.

I would only focus on rigs with an AAD because that will provide as known of a pack opening altitude as possible, as who knows when a jumper with out an AAD pulled the reserve rip cord.

If all the rigs had the same AAD in them, then the “actual” activation altitude would need to be looked at, not the altitude that “the AAD thought it was at”. Now the AAD manufacturers will point to the containers, and that would be supported if there were different AADs used…SO…

If the rigs had different AADs in them, then not only do we need to verify that the AADs are firing at the proper AGL altitude, but additionally, were the reserve “systems” of those rigs capable of operating according to the TSO that they were issued under.

Great point. Does the USPA compile data like this? Sounds like you could run a report if you have all of that data in a spreadsheet somewhere.

[normiss 800]

I'd love to see detailed gear inventories become part of the incident data and reports. ALL gear.

[df8m1 24]

Quote

I'd love to see detailed gear inventories become part of the incident data and reports. ALL gear.

I am not able to put together a string of words that adequately reflects my feelings if it is correct that the incident reports do not have the "equipped" gear listed, last repack date, Last AAD service, etc....

What is there to investigate if there is not a record of what happened.... Some one please tell me that there are detailed records kept after an incident in an effort to prevent another jumper from dieing when their equipment failed them after (presumably) being activated with in an acceptable altitude.

[df8m1 24]

Quote

I believe the PIA technical committee has all of those details but I don't know if they are available to the public.

I would hope that the information is some where, if not, that is a good reason for the Feds to take over incident investigations.

Additionally, having persons that make up PIA who may have a financial interest in the manufacturing or servicing of any product that could be involved in an incident, participating in the documentation of that incident, is just asking for questions about a cover up, and other thoughts. I am not saying that is what is going on, but there have been enough of these AAD fires and or reserve situations to be able to find commonalities.

As to another post about the idea that the Cypres may fire too low... Do not let your opinion of an author affect any information they publish. Let the information stand for its self, any factual information does not become any less factual just because one does not like the author who published it. If we had the incident information, that could be used to validate or debunk any claims about a particular product, but we do not have access to that information, and that puts into question many things.

I have a doc that was sent to me of all the SBs for one particular product. The report is comprised of all the SBs from the manufacturer, along with some comments from the author drawing some conclusions based on their point of view. Regardless of whether one respects the author or not, the referenced documentation was generated by the manufacturer, and is therefore factual and beyond argument.

Self regulation only works if we actually take care of business. I for see Fed involvement in our future at this rate, and I can not argue that we are better off on our own, given how little is known about incidents that have killed people in the double digit numbers!