JohnMitchell 16 #26 March 20, 2007 Quote ?? It would not have. He told several people that he would not jump if he did not have an AAD, because he did not trust himself under pressure. I've heard it purported that about 10% of people freeze in emergency situations, that it is their natural, hard wired response. Obviously not conducive to surviving in our sport. Any psychologists out there know anything about this? I jumped without an AAD for years, of course, but I sure am accustomed to it now. I spent a summer without my Cypress while it was in the shop, and felt just a touch under dressed for the occasion. Luckily I didn't do anything bigger than a 69 way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #27 March 20, 2007 I've heard it purported that about 10% of people freeze in emergency situations... Quote They don't really 'Freeze', it's more like they achieve room temperature. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #28 March 20, 2007 Quote>How would that have helped him pull the right handle? ?? It would not have. He told several people that he would not jump if he did not have an AAD, because he did not trust himself under pressure. The AAD enabled an incompetent skydiver to get enough false confidence to take to the sky - and die when he could not perform the most basic emergency procedures. If he had not had the AAD, he would not have jumped, and would be alive today. A whole lot of now dead skydivers DID trust themselves to execute their EPs when under pressure, but the trust was misplaced. One counter example is pretty meaningless in the greater scheme of things.... 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 2,998 #29 March 20, 2007 >A whole lot of now dead skydivers DID trust themselves to execute >their EPs when under pressure, but the trust was misplaced. I agree. A good solution to that problem would be better training (to help them perform correctly) better testing (to make sure they can perform) and better enforcement (to keep people on the ground who cannot perform.) A poor solution is to give everyone a cypres and tell them not to worry so much about EP's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brettski74 0 #30 March 20, 2007 QuoteI agree. A good solution to that problem would be better training (to help them perform correctly) better testing (to make sure they can perform) and better enforcement (to keep people on the ground who cannot perform.) A poor solution is to give everyone a cypres and tell them not to worry so much about EP's. How would you effect appropriate training and testing? I would hope that most people know the correct actions, but the problem is whether they have the presence of mind to do them in a timely manner in a high-stress situation. I can't think of any ground training that would simulate such stress. Even a practice reserve ride wouldn't be quite the same, since you're expecting it, you're probably going to pull higher and you have a tertiary system as an additional backup. I'm not sure that everyone would experience the same levels of stress that they would if this were to happen unexpectedly, under a highly load spinning malfunction at 1500' or less. Wouldn't a better solution be to give them the training and also give them an AAD and the knowledge of how it works, it's limitations and that it's nothing to be relied upon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #31 March 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe number of annual fatalities hasn't changed much, but the number of skydivers has increased a lot since pre-AAD days. And the student fatalities have gone waaay down. Students used to be half of the fatalities, usually low pull, no pull, or no reserve pull after a malfunction. I had many friends who would still be here if they had worn an AAD. Which suggests that it's not about risk homeostasis but rather than the average experience (and corresponding level of difficulty of the jumps) has increased. I don't see how RSLs and AADs make people more comfortable with fast canopies and fast landings. Well, some for the first bit - may make it easier to deal with a bad opening, but the AAD becomes the enemy down low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #32 March 20, 2007 >How would you effect appropriate training and testing? Ground testing in a real hanging harness (not just a vest with handles on it or something) followed by intentional cutaways with a three-canopy system. >I'm not sure that everyone would experience the same levels of >stress that they would if this were to happen unexpectedly, under a highly >load spinning malfunction at 1500' or less. Agreed. But right now many students graduate without ever being in a hanging harness, without ever touching their cutaway or reserve handles during the skydive, and without ever experiencing what a cutaway feels like. >Wouldn't a better solution be to give them the training and also give >them an AAD and the knowledge of how it works, it's limitations and that >it's nothing to be relied upon. I'd prefer to give them the training and them let them choose if they want an AAD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ficus 0 #33 March 20, 2007 Quote>How would you effect appropriate training and testing? Ground testing in a real hanging harness (not just a vest with handles on it or something) followed by intentional cutaways with a three-canopy system. According to the SIM: Quote 2. Pre-planned breakaway jumps are to be made by only class C- and D-license holders using FAA TSO’ed equipment. [E] What is your opinion about this BSR? I'd imagine there was some thought (if not an actual incident) leading to its inclusion. If you agree, how do you reconcile that with wanting to make it part of student training? I'd love to do an intentional cutaway. But even if I could track down a tertiary rig and a no-wind day, it appears that not even my S&TA can waive this one. Ficus Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #34 March 20, 2007 >What is your opinion about this BSR? I don't have much of an opinion. I'd have no problem waiting for the C license to get such training, although I don't think you have to wait that long for safety purposes. If you really want to produce good skydivers, it will take more than 25 jumps anyway. A lot of this involves the question "what kind of skydiver do you want to produce?" If it's someone who can get through the program quickly for little cost, and be _relatively_ safe, then what we have now seems to work OK. To create better skydivers, you have to do more work (equals more time, more money, and often more risk.) Is all that worth it? Depends on your goals I guess. I feel pretty confident about water landings, for example, because I've actually done a bunch of them. My first one was off the NRGB in '93. But that's probably too risky/expensive for most skydivers, even if it is great training for water landings. (And tree landings; learned those in '94!) Actual cutaway training would be (IMO) not too risky to add to the program, although it would add cost (since purpose-built cutaway rigs are expensive.) But a lot of people don't want to deal with the additional time, money and risk, and figure slapping an AAD on a nominally-trained skydiver is easier. And there's not much question that a skydiver with minimal to average training is safer with an AAD, so often that's what gets done. I generally favor better training over more devices, because better training is not subject to battery failures or misfirings. There's no question that a well-trained skydiver without an AAD is safer than a poorly-trained skydiver with an AAD. The ideal, of course, is both, but in our faster/cheaper/cooler society, one is pushed a lot harder than the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scrumpot 1 #35 March 20, 2007 Here's your best way to answer that (for yourself)... You are about to get on a jump. You do your gear check and absolutely everything is a-ok. Otherwise perfectly ship-shape EXCEPT your Cypres won't turn on. Do you: 1. Leave it off and go ahead with the jump as planned? or... 2. Go "oh F*** ...now I CAN'T jump!" and scratch? And why? Maybe I should make this a "poll"? Blues, -Grantcoitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scrumpot 1 #36 March 20, 2007 This is always an intriguing topic of conversation, and thought process for me to observe. I usually stay completely on the sidelines with it too (lately), and do only just that... observe. I've found that making too much noise in here (in either school of thought camp) doesn't really ever seem to do much good. People usually seem to just have their own minds completely made up. Fixed. Intractible, completely. They will simply defend to their last breath whatever position they have predetermined. So the "arguments" go on, and on. No big deal. Debate over all is also usually good. For those on the side-lines. The observers. Here's a thought, without actually taking a position either way (although trust me, I do have one! - my history for anyone caring to search goes sufficiently far back in here to when I much more often, "used to post" ). This comes from a clinical psychologist involved in a trafic safety study being commissioned to examine the "cultural/behavioral effects of modern safety devices in motor vehicles", often analogized to by many in here, so here goes... Just an interesting point of consideration, and a position I found curious to have been stated - but worthy enough to think about: Instead of airbags now being mounted on the steering wheel of nearly every car now manufactured and driven off of dealers lots every day around the world, how about they had a single sharp 10" stilletto protruding directly at you on them? Do you think you would drive THAT car the same way you are driving the otherwise in every other way, similarly equipped vehicle? Or would you drive this one MUCH MORE CAREFULLY, knowing with fairly assured certainty that if you ran into something/had a collision, that stilletto would skewer you like a stuck pig on a bar-b-q spit? How well would you watch where you were actually going driving the one car over the other, and/or how more relatively "careless" are you with the one with the airbag there to "protect" you? I dunno. Like I say, just something I heard elsewhere that I thought I'd post here, to think about. Blue Skies, "Safe" Jumps, -Grantcoitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aguila 0 #37 March 21, 2007 QuoteHere's your best way to answer that (for yourself)... You are about to get on a jump. You do your gear check and absolutely everything is a-ok. Otherwise perfectly ship-shape EXCEPT your Cypres won't turn on. Do you: 1. Leave it off and go ahead with the jump as planned? or... 2. Go "oh F*** ...now I CAN'T jump!" and scratch? And why? Maybe I should make this a "poll"? Blues, -Grant Excellent idea the poll! I remember the first time I had to jump with my AAD off. Taking off altitude was a lot higher than the DZ altitude. I just knew about it on the flight line and asked my instructor on how to set up my ADD. He just told me: "We are not going to use any AAD this time" Plop! No more questions or explanations. I was worried about it but I had been trained to do it and felt myself confident and jumped. Now, I am not using any AAD long ago but already purchased a Cypress and am waiting for it. As our first taking off altitude is always higher than our DZ altitude we all must jump with our AAD off quite often and I like the idea because it makes us be alert. Of course things can go bad, but as someone said once here: I prefer dying because of my mistake and not because of a gear failure.Gonzalo It cannot be done really means I do not know how to do it ... yet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #38 March 21, 2007 QuoteHere's your best way to answer that (for yourself)... You are about to get on a jump. You do your gear check and absolutely everything is a-ok. Otherwise perfectly ship-shape EXCEPT your Cypres won't turn on. Do you: 1. Leave it off and go ahead with the jump as planned? or... 2. Go "oh F*** ...now I CAN'T jump!" and scratch? And why? Maybe I should make this a "poll"? Blues, -Grant Given the software controlled turn-on of the CYPRES, if it apparently won't turn on, I would want it completely disconnected rather than trust it in my rig on a jump. Who knows what defective software/hardware might do?... 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 NWFlyer 2 #39 March 21, 2007 Quote As our first taking off altitude is always higher than our DZ altitude we all must jump with our AAD off quite often and I like the idea because it makes us be alert. Uhhhhhh ... even with different altitudes at takeoff and landing areas, you don't have to jump without your AAD unless of course your altitude offset is outside of the individual unit's range - +/-1,500 feet for Cypres 1, +/-3,000 for Cypres 2, or +/-6,000 feet for Vigil). RTFM. http://www.cypres.cc/Downloads/6_2_Users_Guides/6-2-1-1%20CYPRES_Users_guide_english.pdf Page 21. http://www.vigil.aero/pdf/Eng_000.pdf Page 13. http://www.cypres.cc/Downloads/6_2_Users_Guides/CYPRES_2_users_guide_English_11-2006.pdf Page 19."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aguila 0 #40 March 21, 2007 Quote Uhhhhhh ... even with different altitudes at takeoff and landing areas, you don't have to jump without your AAD unless of course your altitude offset is outside of the individual unit's range - +/-1,500 feet for Cypres 1, +/-3,000 for Cypres 2, or +/-6,000 feet for Vigil). RTFM. Yeah ... the difference is big: 7080 ft .Gonzalo It cannot be done really means I do not know how to do it ... yet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scrumpot 1 #41 March 21, 2007 QuoteGiven the software controlled turn-on of the CYPRES, if it apparently won't turn on, I would want it completely disconnected rather than trust it in my rig on a jump. Okay, agreed. But c'mon now prof, you know what I was getting at here. Let's let the kiddies play with this one a little while first before derailing it all together, shall we? Alright, let's use a slight variation that maybe even you can let slide then, shall we? ....You bring your Cypres 1 equipped rig in for it's repack, and upon opening 'er up, your rigger finds that the Cypres is beyond its 12yr life cycle. He does not have access to another replacement unit for you (even if you've got the $1200 cash on you to shell right out) & of course can not reclose the rig with the EXPIRED Cypres still within it. You want desparately to still jump later that day, or this weekend. Do you: 1. Whine, cry, beg borrow steel to find either another rig you can use with a Cypres in it so you can jump, or "stand down" without one or... 2. Instruct your rigger to pull the Cypres & close 'er up WITHOUT the Cypres in it, and continue to jump it until the next repack Cycle, or you can replace the Cypres at a later date? Better?coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWFlyer 2 #42 March 21, 2007 QuoteQuote Uhhhhhh ... even with different altitudes at takeoff and landing areas, you don't have to jump without your AAD unless of course your altitude offset is outside of the individual unit's range - +/-1,500 feet for Cypres 1, +/-3,000 for Cypres 2, or +/-6,000 feet for Vigil). RTFM. Yeah ... the difference is big: 7080 ft . Whoa. Sorry, never mind!"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWFlyer 2 #43 March 21, 2007 Quote 2. Instruct your rigger to pull the Cypres & close 'er up WITHOUT the Cypres in it, and continue to jump it until the next repack Cycle, or you can replace the Cypres at a later date? I'll bite, but you already know I've been in this situation. I had one of the earliest-identified Vigil cutter problems on my first repack after the initial assembly of my rig. I had just over 100 jumps. My rigger calls and says "It'll be a couple weeks till we get a new cutter out. Still want me to close it up?" I thought about it quickly, and said "Yep." Jumped without it for a couple weeks. Glad I did. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aguila 0 #44 March 21, 2007 QuoteQuote Yeah ... the difference is big: 7080 ft . Whoa. Sorry, never mind! Another anecdote: A few weeks ago ago we went to a different DZ. Many of us use altimeters with their readings in meters. Someone asked the pilots for the DZ altitude and they answered 1400 feet. Then he started changing our altimeter settings (he must be reading this ). Of course we all had our AAD and AA off. We jumped but when I checked my altimeter I decided not to pay attention to it but follow my instincts and opened "higher" than planned. Right after landing my altimeter showed I was 1000 ft AGL Gonzalo It cannot be done really means I do not know how to do it ... yet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #45 March 21, 2007 >Given the software controlled turn-on of the CYPRES, if it apparently >won't turn on, I would want it completely disconnected rather than trust it in >my rig on a jump. If you don't believe the off indication, why would you believe the on indication? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #46 March 21, 2007 >You are about to get on a jump. You do your gear check and absolutely > everything is a-ok. Otherwise perfectly ship-shape EXCEPT your Cypres >won't turn on. Wouldn't really apply to me. I turn on the cypres and check everything when I get there, and I check the cypres when I go home (to see if it's still on.) Since my reserve pin/cypres head is on the inside of the rig, checking it doesn't accomplish much during the day, since I would jump with the cypres off anyway. >how about they had a single sharp 10" stilletto protruding directly at you on them? I think most drivers would start out driving more carefully, and then eventually would forget the thing was there and drive like they do normally. Heck, people drive with emergency-use spare tires, gasoline leaks, bad brakes, broken windshields etc for thousands of miles. If they drive to and from work a few times with the stiletto and nothing bad happens, they learn "this doesn't do anything bad." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites padalcek 9 #47 March 21, 2007 Quote...that there is an "airbag culture" that makes people more careless with their skydiving because they feel like they have the cushion of improved safety features (AAD, RSL/skyhook, etc)... so how's this for safety? a few months ago i was packing visiting jumper's main. brand new micron with all bells and whistles brand new main and quite obviously an 'almost' brand new jumper. he was hanging around as i was packing and i asked him what he thought of his skyhook. his reply was: "well, i really like the fact that i only have to pull one handle if something goes wrong." i tried my best to get him to realize that handles were installed there for a reason and he shouldn't assume that a piece of nylon connected to a piece of metal will work perfectly right after another piece of nylon connected to another piece of metal did not. i'm not sure that i was successful but i do know that he is far from being the only one with that mentality. i wish people would realize that safety devices in this sport are nothing more than backup intended to do the work if you can't do it yourself.Padalcek - CCO, HF-17 http://www.theflyinghellfish.com I'm not a real skydiver - but I do play one on dz.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 186 #48 March 21, 2007 Maybe someone should ask Rick Thues or Al Krueger what they think of AAD's. I'm sure Tommy P. wished his was on... And I'm sure Adrian N. wished his was off... I bet Sandy W. would have loved to be wearing an AAD equiped rig... Safety features don't replace good training, good situational awareness and leaving yourself altitude to survive. AAD's have saved many a person that was incapacitated to pull, or lost altitude awareness, just what it was meant to do. I think it's not the safety features giving an air of invincibility creating an "air bag" mentality, but a lack of respect for what this sport could actually do to you... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jbanning 0 #49 March 21, 2007 Look at the statistics, people are NOW dying under functioning canopies. How many skydivers have died because of an AAD misfire, no fire or a malfunctioning rsl or skyhook lately. The sport has evolved and skydivers have evolved with it. Smaller, faster canopies. The EXPERIENCED skydivers are the one's killing themselves with low hookturns......5 deaths this week all under canopy, freefall accidents do happen but are MUCH less frequent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #50 March 21, 2007 QuoteLook at the statistics, people are NOW dying under functioning canopies. How many skydivers have died because of an AAD misfire, no fire or a malfunctioning rsl or skyhook lately. The sport has evolved and skydivers have evolved with it. Smaller, faster canopies. The EXPERIENCED skydivers are the one's killing themselves with low hookturns......5 deaths this week all under canopy, freefall accidents do happen but are MUCH less frequent. It is reasonable to say that without AADs the fatalities you mention would still occur AND you'd have more no-pulls going in. These are orthogonal safety issues. I don't think it is sound to conclude that skydivers take additional risks in other areas to compensate for the relative safety, especially when you're just looking at incidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 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
kallend 2,027 #28 March 20, 2007 Quote>How would that have helped him pull the right handle? ?? It would not have. He told several people that he would not jump if he did not have an AAD, because he did not trust himself under pressure. The AAD enabled an incompetent skydiver to get enough false confidence to take to the sky - and die when he could not perform the most basic emergency procedures. If he had not had the AAD, he would not have jumped, and would be alive today. A whole lot of now dead skydivers DID trust themselves to execute their EPs when under pressure, but the trust was misplaced. One counter example is pretty meaningless in the greater scheme of things.... 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 2,998 #29 March 20, 2007 >A whole lot of now dead skydivers DID trust themselves to execute >their EPs when under pressure, but the trust was misplaced. I agree. A good solution to that problem would be better training (to help them perform correctly) better testing (to make sure they can perform) and better enforcement (to keep people on the ground who cannot perform.) A poor solution is to give everyone a cypres and tell them not to worry so much about EP's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brettski74 0 #30 March 20, 2007 QuoteI agree. A good solution to that problem would be better training (to help them perform correctly) better testing (to make sure they can perform) and better enforcement (to keep people on the ground who cannot perform.) A poor solution is to give everyone a cypres and tell them not to worry so much about EP's. How would you effect appropriate training and testing? I would hope that most people know the correct actions, but the problem is whether they have the presence of mind to do them in a timely manner in a high-stress situation. I can't think of any ground training that would simulate such stress. Even a practice reserve ride wouldn't be quite the same, since you're expecting it, you're probably going to pull higher and you have a tertiary system as an additional backup. I'm not sure that everyone would experience the same levels of stress that they would if this were to happen unexpectedly, under a highly load spinning malfunction at 1500' or less. Wouldn't a better solution be to give them the training and also give them an AAD and the knowledge of how it works, it's limitations and that it's nothing to be relied upon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 March 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe number of annual fatalities hasn't changed much, but the number of skydivers has increased a lot since pre-AAD days. And the student fatalities have gone waaay down. Students used to be half of the fatalities, usually low pull, no pull, or no reserve pull after a malfunction. I had many friends who would still be here if they had worn an AAD. Which suggests that it's not about risk homeostasis but rather than the average experience (and corresponding level of difficulty of the jumps) has increased. I don't see how RSLs and AADs make people more comfortable with fast canopies and fast landings. Well, some for the first bit - may make it easier to deal with a bad opening, but the AAD becomes the enemy down low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #32 March 20, 2007 >How would you effect appropriate training and testing? Ground testing in a real hanging harness (not just a vest with handles on it or something) followed by intentional cutaways with a three-canopy system. >I'm not sure that everyone would experience the same levels of >stress that they would if this were to happen unexpectedly, under a highly >load spinning malfunction at 1500' or less. Agreed. But right now many students graduate without ever being in a hanging harness, without ever touching their cutaway or reserve handles during the skydive, and without ever experiencing what a cutaway feels like. >Wouldn't a better solution be to give them the training and also give >them an AAD and the knowledge of how it works, it's limitations and that >it's nothing to be relied upon. I'd prefer to give them the training and them let them choose if they want an AAD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ficus 0 #33 March 20, 2007 Quote>How would you effect appropriate training and testing? Ground testing in a real hanging harness (not just a vest with handles on it or something) followed by intentional cutaways with a three-canopy system. According to the SIM: Quote 2. Pre-planned breakaway jumps are to be made by only class C- and D-license holders using FAA TSO’ed equipment. [E] What is your opinion about this BSR? I'd imagine there was some thought (if not an actual incident) leading to its inclusion. If you agree, how do you reconcile that with wanting to make it part of student training? I'd love to do an intentional cutaway. But even if I could track down a tertiary rig and a no-wind day, it appears that not even my S&TA can waive this one. Ficus Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #34 March 20, 2007 >What is your opinion about this BSR? I don't have much of an opinion. I'd have no problem waiting for the C license to get such training, although I don't think you have to wait that long for safety purposes. If you really want to produce good skydivers, it will take more than 25 jumps anyway. A lot of this involves the question "what kind of skydiver do you want to produce?" If it's someone who can get through the program quickly for little cost, and be _relatively_ safe, then what we have now seems to work OK. To create better skydivers, you have to do more work (equals more time, more money, and often more risk.) Is all that worth it? Depends on your goals I guess. I feel pretty confident about water landings, for example, because I've actually done a bunch of them. My first one was off the NRGB in '93. But that's probably too risky/expensive for most skydivers, even if it is great training for water landings. (And tree landings; learned those in '94!) Actual cutaway training would be (IMO) not too risky to add to the program, although it would add cost (since purpose-built cutaway rigs are expensive.) But a lot of people don't want to deal with the additional time, money and risk, and figure slapping an AAD on a nominally-trained skydiver is easier. And there's not much question that a skydiver with minimal to average training is safer with an AAD, so often that's what gets done. I generally favor better training over more devices, because better training is not subject to battery failures or misfirings. There's no question that a well-trained skydiver without an AAD is safer than a poorly-trained skydiver with an AAD. The ideal, of course, is both, but in our faster/cheaper/cooler society, one is pushed a lot harder than the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #35 March 20, 2007 Here's your best way to answer that (for yourself)... You are about to get on a jump. You do your gear check and absolutely everything is a-ok. Otherwise perfectly ship-shape EXCEPT your Cypres won't turn on. Do you: 1. Leave it off and go ahead with the jump as planned? or... 2. Go "oh F*** ...now I CAN'T jump!" and scratch? And why? Maybe I should make this a "poll"? Blues, -Grantcoitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #36 March 20, 2007 This is always an intriguing topic of conversation, and thought process for me to observe. I usually stay completely on the sidelines with it too (lately), and do only just that... observe. I've found that making too much noise in here (in either school of thought camp) doesn't really ever seem to do much good. People usually seem to just have their own minds completely made up. Fixed. Intractible, completely. They will simply defend to their last breath whatever position they have predetermined. So the "arguments" go on, and on. No big deal. Debate over all is also usually good. For those on the side-lines. The observers. Here's a thought, without actually taking a position either way (although trust me, I do have one! - my history for anyone caring to search goes sufficiently far back in here to when I much more often, "used to post" ). This comes from a clinical psychologist involved in a trafic safety study being commissioned to examine the "cultural/behavioral effects of modern safety devices in motor vehicles", often analogized to by many in here, so here goes... Just an interesting point of consideration, and a position I found curious to have been stated - but worthy enough to think about: Instead of airbags now being mounted on the steering wheel of nearly every car now manufactured and driven off of dealers lots every day around the world, how about they had a single sharp 10" stilletto protruding directly at you on them? Do you think you would drive THAT car the same way you are driving the otherwise in every other way, similarly equipped vehicle? Or would you drive this one MUCH MORE CAREFULLY, knowing with fairly assured certainty that if you ran into something/had a collision, that stilletto would skewer you like a stuck pig on a bar-b-q spit? How well would you watch where you were actually going driving the one car over the other, and/or how more relatively "careless" are you with the one with the airbag there to "protect" you? I dunno. Like I say, just something I heard elsewhere that I thought I'd post here, to think about. Blue Skies, "Safe" Jumps, -Grantcoitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aguila 0 #37 March 21, 2007 QuoteHere's your best way to answer that (for yourself)... You are about to get on a jump. You do your gear check and absolutely everything is a-ok. Otherwise perfectly ship-shape EXCEPT your Cypres won't turn on. Do you: 1. Leave it off and go ahead with the jump as planned? or... 2. Go "oh F*** ...now I CAN'T jump!" and scratch? And why? Maybe I should make this a "poll"? Blues, -Grant Excellent idea the poll! I remember the first time I had to jump with my AAD off. Taking off altitude was a lot higher than the DZ altitude. I just knew about it on the flight line and asked my instructor on how to set up my ADD. He just told me: "We are not going to use any AAD this time" Plop! No more questions or explanations. I was worried about it but I had been trained to do it and felt myself confident and jumped. Now, I am not using any AAD long ago but already purchased a Cypress and am waiting for it. As our first taking off altitude is always higher than our DZ altitude we all must jump with our AAD off quite often and I like the idea because it makes us be alert. Of course things can go bad, but as someone said once here: I prefer dying because of my mistake and not because of a gear failure.Gonzalo It cannot be done really means I do not know how to do it ... yet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #38 March 21, 2007 QuoteHere's your best way to answer that (for yourself)... You are about to get on a jump. You do your gear check and absolutely everything is a-ok. Otherwise perfectly ship-shape EXCEPT your Cypres won't turn on. Do you: 1. Leave it off and go ahead with the jump as planned? or... 2. Go "oh F*** ...now I CAN'T jump!" and scratch? And why? Maybe I should make this a "poll"? Blues, -Grant Given the software controlled turn-on of the CYPRES, if it apparently won't turn on, I would want it completely disconnected rather than trust it in my rig on a jump. Who knows what defective software/hardware might do?... 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
NWFlyer 2 #39 March 21, 2007 Quote As our first taking off altitude is always higher than our DZ altitude we all must jump with our AAD off quite often and I like the idea because it makes us be alert. Uhhhhhh ... even with different altitudes at takeoff and landing areas, you don't have to jump without your AAD unless of course your altitude offset is outside of the individual unit's range - +/-1,500 feet for Cypres 1, +/-3,000 for Cypres 2, or +/-6,000 feet for Vigil). RTFM. http://www.cypres.cc/Downloads/6_2_Users_Guides/6-2-1-1%20CYPRES_Users_guide_english.pdf Page 21. http://www.vigil.aero/pdf/Eng_000.pdf Page 13. http://www.cypres.cc/Downloads/6_2_Users_Guides/CYPRES_2_users_guide_English_11-2006.pdf Page 19."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aguila 0 #40 March 21, 2007 Quote Uhhhhhh ... even with different altitudes at takeoff and landing areas, you don't have to jump without your AAD unless of course your altitude offset is outside of the individual unit's range - +/-1,500 feet for Cypres 1, +/-3,000 for Cypres 2, or +/-6,000 feet for Vigil). RTFM. Yeah ... the difference is big: 7080 ft .Gonzalo It cannot be done really means I do not know how to do it ... yet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #41 March 21, 2007 QuoteGiven the software controlled turn-on of the CYPRES, if it apparently won't turn on, I would want it completely disconnected rather than trust it in my rig on a jump. Okay, agreed. But c'mon now prof, you know what I was getting at here. Let's let the kiddies play with this one a little while first before derailing it all together, shall we? Alright, let's use a slight variation that maybe even you can let slide then, shall we? ....You bring your Cypres 1 equipped rig in for it's repack, and upon opening 'er up, your rigger finds that the Cypres is beyond its 12yr life cycle. He does not have access to another replacement unit for you (even if you've got the $1200 cash on you to shell right out) & of course can not reclose the rig with the EXPIRED Cypres still within it. You want desparately to still jump later that day, or this weekend. Do you: 1. Whine, cry, beg borrow steel to find either another rig you can use with a Cypres in it so you can jump, or "stand down" without one or... 2. Instruct your rigger to pull the Cypres & close 'er up WITHOUT the Cypres in it, and continue to jump it until the next repack Cycle, or you can replace the Cypres at a later date? Better?coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #42 March 21, 2007 QuoteQuote Uhhhhhh ... even with different altitudes at takeoff and landing areas, you don't have to jump without your AAD unless of course your altitude offset is outside of the individual unit's range - +/-1,500 feet for Cypres 1, +/-3,000 for Cypres 2, or +/-6,000 feet for Vigil). RTFM. Yeah ... the difference is big: 7080 ft . Whoa. Sorry, never mind!"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #43 March 21, 2007 Quote 2. Instruct your rigger to pull the Cypres & close 'er up WITHOUT the Cypres in it, and continue to jump it until the next repack Cycle, or you can replace the Cypres at a later date? I'll bite, but you already know I've been in this situation. I had one of the earliest-identified Vigil cutter problems on my first repack after the initial assembly of my rig. I had just over 100 jumps. My rigger calls and says "It'll be a couple weeks till we get a new cutter out. Still want me to close it up?" I thought about it quickly, and said "Yep." Jumped without it for a couple weeks. Glad I did. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aguila 0 #44 March 21, 2007 QuoteQuote Yeah ... the difference is big: 7080 ft . Whoa. Sorry, never mind! Another anecdote: A few weeks ago ago we went to a different DZ. Many of us use altimeters with their readings in meters. Someone asked the pilots for the DZ altitude and they answered 1400 feet. Then he started changing our altimeter settings (he must be reading this ). Of course we all had our AAD and AA off. We jumped but when I checked my altimeter I decided not to pay attention to it but follow my instincts and opened "higher" than planned. Right after landing my altimeter showed I was 1000 ft AGL Gonzalo It cannot be done really means I do not know how to do it ... yet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #45 March 21, 2007 >Given the software controlled turn-on of the CYPRES, if it apparently >won't turn on, I would want it completely disconnected rather than trust it in >my rig on a jump. If you don't believe the off indication, why would you believe the on indication? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #46 March 21, 2007 >You are about to get on a jump. You do your gear check and absolutely > everything is a-ok. Otherwise perfectly ship-shape EXCEPT your Cypres >won't turn on. Wouldn't really apply to me. I turn on the cypres and check everything when I get there, and I check the cypres when I go home (to see if it's still on.) Since my reserve pin/cypres head is on the inside of the rig, checking it doesn't accomplish much during the day, since I would jump with the cypres off anyway. >how about they had a single sharp 10" stilletto protruding directly at you on them? I think most drivers would start out driving more carefully, and then eventually would forget the thing was there and drive like they do normally. Heck, people drive with emergency-use spare tires, gasoline leaks, bad brakes, broken windshields etc for thousands of miles. If they drive to and from work a few times with the stiletto and nothing bad happens, they learn "this doesn't do anything bad." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
padalcek 9 #47 March 21, 2007 Quote...that there is an "airbag culture" that makes people more careless with their skydiving because they feel like they have the cushion of improved safety features (AAD, RSL/skyhook, etc)... so how's this for safety? a few months ago i was packing visiting jumper's main. brand new micron with all bells and whistles brand new main and quite obviously an 'almost' brand new jumper. he was hanging around as i was packing and i asked him what he thought of his skyhook. his reply was: "well, i really like the fact that i only have to pull one handle if something goes wrong." i tried my best to get him to realize that handles were installed there for a reason and he shouldn't assume that a piece of nylon connected to a piece of metal will work perfectly right after another piece of nylon connected to another piece of metal did not. i'm not sure that i was successful but i do know that he is far from being the only one with that mentality. i wish people would realize that safety devices in this sport are nothing more than backup intended to do the work if you can't do it yourself.Padalcek - CCO, HF-17 http://www.theflyinghellfish.com I'm not a real skydiver - but I do play one on dz.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 186 #48 March 21, 2007 Maybe someone should ask Rick Thues or Al Krueger what they think of AAD's. I'm sure Tommy P. wished his was on... And I'm sure Adrian N. wished his was off... I bet Sandy W. would have loved to be wearing an AAD equiped rig... Safety features don't replace good training, good situational awareness and leaving yourself altitude to survive. AAD's have saved many a person that was incapacitated to pull, or lost altitude awareness, just what it was meant to do. I think it's not the safety features giving an air of invincibility creating an "air bag" mentality, but a lack of respect for what this sport could actually do to you... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbanning 0 #49 March 21, 2007 Look at the statistics, people are NOW dying under functioning canopies. How many skydivers have died because of an AAD misfire, no fire or a malfunctioning rsl or skyhook lately. The sport has evolved and skydivers have evolved with it. Smaller, faster canopies. The EXPERIENCED skydivers are the one's killing themselves with low hookturns......5 deaths this week all under canopy, freefall accidents do happen but are MUCH less frequent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #50 March 21, 2007 QuoteLook at the statistics, people are NOW dying under functioning canopies. How many skydivers have died because of an AAD misfire, no fire or a malfunctioning rsl or skyhook lately. The sport has evolved and skydivers have evolved with it. Smaller, faster canopies. The EXPERIENCED skydivers are the one's killing themselves with low hookturns......5 deaths this week all under canopy, freefall accidents do happen but are MUCH less frequent. It is reasonable to say that without AADs the fatalities you mention would still occur AND you'd have more no-pulls going in. These are orthogonal safety issues. I don't think it is sound to conclude that skydivers take additional risks in other areas to compensate for the relative safety, especially when you're just looking at incidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
