cloudwlking 1 #1 November 2, 2012 ok, in light of a recent discussion at the dz, I would like to know just how many confirmed deaths by a modern (computerized) AAD. For clarity- an event where the AAD lead directly to the death of a person . Personally I cant imagine that there would be many & would have to think the confirmed saves far outway the potential risk.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 186 #2 November 2, 2012 That's sort of a loaded question. Adrian Nicholas was the swooping incident that sticks out most in my mind. How many people went in with a main reserve entanglement due to an AAD fire? How many people went in waiting for an AAD to fire? How many people went in due to a miss set AAD? Not that not pulling is the AAD's fault, but did those jumpers have a false sense of security from wearing one? There are a LOT of skydivers that think their AAD will save them from anything.I agree with you on the saves vs risk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudwlking 1 #3 November 2, 2012 Good point, I had forgotten about the swoop type incidents.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #4 November 2, 2012 please define "death by AAD"scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uberchris 0 #5 November 2, 2012 i almost recently died. "deat by ADD" my stupid inattentive ass forgot to route my chest strap because i was busy putting on a new tracksuit. that shit would have sent me straight out of my rig and into the ground........... luckily, my mentors always grained into my head, check check triple check all handles and i caught it in the plane...... lesson learned, ALWAYS triple check your shitgravity brings me down......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #6 November 3, 2012 Quotei almost recently died. "deat by ADD" my stupid inattentive ass forgot to route my chest strap because i was busy putting on a new tracksuit. that shit would have sent me straight out of my rig and into the ground........... That wouldn't have been a "death by AAD". That would have been a human error in properly donning equipment. The AAD had zero to do with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #7 November 3, 2012 Quote How many people went in waiting for an AAD to fire? How many people went in due to a miss set AAD? Not that not pulling is the AAD's fault, but did those jumpers have a false sense of security from wearing one? Those are totally not the fault of the AAD, I agree. QuoteI agree with you on the saves vs risk. Same here. You have to play the odds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strife 0 #8 November 3, 2012 CarpeDiem3 I think he was referring to Attention deficit disorder (ADD) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gregpso 1 #9 November 3, 2012 would have to think the confirmed saves far outway the potential risk.. I think you just answered your own question.I tend to be a bit different. enjoyed my time in the sport or is it an industry these days ?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydave114 0 #10 November 3, 2012 there was one that opened in a decending a/c, killing all aboard. IIRC, it was a porter in south america. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #11 November 3, 2012 QuoteCarpeDiem3 I think he was referring to Attention deficit disorder (ADD) Oh. Never mind... So many people abbreviate that incorrectly, that you never know if they really mean "AAD" or "ADD". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairy_Haggis 1 #12 November 3, 2012 'tis an excellent question... As my Argus was banned by the APF and I had to take it out of my container....i'd guess i'm far more likely to have a terminal that an AAD may have prevented than have a terminal caused by the AAD in the first place. Would be interesting to see some statistics, but doubt you'd ever be able to collate any.It's not the speed that kills ya, it's the sudden stops! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #13 November 3, 2012 I tend to think about them the way I think about seatbelts. Yes, you can find examples of people who were killed because their seatbelt somehow pinned them into their vehicle in an accident. But you can find exponentially more examples of people who survived an accident because they were wearing a seatbelt. I'm going to play the odds on this one."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
Hairy_Haggis 1 #14 November 3, 2012 QuoteI tend to think about them the way I think about seatbelts. Yes, you can find examples of people who were killed because their seatbelt somehow pinned them into their vehicle in an accident. But you can find exponentially more examples of people who survived an accident because they were wearing a seatbelt. I'm going to play the odds on this one. Well then wouldn't it have made more sense during the Argus debacle o let everonye who had one keep using it? Using your example, it seems to me they went the opposite and banned seatbelts all together :)It's not the speed that kills ya, it's the sudden stops! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #15 November 3, 2012 Quoteok, in light of a recent discussion at the dz, I would like to know just how many confirmed deaths by a modern (computerized) AAD. For clarity- an event where the AAD lead directly to the death of a person . Personally I cant imagine that there would be many & would have to think the confirmed saves far outway the potential risk.. In the old days of the Sentinel (1970s), some went off prematurely, causing freefall-into-canopy collisions, some fatal. But that's outside the scope of your question. Anyone know if this has happened with a modern AAD? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #16 November 3, 2012 QuoteWell then wouldn't it have made more sense during the Argus debacle o let everonye who had one keep using it? Using your example, it seems to me they went the opposite and banned seatbelts all together :) You're getting confused. In comparing AAD related deaths to AAD related saves, and then comparing that to seatbelts, and the lives that have been saved/lost as a result, all relies on the idea that the AADs and seatbelts were working properly, and then a situation came up that made them deadly. The Argus ban came about because the cutters were trapping reserve loops in place, and thus creating a hazard if they should release at the wrong time. Let's say that seatbelts began grabbing the steering wheel, and steering the car into oncoming traffic, in that case, seatbelts would be banned until the problem was solved. Nobody would say, 'Just keep using them, they save more than they kill when they work right'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairy_Haggis 1 #17 November 3, 2012 ok, but I still feel that i am significantly more likely to be involved in a nasty accident now that the AAD that i had could have avoided than now where i have none at all. I'd still like to see some statistics on the chance of the AAD not working right vs the chance of it doing it's job correctly vs the chance of a save with none installed at all!It's not the speed that kills ya, it's the sudden stops! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #18 November 3, 2012 QuoteI still feel that i am significantly more likely to be involved in a nasty accident now that the AAD that i had could have avoided than now where i have none at all. Again, you're counting on the AAD working as designed. In that case, you might be right. With an AAD that is not working how it's supposed to, you don't know what you're going to get, and as such are unable to make judgements based on probability. QuoteI'd still like to see some statistics on the chance of the AAD not working right vs the chance of it doing it's job correctly vs the chance of a save with none installed at all! You're not going to find it, because when an AAD malfucntions, like the Argus, they ban it. If you want to look at AADs that reacted as-designed to a situation that didn't need it, like an AAD firing because of a really fast swoop, that's another story. In that case, the AAD worked the way it was designed, but the user came up with a situaiton where an AAD fire was not wanted, but triggered the AAD anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #19 November 4, 2012 Quote Quote I tend to think about them the way I think about seatbelts. Yes, you can find examples of people who were killed because their seatbelt somehow pinned them into their vehicle in an accident. But you can find exponentially more examples of people who survived an accident because they were wearing a seatbelt. I'm going to play the odds on this one. Well then wouldn't it have made more sense during the Argus debacle o let everonye who had one keep using it? Using your example, it seems to me they went the opposite and banned seatbelts all together :) Dude Ring up the New owners and ask them if the NO AAD NOT JUMP rule still applies. When he 1st came over I brought it up re, your missus (he wasn't aware of it), So call him up and ask him.BTW you missed a good day of sitting on a plane yesterday You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairy_Haggis 1 #20 November 4, 2012 I'm still not convinced! I think it should be MY decision to weigh up the pros and cons and use it or not, especially when in other countries / containers it's allowed. Why is it someone elses decision to say that THEY think it's more dangerous when maybe I don't , they're not the one using it! and Squeak... shush! I'm in disguise here!!It's not the speed that kills ya, it's the sudden stops! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #21 November 4, 2012 Quote I'm still not convinced! I think it should be MY decision to weigh up the pros and cons and use it or not, especially when in other countries / containers it's allowed. Why is it someone elses decision to say that THEY think it's more dangerous when maybe I don't , they're not the one using it! and Squeak... shush! I'm in disguise here!! I agree with ya dude, except if there is a possiblity that the malfunction could negatively impact on others. (dont know if argus could, ). Also I am aware if your incognito-ness, hence "Dude"You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairy_Haggis 1 #22 November 4, 2012 and you know she's wearing that medal round the house today don't you!It's not the speed that kills ya, it's the sudden stops! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #23 November 4, 2012 Quote and you know she's wearing that medal round the house today don't you! AwesomeYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
