skypuppy 1 #51 April 3, 2012 Interestingly enuf, Quebec dz's all went mandatory aad over a decade ago, and yet I think there may have been more fatalities in Quebec than any other province of Canada since. If you count the fatalities at other dz's in Canada that also have mandatory aad policies, I think that;s probably well over half of all skydiving deaths, while way less than half of dz's are aad mandatory. Interesting coincidence?If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #52 April 3, 2012 As I've stated in other well meaning threads... I'm just an old fart who has no horse in this race, but, I do have an opinion. I just recently purchased a new rig. I did a lot of research and put a lot of thought into my selection of equipment. I did equip it with an RSL. I did NOT purchase an AAD. I weighed the pros and cons. I looked at all the reasons to have an AAD and I looked at arguments against. The deciding factor, for me, was the $ COST $. My question for discussion is this... Why has the cost of this device not come down? Is that not the trend for electronic devices? I'm not suggesting we’re being gouged or anything like that, I'm just curious. At a lower price (possibly somewhere below $1K) I might be more inclined to purchase. Blaze away O’ fellow Opinionated Butt Heads!! Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #53 April 3, 2012 Quote I have 3 rigs, just recenly 2 have no AADs one my mirage with an Argus, banned, the 2nd a Cypress 12 years old good bye the third a racer never had an AAD. Why is the Argus banned? IIRC, it's approved for use in the Mirage, and as long as you have post SB cutters (September 2007) with the stainless steel blades, you should be good to go. Am I missing something?=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #54 April 3, 2012 Quote My question for discussion is this... Why has the cost of this device not come down? Is that not the trend for electronic devices? I'm not suggesting we’re being gouged or anything like that, I'm just curious. I'm guessing it's a function of 1. High R&D costs. 2. Demand. If folks are going to pay $1400 for an AAD today, why would you sell it for less just because you've recouped your R&D dollars. The new M2 AAD is looking to be a sub $1000 AAD, but then again so was the Vigil and Argus when they were released, and they both crept to $1300 in no time. I would be very interested to see FXC produce another generation of electronic AAD. They have the manufacturing capabilities, the R&D, and the history to put a project like that together, and I would think they have the clout in the defense market to somewhat subsidize sport production costs. [/speculation]=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #55 April 3, 2012 Quote Quote My question for discussion is this... Why has the cost of this device not come down? Is that not the trend for electronic devices? I'm not suggesting we’re being gouged or anything like that, I'm just curious. I'm guessing it's a function of 1. High R&D costs. 2. Demand. If folks are going to pay $1400 for an AAD today, why would you sell it for less just because you've recouped your R&D dollars. 3. It's also because of relatively low supply, very little competition and a small, niche market that is essentially a captive clientele. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #56 April 3, 2012 Quote It may be true that RSL's have caused accidents, but any attempt to make a comparison is futile since RSL saves are non-incidents that don't get reported. Ignoring the possible dangers makes little sense. Any balanced approach to a subject should list the good AND the bad and let the listener/reader decide. To ignore one side of the subject is not being honest."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #57 April 3, 2012 Quote Its hard to imagine a lawsuit against an AAD manuf. because the rigger didn't put the loop through the cutter and the AAD manuf. didn't design the AAD so that this was detected.... but it's going on right now. Completely different premise. The above situation involves alleged negligence on the part of the person providing a service on legally required equipment. In the case of licensed jumpers, there is no legal requirement or even a USPA mandate for use and no negligence in not requiring that use.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #58 April 3, 2012 Quote Quote It may be true that RSL's have caused accidents, but any attempt to make a comparison is futile since RSL saves are non-incidents that don't get reported. Ignoring the possible dangers makes little sense. Any balanced approach to a subject should list the good AND the bad and let the listener/reader decide. To ignore one side of the subject is not being honest. I don't think Paul was being dishonest or ignoring anything. If he listed all the "possible dangers" of every aspect of the things he has to write about in the fatality report, he would never finish. Do you want him to cover possible AAD mis-fires? How about possible sky-hook malfunctions? Audible alert battery failure? Jumpers should be responsible enough to understand the limitations and potential problems with any gear they jump. The fatality report is not intended to be a thesis on skydiving equipment to explain those things. There are other venues for that.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #59 April 3, 2012 But where is the negligence on the part of AirTec? That's the part that I was commenting on. Helmut can't understand why in the world he is part of the lawsuit.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #60 April 3, 2012 Quote Helmut can't understand why in the world he is part of the lawsuit. SOP. Helmut, aka: Airtech Gmbc is the (perceived) top-of-the-tree "deep pockets" in the org chart, is all.coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #61 April 3, 2012 I realize that but this is foreign to Helmut. A rigger made a mistake, his product worked as intended and advertized and he's in court. SOP here, not in Germany. One option is to pull out of U.S.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #62 April 3, 2012 Quote Do you want him to cover possible AAD mis-fires? When he is advocating the positive side to be balanced he should mention the possibility of problems that the thing he is advocating could create. You have little danger of your reserve opening due to a low pull if you didn't have an AAD. Knowing that potential issue is important and ignoring it while lauding accolades on an AAD is not balanced and only a part of the story. Quote How about possible sky-hook malfunctions? I think mentioning that an incorrectly routed skyhook can cause a problem is EXACTLY the type of thing you should mention if you are saying how great they are. Quote Jumpers should be responsible enough to understand the limitations and potential problems with any gear they jump Fact is they are not... And how are they supposed to learn about it if no one mentions it? I didn't know a CYPRES does not arm till 1500 feet till my buddy burned in when he jumped out at 1200 feet. I didn't know a CYPRES would fire if you pulled low till I saw a guy land a down plane."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #63 April 3, 2012 >I didn't know a CYPRES does not arm till 1500 feet till my buddy burned in >when he jumped out at 1200 feet. I didn't know a CYPRES would fire if you >pulled low till I saw a guy land a down plane. Yep. And I assumed for years that if you cut away at 1000 feet that you'd speed back up and your cypres would fire once you hit 78mph - so it was a sort of backup for an RSL. Then we had two fatalities at the WFFC that demonstrated the error in my thinking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deyan 36 #64 April 3, 2012 Quote Quote Jumpers should be responsible enough to understand the limitations and potential problems with any gear they jump Fact is they are not... And how are they supposed to learn about it if no one mentions it? The first thing they have to do is read and understand the manuals. Unfortunately 99 % of the jumpers are way too lazy to do that. I know a guy who can tell you 20 ways to mount a GoPro, but he didn't know that a square reserve is packed in a freebag"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deyan 36 #65 April 3, 2012 Quote Yep. And I assumed for years that if you cut away at 1000 feet that you'd speed back up and your cypres would fire once you hit 78mph - so it was a sort of backup for an RSL. Then we had two fatalities at the WFFC that demonstrated the error in my thinking. watch this video and you will change your mind again !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_MsYQ3GtAg&feature=related"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #66 April 3, 2012 Quote But where is the negligence on the part of AirTec? That's the part that I was commenting on. Helmut can't understand why in the world he is part of the lawsuit. Shotgunning on the part of the plaintiff attorney. Typical tactic for a lot of legal reasons and often results in settlements on the part of those who did nothing wrong. The justification for including them is probably something like "AirTec failed to properly train riggers on proper installation, resulting in the death of the plaintiff". Bullshit, yes. But it often scores the cash.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #67 April 3, 2012 Quote The first thing they have to do is read and understand the manuals. Unfortunately 99 % of the jumpers are way too lazy to do that. In my case, I didn't have an AAD at the time so I didn't have a manual and didn't bother to borrow one to read up on something I didn't own. But your point is 100 % correct. But this just enforces my opinion that to be balanced, both the good and bad needs to be explained. Quote I know a guy who can tell you 20 ways to mount a GoPro, but he didn't know that a square reserve is packed in a freebag Yep. One thing that bothers me is when someone tries to sway a person but does not explain the whole story. For example, I know people that would be shocked if you told them that an AAD or an RSL has killed people. These people only have ever been told to positive sides of these devices and should also learn the negative sides so they can make a more informed choice. Don't get me wrong, AAD's and RSL's have saved for more than they have killed... But ALL the information should be presented, IMO. Otherwise how is someone going to learn? But back on topic... The DZO has the right to require anything he wants in my opinion. I may not agree, but if I don't like it I am free to jump somewhere else or start my own DZ."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #68 April 3, 2012 No as I said they are claiming the AAD should have been designed to prevent the rigging error, i.e. a sensor to know if the loop is through the cutter.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #69 April 3, 2012 Quote Quote Do you want him to cover possible AAD mis-fires? When he is advocating the positive side to be balanced he should mention the possibility of problems that the thing he is advocating could create. You have little danger of your reserve opening due to a low pull if you didn't have an AAD. Knowing that potential issue is important and ignoring it while lauding accolades on an AAD is not balanced and only a part of the story. Quote How about possible sky-hook malfunctions? I think mentioning that an incorrectly routed skyhook can cause a problem is EXACTLY the type of thing you should mention if you are saying how great they are. Quote Jumpers should be responsible enough to understand the limitations and potential problems with any gear they jump Fact is they are not... And how are they supposed to learn about it if no one mentions it? I didn't know a CYPRES does not arm till 1500 feet till my buddy burned in when he jumped out at 1200 feet. I didn't know a CYPRES would fire if you pulled low till I saw a guy land a down plane. Mr. Sitter isn't advocating anything. He is detailing the facts surrounding specific fatal accidents and why they occurred or likely occurred. The report isn't a dissertation on all the possibilities of any given technology or technique. It is a dissection of the accidents that occurred in a given year and what "may have" prevented them. The fatality report is not intended to do what you are asking for. It never has been. As for jumpers who aren't responsible enough to learn the limitations and risks associated with their equipment, they are just another fatality report waiting to be written. Maybe we should blame the modern-day instructional process that let's people get away with such ignorance for that one.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #70 April 3, 2012 Quote I realize that but this is foreign to Helmut. A rigger made a mistake, his product worked as intended and advertized and he's in court. SOP here, not in Germany. One option is to pull out of U.S. If Helmut didn't realize he could get included in a lawsuit in the U.S. in the way he did, he's had his head in the sand for an awfully long time. The shotgun lawsuit thing is as old as the ambulance.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #71 April 3, 2012 Quote No as I said they are claiming the AAD should have been designed to prevent the rigging error, i.e. a sensor to know if the loop is through the cutter. Well in the eyes of the plaintiff that's a true statement. Lawsuit on.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #72 April 3, 2012 Quote Mr. Sitter isn't advocating anything. Nonsense, he made a claim that people who died might have lived if they had "X". That is by definition advocating something. Quote It is a dissection of the accidents that occurred in a given year and what "may have" prevented them. The fatality report is not intended to do what you are asking for. It never has been. 1. Then he should not propose a solution if he is not willing to give a THOROUGH explanation 2. Or when he suggests a solution he should also include the dangers his solution might CAUSE. Quote As for jumpers who aren't responsible enough to learn the limitations and risks associated with their equipment, they are just another fatality report waiting to be written. And how EXACTLY is a new jumper going to learn about the downsides when the official report from the official organization fails to mention them?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Austintxflight 0 #73 April 3, 2012 Just a question, what if the DZ set a jump minimum for having an AAD. So saying anyone with less than X amount of jumps must use one and after that its your choice. I'm sure there would be a number most would agree with. 100? 250? Thoughts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 150 #74 April 3, 2012 Quote Just a question, what if the DZ set a jump minimum for having an AAD. So saying anyone with less than X amount of jumps must use one and after that its your choice. I'm sure there would be a number most would agree with. 100? 250? Thoughts? Jump numbers and experience, do not, in any instance, provide guaranteed protection against the possibility of death while skydiving. When the reaper wants you, you're gone.....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #75 April 3, 2012 Quote Quote Mr. Sitter isn't advocating anything. Nonsense, he made a claim that people who died might have lived if they had "X". That is by definition advocating something. Quote It is a dissection of the accidents that occurred in a given year and what "may have" prevented them. The fatality report is not intended to do what you are asking for. It never has been. 1. Then he should not propose a solution if he is not willing to give a THOROUGH explanation 2. Or when he suggests a solution he should also include the dangers his solution might CAUSE. Quote As for jumpers who aren't responsible enough to learn the limitations and risks associated with their equipment, they are just another fatality report waiting to be written. And how EXACTLY is a new jumper going to learn about the downsides when the official report from the official organization fails to mention them? Well I'm glad you asked. 1. Parachutist magazine routinely has articles on equipment and the ups and downs of using it. Old issues are usually available at your local drop zone too. 2. There are a myriad of online resources - including technical articles right here on dz.com - on the issue. 3. Many drop zones offer regularly scheduled classes and seminars on everything you have mentioned, and many DZ websites include such information. and my favorite... 4. Good instructional programs include information on the risks associated with a jumper's choice of equipment. I could go on and on, but the point is made. You're trying to make it sound like the only place a jumper can learn about the potential down sides of equipment is in the annual fatality report. Nothing could be further from the truth.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
