Recommended Posts
pete683 0
Paul,
Excellent news man!!! That takes a load off my mind. Especially since i just sold my cypress-2 last summer. Those things are always firing on me for whatever reason.
Skydive Alabama has always been my home, and favorite, DZ. Looking foward to continue pushing my limits there in the future. Thank you for all you are doing.
Pete Certain
BASE 683
Nite 116
Cave 68
BillyVance 34
QuotePaul,
Excellent news man!!! That takes a load off my mind. Especially since i just sold my cypress-2 last summer. Those things are always firing on me for whatever reason.
Skydive Alabama has always been my home, and favorite, DZ. Looking foward to continue pushing my limits there in the future. Thank you for all you are doing.
Pete Certain
BASE 683
Nite 116
Cave 68
My Cypres expired last August and my rig is currently AAD-less, and will be for some time, so this works out for me. When it gets warmer, I'll be back up there from time to time.
![:) :)](/uploads/emoticons/smile.png)
QuoteQuoteI have personally witnesses two saves that would have been fatal accidents without such device.
_________________________________________________
Were those two students or tandems that have aads mandated already? or so-called experienced jumpers?
I take the stats from the manufacturers with a grain of salt, after all, its a marketing ploy for them (and for dzs that mandate them). But I have to wonder how many of those 'saves' resulted in two-outs, maybe even injuries, because the guy dumped a little low.... And how many would the guy have opened anyways. Always got to remember just because its in 'pro' mode doesn't mean it's an experienced jumper, sometimes freefall students might use pro modes....
So if it was students and tandems, it's already mandated. Why require it of people who know what they're doing? Not to say you can't suggest it -- but why mandate it?
'If' I was made to use an aad in order to jump and it killed me, I'd be pretty pissed off.
I see where of the 18 U.S. fatalities this year, 75% were under open functioning canopies.~ SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT! ~
I think if a DZO/USPA honestly wants to make any dropzone a safer place...statistically speaking, mandatory AOD's shouldn't be at the top of the list.
68% of statistics are made up.
Don't Pull Low... Unless You ARE!!!
The pessimist says, "It can't get any worse than this." The optimist says, "Sure, it can."
Be fun, have safe.
Quote68% of statistics are made up.
Do you have source?
![;) ;)](/uploads/emoticons/wink.png)
Sparky
Nutz 0
It is on the Hooters wet nap pack. Oh, did you want him to tell you that?
"Don't! Get! Eliminated!"
Quote>Yet there is a growing element in the sport that gets its panties in a wad
>over people who don't jump often, use older gear, and/or don't use an
>AAD. These people seem to enjoy imposing their personal preferences on
>the rest of us.
It's not growing. It's massive and has been here for a long time. Those same people are the ones who want you to take a skydiving course before you start skydiving, who want you to use a reserve, who want you to give them enough time on exit, who don't want you to do bigways until you're ready, who want you to follow a consistent pattern, who don't want you to swoop downwind, who don't want you to do demos until you have the right experience and training etc etc. In other words, the assholes who have been there since the beginning of skydiving trying to make the sport a safer one (and more often than not succeeding.)
>Unless, of course, they ban those real small fast mains. What is the
>point of requiring an AAD (based on concern for their customers' "safety")
>yet allowing their customers to jump tiny little parachutes that must be
>flown JUST RIGHT in order to avoid serious injury or death?
It's an increase overall in safety. They could ban small mains but not require AAD's. They could require AAD's AND ban small mains. They could let you jump without an AAD and let you jump whatever main you like. It's their DZ.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Bill, you seem to be replying to someone else. Nobody has suggested that we do away with formal training for beginners, reserve parachutes, or anything else you mentioned. My point is that this element to which I referred has been imposing a series of ridiculous "guidelines" regarding currency, gear, etc. that goes way beyond basic common sense. This has driven up the cost of skydiving while doing nothing to make it safer.
I've been doing this for almost 30 years. It is perfectly safe to use older gear, jump without an AAD, and/or only make a few jumps once in a while. As long as one operates within his experience & comfort zone there is nothing wrong with this.
Experienced jumpers do not forget basic survival skills simply because they take a few months off. Nobody is saying it's okay for the guy returning after a long layoff to get on a 20-way or do a demo, but there's nothing wrong with him doing a small-way, nor is there anything wrong with him using an older rig (assuming he's already familiar with it.)
This mind-set of hyper-regulation is killing the sport.
It is one thing to require a FJC for beginners. It is quite another to require formal retraining for an experienced jumper returning after taking several months off, or refusing to service a rig for a customer because it is beyond "X" years old.
I can't remember the last time I made 20 jumps in a year. Last year I only made seven. After doing mostly hop & pops for a couple of years I went last on a 5-way and flew like a pro. My accuracy skills are not quite as good as Hayhursts or Stearns', but I can just about nail a target every time, even after taking six months off. Yet according to the people to which I was referring, I should not be allowed on a DZ unless I pay for formal retraining and buy an AAD. This is stupid.
That being said, I'm having a problem with this new definition of "freedom" as the right of a DZO to impose stupid restrictions on its customers. We're not arguing about their "right" to require AAD's, we're arguing about the need for such a rule in the first place. In extreme curcumstances AAD's can save lives as well as kill people. Let the customer decide, and stop creating an atmosphere where newcomers are taught to be afraid to jump without one.
Cheers,
Jon
billvon 2,991
>a series of ridiculous "guidelines" regarding currency, gear, etc. that goes
>way beyond basic common sense.
And I am saying that to a jumper that started in 1960, a rule about traffic patterns goes way beyond basic common sense. "I've been jumping for 50 years! You think I can't avoid a few canopies? Fucking nanny state."
>It is perfectly safe to use older gear, jump without an AAD, and/or
>only make a few jumps once in a while.
It absolutely is not. Anyone of any age with any gear who thinks jumping is "perfectly safe" is deluded. AAD's can decrease, but not eliminate, those risks.
>It is quite another to require formal retraining for an experienced
>jumper returning after taking several months off
That's one of those lessons that was written in blood. Currency is critical in this sport.
>This mind-set of hyper-regulation is killing the sport.
As the sport continues to grow, that's not a supportable statement.
>In extreme curcumstances AAD's can save lives as well as kill people.
Agreed.
>Let the customer decide . . .
The guy who takes the risks with his business and his home gets to decide who can risk what at his DZ. You can then decide whether you want to jump there or not.
skypuppy 1
As the sport continues to grow, that's not a supportable statement.
______________________________________________
Everything I'm told leads me to believe the sport is NOT growing. Certainly cspa membership is down from past decades....
_______________________________________________
>It is perfectly safe to use older gear, jump without an AAD, and/or
>only make a few jumps once in a while.
It absolutely is not. Anyone of any age with any gear who thinks jumping is "perfectly safe" is deluded.
_______________________________________________
We're not talking about perfect in a vacuum here. It is certainly safe enough that a 'lot' of people don't have a problem with doing it.... If you want 'perfectly safe' than you should be staying home....
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
>It is perfectly safe to use older gear, jump without an AAD, and/or
>only make a few jumps once in a while.
It absolutely is not. Anyone of any age with any gear who thinks jumping is "perfectly safe" is deluded.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
All right, all right... "Safety" is relative. What I meant was that jumping sporadically with older gear and/or no AAD is no more dangerous than jumping frequently using the best gear available. Sigh.
Cheers,
Jon
>jumper returning after taking several months off
That's one of those lessons that was written in blood. Currency is critical in this sport.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No. This myth is bullshit. I've been jumping this way for longer than many people here have been in the sport and I speak with some authority on the subject.
As long as the returning jumper keeps the workload simple it's no big deal. Stay away from the 40-way, use a more conservative canopy, avoid high winds, and you'll be fine. Anyone can do it.
How many of the people who insist on these stupid rules have themselves gone months at a time between jumps? I may be mistaken, but it seems that most of these people are folks who practically live at the DZ every weekend. They can't remember the last time they went a month without jumping, Their comfort zone includes a level of hyper-currency that is only shared by others who spend as much time at the DZ as they do. This they define as the "norm," which they then attempt to impose on everyone else.
I've read many incident reports in which these people screwed up big time. But I can't remember any such reports involving low-time and/or sporadic jumpers in which some other serious factor (ambitious plans, "downsizing," etc.) was not THE main cause of the accident.
Cheers,
Jon
Agreed.
>Let the customer decide . . .
The guy who takes the risks with his business and his home gets to decide who can risk what at his DZ. You can then decide whether you want to jump there or not.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This brings up another related matter. This mind-set of blaming business owners for the conduct of their customers & employees is wrong and needs to be corrected. This has been discussed politically as "tort reform," "legal reform," etc.
I see two ways to address this. On a personal level, accept any opportunity to serve on a jury, rather than try to get out of it. If it becomes obvious that the plaintiff is attempting to blame the "big corporation" for actions beyond its control, vote to acquit. (Example: If the heating/air serviceman rapes the housewife, HE is responsible, not the company for whom he works. If the pizza guy runs a red light & hits someone, HE is responsible, not the company...)
Politically, vote for the people who share this concern and are willing to make an effort to do something about it. In today's climate, most of these people would be Republicans.
The DZO has fulfilled his end of the agreement by providing a reasonably safe aircraft and a place to land. He never promised he would protect me from myself, and he shouldn't be dragged into court for failing to do something he never said he could do in the first place.
Cheers,
Jon
Had a buddy that was off for six months, wanted to come out and do a simple 3way. I encouraged him to do a solo first to get the cobbs blown off...he didn't see the need until we sat and talked for a bit.
When as a 'refresher' I started asking him some EP's, things like two-outs...all I got was crickets.
Yes, one can easily fall stable and open a big canopy after a lay-off, but certainly they aren't as sharp as they might need to be in 'all' aspects of the sport that they might use even doing a simple solo.
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
billvon 2,991
>AAD is no more dangerous than jumping frequently using the best gear
>available. Sigh.
That's just not true. We've seen a great many instances where jumping with a functioning AAD or RSL or Skyhook could have saved someone's life. We've also seen incidents where lack of currency was almost certainly a factor.
Skydiving's not one of those things where if you just show up you'll be fine. You need to save your own life on every single jump. You have to have the training and experience needed to jump safely - and that doesn't stay with you if you don't jump regularly. You need gear that will operate correctly and land you safely. A 1980-circa Swift with a Pursuit main, round unmodified reserve, ROL deployment system and no AAD/RSL is absolutely less safe than a modern rig with an AAD, RSL and appropriately sized canopies.
Now, is it safe _enough_? That's up to you. But combine an uncurrent jumper, older gear with poor pin protection, lack of backups in the form of AAD, RSL, audible altimeter etc and your odds of an incident go way up.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteOn a personal level, accept any opportunity to serve on a jury, rather than try to get out of it. If it becomes obvious that the plaintiff is attempting to blame the "big corporation" for actions beyond its control, vote to acquit. (Example: If the heating/air serviceman rapes the housewife, HE is responsible, not the company for whom he works. If the pizza guy runs a red light & hits someone, HE is responsible, not the company...)
I greatly respect the thoughtfulness of your posts on skydiving issues. But with all due respect, let me lend some perspective to what you propose:
The only way what you propose could happen is if the prospective juror, during the screening process, lies to the court when asked whether he has any pre-conceived biases that could affect his decision, or if he does, whether he could faithfully set those biases aside and follow only the evidence and the judge's instructions. Although one might say that happens all the time, you're advocating someone who is about to be sworn-in as a temporary member of the judiciary (i.e., juror) to deliberately deceive the court and violate that oath. In my opinion, whenever a juror does that he is engaging in a form of official corruption.
By way of example (only - not to get into a political issue): I generally oppose the death penalty. I've long since decided that if ever I'm called-upon as a juror (or a judge, if I ever become one) to impose a death penalty, I will disqualify myself rather than participating in a capital case. I once was on a panel of prospective jurors for a capital murder case. During the questioning session, the first thing they did was "death qualify" the panel: they weeded out everybody who raised their hand to say they were opposed to the death penalty. I could have kept my hand down, and tried to get on the jury so that I could use my vote to block a death penalty. But I didn't - I raised my hand, and I was out. That's the way it should be done.
Scrumpot 1
QuoteIf the pizza guy runs a red light & hits someone, HE is responsible, not the company...
Until you hear (or subsequently learn) that it is the pizza company's policy to not pay the delivery driver, if the pizza is even 30-seconds beyond (x UNREASONABLE) imposed time from door-to-door constraint. ...Then, maybe even further on top of that - dock/charge the already less-than-minimum wage (i.e. on the verge of abject poverty) driver for that "late" pizza too!
![:S :S](/uploads/emoticons/wacko.png)
![>:( >:(](/uploads/emoticons/angry.png)
Or, that fast-food restaurant's coffee was made ON PURPOSE/by DELIBERATE POLICY so far well OUTSIDE OF EVEN REMOTELY REASONABLE (consumable) temperature ranges (levels even up to 5x beyond just "scalding"
![:S :S](/uploads/emoticons/wacko.png)
![>:( >:(](/uploads/emoticons/angry.png)
Just sayin' (adding)...
![;) ;)](/uploads/emoticons/wink.png)
>over people who don't jump often, use older gear, and/or don't use an
>AAD. These people seem to enjoy imposing their personal preferences on
>the rest of us.
It's not growing. It's massive and has been here for a long time. Those same people are the ones who want you to take a skydiving course before you start skydiving, who want you to use a reserve, who want you to give them enough time on exit, who don't want you to do bigways until you're ready, who want you to follow a consistent pattern, who don't want you to swoop downwind, who don't want you to do demos until you have the right experience and training etc etc. In other words, the assholes who have been there since the beginning of skydiving trying to make the sport a safer one (and more often than not succeeding.)
>Unless, of course, they ban those real small fast mains. What is the
>point of requiring an AAD (based on concern for their customers' "safety")
>yet allowing their customers to jump tiny little parachutes that must be
>flown JUST RIGHT in order to avoid serious injury or death?
It's an increase overall in safety. They could ban small mains but not require AAD's. They could require AAD's AND ban small mains. They could let you jump without an AAD and let you jump whatever main you like. It's their DZ.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites