AAD's & Personal Acceptable Risk Thresholds

[dorbie 0]

So now it's come down to channeling kallend
Risk on a jump is a package deal that includes both sides of the ballance sheet. If someone's decision making process doesn't fit into another's dogma that's too bad. Have you considered that the person being criticized may have a deeper understanding of risk, failure analysis and human factors than you do? How about the possibility that they know exactly what they are doing having studied the available data to their satisfaction?

Are private matters of personal study, risk assessment, motivation and individual world view to be stripped away so we all have to meet some macho litmus test of AAD-less jumping?

Edit: not directed at pilotdave

[hookitt 1]

Quote

Does Kallend see 10way as too dangerous without an AAD? Yes, or No?

Yes. According to what I read. So what? What's your point? He's skilled enough for it and isn't endangering anyone further....Yeah yeah... risk level exceeded... blah blah..

Again I say, so what? He's an experienced skydiver with the skill to do a 10 way speed star with a no show exit. They also wear shin guards.

It truly sounds to me like he's being an intelligent skydiver and you're simply trying to say you're right and he's not. Just becuase you will probably get the last word in... does not make you right.

I wear Body armor to BASE jump .. just in case.. I hit the ground, or a wall or a light pole... etc ... I also wear a helmet. In fact, other risky sports like Moto-Cross includes the use of body armor.

Dress for the crash, not the jump.

This really is the thread that never ends. It's a circular argument. I agree with one thing. Don't push your limits too far. I don't agree that a person shouldn't push their limits. This and many other sports would not have progressed otherwise.

I don't currently have an AAD. You bet your ass I think about it sometimes. Jerry Loftis fell to the ground because he forgot to turn it on and screwed up. Another friend of mine lost altitude awareness and his fired. I'm sure glad he's had the oppurtunity to jump an additional 2000 jumps so far.

Many people think they are with in their limits when they are not. Where do you class those people? I'm not talking someone with 50 jumps that thinks he's unlike the rest and is "comfortable" with his skill. I'm talking about someone who simply thinks they are in their limits but are on the edge.

People do things often because they can. Some... and I think Kallend is one of them... has already paid the dues and can be a smart person and wear an AAD.

I have 2 friends that will not jump without an AAD because they made a pact to each other and their children. No AAD... No skydive. Where do you classify that? Is jumping with out an AAD above their risk level?

YES it is. Most certainly.

Free Pizza beer and wine in the lobby of the hotel I'm in. I can't wait to come back and read the reply.

Cheers

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[genitor 0]

Do you think that anyone should do 10-way speed?

As I said before, I totally understand the following :

"Jumpers shouldn't go on a jump that's over their skill just because they have an AAD."

I don't think that's the same thing as :

"You shouldn't go on a jump unless you're willing to do so without an AAD."

I think we're talking about two different types of jumpers. Two different mindsets. Skill level and gear selection are (at least should be) independent things.

Say Kallend's (evil) twin from the alternate universe comes to the DZ (with a goatee, of course). He's exactly the same as him skill-wise except that he hates AADs. As I said before, their actions will be the same on the 10-way speed dive.

Kallend's evil twin is simply more willing to die in the case that he gets knocked out. Does that make him a better skydiver, or at least more deserving to be on that skydive?

The way I read your posts, that seems to be the main point.

[billvon 2,995]

>He's exactly the same as him skill-wise except that he hates AADs.
> As I said before, their actions will be the same on the 10-way
>speed dive.

Ah, but a _third_ hypothetical Kallend, one who hates AAD's and won't do certain sorts of 10-way because he 'might get knocked out' and therefore die, is safer than _both_ of them. This is not to say that any Kallend is too unsafe; only each Kallend can decide what 'too unsafe' is.

Although pondering a universe of multiple Kallends, each with a slightly differing point of view, and each arguing on DZ.com, gives me the willies. We'd have to give them their own forum. They'd probably make a pretty good 10-way team though.

[pilotdave 0]

Who says the real kallend will go on ANY 10-way, unlike bizzaro kallend who sits out certain sorts of 10-way?

You're comparing apples to oranges... Kallend is perfectly capable of deciding what jumps are or are not too risky for him. The AAD does not make him an idiot.

They'd only be a 5-way team anyway...half of em are AAD dependent and need to give up 10-way. The other 5 won't jump together anyway...too much risk of injuring a non-AAD-equipped kallend.

Dave

[genitor 0]

Quote

Ah, but a _third_ hypothetical Kallend, one who hates AAD's and won't do certain sorts of 10-way because he 'might get knocked out' and therefore die, is safer than _both_ of them. This is not to say that any Kallend is too unsafe; only each Kallend can decide what 'too unsafe' is.

I certainly can't argue with that.
So, with that logic I can only see two possible scenarios :

- NO ONE (regardless of skill) should do those certain 10-way jumps because they are inherently more dangerous.

- People CAN do those more dangerous jumps, but must be more willing to die in the (unlikely?) event of getting knocked out while doing them.

Quote

Although pondering a universe of multiple Kallends, each with a slightly differing point of view, and each arguing on DZ.com, gives me the willies. We'd have to give them their own forum. They'd probably make a pretty good 10-way team though.

That's funny!

• Quote

[billvon 2,995]

>Who says the real kallend will go on ANY 10-way, unlike bizzaro
>kallend who sits out certain sorts of 10-way?

We could ask him. But that would be cheating, and we will have none of that.

>You're comparing apples to oranges...

We're comparing Kallends to Kallends!

>Kallend is perfectly capable of deciding what jumps are or are not
>too risky for him. The AAD does not make him an idiot.

Of course. That's true whether Kallend X uses an AAD or not.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

The alternative to my opinion is that it is OK to tell someone that thinks a skydive is too risky for them, go ahead and do it, youll be fine because you have a Cypres. Is that OK?

Yes/No

No

Then we agree.

Some people apparently think it is OK for someone that feels a jump is too risky, to go ahead and do it anyway because they have a Cypres.

Derek

Curious - you seem to always mention the scenario "one jump" is too risky. What about the jumper that feels ALL jumps are too risky to do without an AAD?

What entertains me about this endless argument is that it covers a very small portion of the active jumpers. However I have heard nearly every jumper at one point dismiss their terrible pack job by claiming they have a reserve to save them. Now, where do we have more deaths in this sport? By those that stack the deck in their favor by wearing a Cypres for those events they can't plan for.....or from some form of malfunction? Last I checked there hasn't ever been one in the first category and we just had a death in the other category this past weekend from a very experienced jumper.

People continue to argue in this thread with no real point. No conclusion. No offereing a process to improve things. Instead they continue to argue and throw out hypothetical situations and try to one-up each each in a verbal sparring match in the hopes of getting the last word. How does any of this help or further the sport?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>Who says the real kallend will go on ANY 10-way, unlike bizzaro
>kallend who sits out certain sorts of 10-way?

We could ask him. But that would be cheating, and we will have none of that.

>You're comparing apples to oranges...

We're comparing Kallends to Kallends!

>Kallend is perfectly capable of deciding what jumps are or are not
>too risky for him. The AAD does not make him an idiot.

Of course. That's true whether Kallend X uses an AAD or not.

There are certain people I would choose not to do 10-way speed with, but that decision would have nothing to do with their choice of to AAD or not to AAD.

In an infinite universe, all possible things, including Kallends, occur infinitely many times. Yes, we would like our own forum.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

People continue to argue in this thread with no real point. No conclusion. No offereing a process to improve things. Instead they continue to argue and throw out hypothetical situations and try to one-up each each in a verbal sparring match in the hopes of getting the last word. How does any of this help or further the sport?

Hey, it's the middle of the week, rain is rolling in, and we can't talk about guns in this forum. My job doesn't exercise my brain enough.

And underneath it all are serious thoughts involving safety and wisely choosing what dive profile is appropriate for each individual. My opinion the thrust of the debate is in the wrong place, but I also believe strongly that it's better to have too much debate and talking rather than too little.

[billvon 2,995]

>In an infinite universe, all possible things, including Kallends,
>occur infinitely many times. Yes, we would like our own forum.

I think I would pay good money to read such a forum!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>In an infinite universe, all possible things, including Kallends,
>occur infinitely many times. Yes, we would like our own forum.

I think I would pay good money to read such a forum!

Which ones of you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,995]

>Which ones of you?

The ones of me that have jobs that don't much care what I do on the net as long as I deliver.

[Designer 0]

Lucky for me,AAD's are not a requirement to jump at our DZ.Others close by,make it a requirement.Humm,old school rules worked great for yrs.Stuff like when in "Doubt Whip it out",still works!Procedure,practice still gets the job done.Students need help.If your experienced and don't trust your procedures by all means own a AAD!

[pilotdave 0]

Yep, nobody ever used to go in until the cypres was invented...

The cypres shouldn't change anyone's emergency procedures. If you're experienced or not and don't trust your emergency procedures, get some training or quit jumping. That's not what a cypres is there for. It's not a substitute for pulling... it just does that if you don't, for any reason. But we all know no experienced jumpers have ever lost altitude awareness.

Dave

[billvon 2,995]

>I don't think having an AAD was ever a criterion used to earn a
>coach rating, or an AFF rating, or get an invitation to a 200+ big way.
> Generally speaking the necessary skill has already been
> demonstrated for these.

True for the most part. But an interesting quote from Kate Cooper this morning at one of her bigway camp seminars:

"If you think you need certain kinds of safety equipment for a skydive, you need to re-evaluate doing that skydive."

Which has pretty much been my point all along. She summed it up better than I did.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>I don't think having an AAD was ever a criterion used to earn a
>coach rating, or an AFF rating, or get an invitation to a 200+ big way.
> Generally speaking the necessary skill has already been
> demonstrated for these.

True for the most part. But an interesting quote from Kate Cooper this morning at one of her bigway camp seminars:

"If you think you need certain kinds of safety equipment for a skydive, you need to re-evaluate doing that skydive."

Which has pretty much been my point all along. She summed it up better than I did.

Sandy Wambach thought the same thing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Sandy Wambach thought the same thing.

She would probably have survived that jump if she did have an AAD, but she didn't ever need an AAD as a crutch to make a jump. This is the point you continue to fail to understand. You think it is about having an AAD or not. It isn't. It is about needing the AAD to make a jump or not.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

NEEDING the AAD does not mean not jumping without it. It means going to die without it.

I totally agree that it would be dumb to go on any skydive that you thought you'd NEED an AAD or a reserve or a helmet or floatation equipment or whatever. But when someone refuses to make a particular jump without an AAD, it does not mean that person believes he or she will NEED an AAD on that jump, just that the probability that he or she will die without it is elevated to some extent (determined individually).

I think billvon's quote from Kate Cooper is very true and kallend's reply was totally off the mark. But I still don't agree that "needing the AAD to make the jump" has anything to do with a person's choice to use an AAD or not. Nobody NEEDS an AAD until they're at 700 feet with no canopy over their head and not trying to put one there. It's not a crutch, which helps someone accomplish something.

I'm guessing kallend doesn't ever think he NEEDS an AAD when he does 10-way. He uses one because he thinks he MIGHT need one. His choice not to do 10-way without one is not an indication that he thinks he'll NEED one.

Anyone that goes on any jump without thinking they MIGHT need an AAD hasn't read the incident reports lately. The probability of needing one is not the same on every jump of course. Where you draw the line between safe enough and not safe enough is up to the individual, when they have the experience to make that decision.

Dave

[kallend 2,027]

Out for the dozens of people who died no/low pull without AADs over the last 20 years, how many of them do you think made their last jump convinced that they wouldn't need an AAD?

I'd bet it was every single one of them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pilotdave 0]

So they weren't AAD dependent. What's your point?
I agree with you. Nobody thinks they NEED an AAD. Some accept that they MIGHT need an AAD. Some people believe that if they don't pull, they deserve the consequences. And still others think they have the skill to never be in that situation.

Choosing to always use an AAD (for all or certain jumps) because you accept that you might need it seems very reasonable to me. Going on a jump where you truly believe you'll need it seems reasonably insane to me. But simply the fact that someone chooses to use the AAD for certain jumps seems like acceptence of risk, not ignorance of it.

Dave

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

So they weren't AAD dependent. What's your point?
I agree with you. Nobody thinks they NEED an AAD. Some accept that they MIGHT need an AAD. Some people believe that if they don't pull, they deserve the consequences. And still others think they have the skill to never be in that situation.

Choosing to always use an AAD (for all or certain jumps) because you accept that you might need it seems very reasonable to me. Going on a jump where you truly believe you'll need it seems reasonably insane to me. But simply the fact that someone chooses to use the AAD for certain jumps seems like acceptence of risk, not ignorance of it.

Dave

My point is that there were a large number of skydivers who thought the way we are being encouraged to think, who are now dead and might be alive had they not thought that way.

I reckon my CYPRES amortizes at around $0.60 per jump. If I have it and don't need it, I lost $0.60. If I need it and don't have it, I die. There is just no issue as far as I can see.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>I don't think having an AAD was ever a criterion used to earn a
>coach rating, or an AFF rating, or get an invitation to a 200+ big way.
> Generally speaking the necessary skill has already been
> demonstrated for these.



"If you think you need certain kinds of safety equipment for a skydive, you need to re-evaluate doing that skydive."

.

My first cutaway yesterday led me to think that it's a Good Job we don't encourage that attitude about reserves, or no one would practice their emergency procedures.

PS it was quite uneventful: spinning line twists that threw me on my back - had the reserve over my head above 2,000ft. Main and freebag landed in the river, got the main back.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

The cypres shouldn't change anyone's emergency procedures.

If a jumper installs an AAD and does not reexamine their emergency procedures, they are askinf for trouble.

True, one should not neglect deploying a canopy because they have an AAD.
That same AAD, however, SIGNIFICANTLY increases the odds of having two canopies out after a lower than usual main deployment. How often did people have two canopies out before AAD use was widespread? Of course, if your e-procedures involve going straight to your reserve if you are in freefall below 1800 ft, a two out scenario is very unlikely.

Before I installed an AAD, I would have thought nothing about deploying a main from 1800 ft. But, when the AAD went into my rig, I had to change my emergency procedures TO AVOID PROBLEMS MY AAD INCREASED THE LIKLIHOOD OF HAVING.

There are very few people (I can think of only one) who I wouldn't recommend an AAD for. But I would not ever recommend anyone install an AAD and not reevalute their E procedures. Often times they SHOULD change.

For Great Deals on Gear

[pilotdave 0]

You said you won't pull as low now that you have an AAD. What emergency procedure did you change? If you have a malfunction, what would you do differently?

Dave