Cutting through the AAD Bafflegab

[teason 0]

I'm starting this because the previous threads are hurting my head. AADs are a touchy subject so lets all stay frosty.

First, the following statements are true and cannot be disputed.

1.) AADs lessen the likelihood of being seriously injured or kill by a low/no pull.

2.) Irresponsible jumpers are more likely to be injured or killed than responsible jumpers.

These are the two basic truths that can guide us through the quagmire:

The first side of the argument states that a jumper cannot make himself a safer jumper by wearing an AAD. This statements has been the source of the main confusion because it fails to define what a "safer jumper" is.
This point of view defines a "safer jumper" as one who exercises good judgement. It identifies that the most important safety skill we have is good judgement. Good judgement can manage risk far better than any AAD ever will. This point of view is consistant with statement 2.
Unfortunately without the definition of "safer jumper" it is up for interpretation and those who define "safer jumper" as one less likely the be injured or killed, will see a conflict with statement 1.
This is why there is so much confusion in the thread. The basic terms we are using are being defined differently. The end result is that one side is saying AADs cannot replace good judgement and the other side saying AADs reduce the likelihood of serious injury or death; or as it is written in the posts AADs don't make safer jumpers vs. AADs make jumpers safer.

Foggy arguments.

The following are some arguments that are either poorly constructed of just plain based on poor logic. It's my hope that I can clarify the points and reveal the ones that are bogus.

1.) AADs breed complacancy.

The first time I recall hearing this argument, it was from a DZO who often said "AADs are for students". It was origionally forged in the furnaces of arrogance and allowed people who irrationally oppossed their own AAD use a moral higher ground. This was the reason they didn't have one and it gave the argument a sour taste in the mouths of others. A shame because the argument is not entirely without merit. We've all seen someone use poor judgement and defensively shoot back criticism like "well, at least I have an AAD". They cling to their AADs as if it proves they are a safe jumper.
I personally believe that the AAD is being used to deflect criticism for doing something stupid not the cause of the stupidity itself.

2.)Jumping without an AAD is stupid

This statement hinges on the speaker assuming that to not have an AAD is an unacceptable risk. When you look at the percentage of fatalities that happen from a low/no pull, even pre '92, and then throw in the higher acceptable openning altitudes, you see that an AAD, while still provides a reduced risk, only reduces that risk by a fraction. Other things, such as canopy collisions and landing problems, can only be managed by good judgement. I believe that an irresponsible jumper with an AAD is less safe in general than a responsible jumper without one (and I own a DZ with an AAD policy).

3.) You can't prove fatalities have been reduced by AADs.

What the speaker means is the degree by which they have been reduced and that AADs are not solely reponsible. They are only technically right, as higher activation altitudes and other influences do have a small impact. However, talk to Karen Dean or Kim Griffin and their numbers will blow the technicallity of the argument apart.

4.)AADs are for students, an experienced jumper is more likely to be killed by an AAD than saved by one.

I've always chuckled at this. First because of the low numbers of canopy entanglements caused by AADs and secondly it's own logic contradicts itself.
The arguement is as follows;
1.)"Students loose altitude awareness and are more likely to be saved by an AAD." (true, by the way)
2.)"An experienced jumper is less likely to lose altitude awareness."(also true)
3.)"The AAD could fire during deployment and then you'd get two out."
Here's where the argument falls apart. I don't know to many Experienced jumpers with sentinals or FXC 12000s and when I have seen them, they opt to open high. That means that the Expereinced jumper will get two out when he's lost his altitude awareness and is therefore openning low! You can't have the argument both ways. Either they are altitude aware which means they won't get misfires or they aren't which means they need an AAD! Am I the only one who finds that funny? (please no annecdotes about tandem settings on experienced jumpers and static shock activation)

4.)I want an AAD just incase I get knocked out.

Yeah, like when you read the incident posts, it's full of people being knocked out. I find this the most bothersome. Most no/low pulls and AAD saves happen to conscious people. To think that the reason you are wearing the AAD is to protect you from that extremely rare occurence shows a lack of understanding of the risks you face when you jump from a plane. If you think losing altitude awareness isn't a danger for you then it's time to take up golf. With or without an AAD it's dangerous. You will be the most likely cause of an accident and when you accept that resposibilty, you will become a responsible jumper.

In conclusion here are the points truly up for debate:

Are resposible jumpers without AADs safer than irresponsible jumpers with them?

Do AADs affect judgement or are they used to defend critsism following poor judgement?

To what degree do AADs reduce risk for the average jumper and does it justify the cost?

Do DZs have the right to enforce AAD policies?

What situations (camera, birdman, hop n' pops etc.) make AAD use critical/unimportant?

Phew! that felt good to get off my chest!

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Unfortunately without the definition of "safer jumper" it is up for interpretation and those who define "safer jumper" as one less likely the be injured or killed, will see a conflict with statement 1. [1.) AADs lessen the likelihood of being seriously injured or kill by a low/no pull. ]

No. If you define a "safer jumper" as one less likely the be injured or killed by a low/no pull, then an AAD jumper is safer than a non-AAD equipped jumper.

I define a "safer jumper" as a jumper less likely to be injured/killed at all.

For 2 jumpers with the same limit to the amount of risk they are willing to take;

An AAD-equipped jumper is no more a "safer jumper" than a non- AAD equipped jumper except from sub AAD activation altitude pulls or no pulls. They are equally exposed to any other injury or cause of death unless given all other things being equal.

The AAD equipped jumper that goes on jumps that exceed their limit of risk because they have an AAD has a higher chance of something happening (except sub AAD activation altitude pulls or no pulls) than the non-AAD eqiupped jumper that does not go on jumps that exceed their risk limit. Again this is if both jumpers have the same risk limit.

By making riskier jumps (above their risk limit), the AAD-equipped jumper has a higher chance of something bad (besides injury/death from sub AAD activation altitude pulls or no pulls) happening.

By making less risky (at or below their risk limit), the non-AAD equipped jumper has a smaller chance of something bad ((besides injury/death from sub AAD activation altitude pulls or no pulls) happening

P.S. Nice post.

Derek

[Praetorian 1]

Quote

In conclusion here are the points truly up for debate:

Are resposible jumpers without AADs safer than irresponsible jumpers with them?

Yes Responsible jumpers are SAFER in all respects of skydiving except the "shit happens/murphy/hell is other people" aspect of the sport where all of these risks apply on every jump and nothing can be done about them ... except wearing an AAD which MIGHT reduce some of the risk of dieing

Quote

Do AADs affect judgement or are they used to defend critsism following poor judgement?

They might, but I get really pissed when people tell me what I'm thinking don't you? So believe me or not I choose to jump only with an aad and yet make EVERY jump on the assumptions that 1 I will pull for myself and 2 the AAD is there only as a back up ... I accept that I might screw up I'm not happy about that but it might happen and if it happens I'd rather be ashamed of it and learn ... then be dead .. which might happen anyway AAD or not ...

Quote

To what degree do AADs reduce risk for the average jumper and does it justify the cost?

Its a HELL of an expensive insurance pollicy ... but its insurance I'd rather have and not need .. then need and not have.

Quote

Do DZs have the right to enforce AAD policies?

DZOs have the right to enforce ANY policies they see fit .. Jumpers have the right to follow those rules or jump elsewhere

Quote

What situations (camera, birdman, hop n' pops etc.) make AAD use critical/unimportant?

If you don't want an AAD for any jump thats your call, if you have one and turn it off (or dont turn it on) for any jump (accept one where the design of the jump would render it useless or even make it a danger) WHY THE HELL DID YOU WASTE YOUR MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE ... do you call and cancel you car insurance before going for a sunday drive in the park just because you dont plan on going oven 25mph and the weather is nice?

Quote

Phew! that felt good to get off my chest!

Me too .. my reply was not directed at you but the world over all NICE POST wonder where its gonna go....

oh and Phew that felt good to have a solid well laid basis to bounce my rant off THANKs

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[teason 0]

Quote

An AAD-equipped jumper is no more a "safer jumper" than a non- AAD equipped jumper except from sub AAD activation altitude pulls or no pulls. They are equally exposed to any other injury or cause of death unless given all other things being equal.

Exactly. It protects the jumper in a certain pertentage of potential situations. For some that percentage is higher than others. For some, the cost justifies that protection.

Whatever decision is made, it should be based on accuate self-assessment and awareness, not a false understanding of what is and what is not safe.

The second definition is not based on Jumper "A" with an AAD and jumper "B" without - that would require more insight than just who has the AAD, we'd have to see their canopy size, jump numbers, currency, decision making ability, skill level and I could go on.
Rather, the opposing definition of "safer jumper" compares Jumper "A" with an AAD vs. Jumper "A" without.

This is the crux of the misunderstanding but I think we're back on track

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The second definition is not based on Jumper "A" with an AAD and jumper "B" without - that would require more insight than just who has the AAD, we'd have to see their canopy size, jump numbers, currency, decision making ability, skill level and I could go on.

Hence the "all other things being equal".

Derek

[speedy 0]

Quote

First, the following statements are true and cannot be disputed.

1.) AADs lessen the likelihood of being seriously injured or kill by a low/no pull.

In the case of a low pull, the AAD may increase the risk of being injured or killed. 2 outs can be dangerous.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[davelepka 4]

This is simple:

Use an AAD, it's another layer of safety.


As far as complacency, any jumper who would rely on an AAD, or use it as a crutch/excuse to do something they wouldn't do without an AAD, is a dumbass. This jumper is dangerous any way you look at it. This jumper is the one who really needs the AAD.

[lawrocket 3]

All of this AAD talk seems to me to have been addressed by Mr. Booth.

Booth's Law Number 2
"The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant."

Thus, the AAD CAN lead to skydivers taking more chances (I'd count complacency as "taking chances"), keeping the fatality rate constant.

BUT - skydivers typically don't want to risk pulling low if they have an AAD. Why? There's one reason in particular that all skydivers seem to fret about more than anything - MONEY!

When your AAD fires, that's money out the window for no good reason (unless you are knocked unconscious). A reserve repack, recharge of the AAD all add up to lost money. Furthermore, the rig is not available while this is happening. Lost jumps, etc.

So, to your questions:

Quote

Are resposible jumpers without AADs safer than irresponsible jumpers with them?

Of course. Irresponsible jumpers can kill others, and AAD's don't help with that. AAD's won't help with that guy who can't keep separation and who falls right through your opening canopy.

Quote

Do AADs affect judgement or are they used to defend critsism following poor judgement?

Of course they affect judgment. Some ways positively (

Quote

To what degree do AADs reduce risk for the average jumper and does it justify the cost?

Plenty. An AAD fire will be discovered. Jumpers also dont' want that stigma attached and the probable grounding that comes with it. Just like any other insurance - you try like hell to never use it so your cost for it doesn't increase.

Is the cost justified? I think so. It's better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it - especially when the inevitable consequence of the latter is death.

Quote

Do DZs have the right to enforce AAD policies?

YES. YES. YES.

I lack the experience to answer your last question, though I reckon AAD's in BASE are superfluous..

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

any jumper who would rely on an AAD, or use it as a crutch/excuse to do something they wouldn't do without an AAD, is a dumbass.

Well, explain that a bit more. If an AFF instructor chooses not to do AFF without an AAD, then AFF jumps are something he wouldn't do without an AAD and therefore he's a dumbass?

If an experienced freefly coach chooses not to coach without an AAD, is that person a dumbass for coaching?

My real question: Is the AAD a crutch/excuse every time a skydiver WILL do a certain type of jump with an AAD but won'd do it without an AAD?

Dave

[adamsr 0]

good post, makes all the right arguments without getting conforntational like some posts on these forums.

Personally i think the cypres is a great device, and as long as the skydiver is a 'responsible' jumper then the cypres can reduce the small risk of death even further.

I use a cypres, and will continue to use one, and I use a cypres for the simple reason that shit happens. Every jump i make I have a dive plan, know the altitude i plan to pull at, and have a fair idea of what's going to happen during the dive. But you can never plan for the unknown; skydiving is a sport where if things go wrong, they can go wrong spectacularly, and the cypres goes a small way to reducing to overall risk.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

If an AFF instructor chooses not to do AFF without an AAD, then AFF jumps are something he wouldn't do without an AAD and therefore he's a dumbass?

If an experienced freefly coach chooses not to coach without an AAD, is that person a dumbass for coaching?

Well, if you really want to know, then yes. Any activity you feel you NEED an AAD for, cannot be a good idea.

Do I coach new freefliers? Yes I do. Will I do it without an AAD? Thats a tough question, as I prefer to always jump with an AAD, but, the presence of an AAD has nothing to do with my decision.

If you feel an AAD is needed to increase your chances for survival, you may be making the wrong skydive. I have ZERO doubt when I leave the plane with a freefly student that I wil land safely and in one piece. ZERO.

As for AFF instructors, I would say the same thing. If you don't feel confident doing your job on your own, you've got the wrong job.

This isn't preschool, and it's not a video game. You do everything you can to keep yourself alive, or you may not be. Everything includes proper equipment selection as well as proper skydive selection. Miss the mark on either one, and you're leaving yourself exposed to whatever's out there (I don't know what's out there, but it scares the crap out of me, and I'll do whatever I can to avoid finding out what it is).

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

If you feel an AAD is needed to increase your chances for survival, you may be making the wrong skydive. I have ZERO doubt when I leave the plane with a freefly student that I wil land safely and in one piece. ZERO.

Was your AAD free? If not, why'd you waste your money on it? We're coming from very different perspectives since I don't have 4000 jumps, but I have doubt on every jump. History of very experienced skydivers being killed adds to that doubt. Confidence is great and I can't say I EXPECT to get hurt on any jump, but I don't have zero doubt.

I don't think the AAD is NEEDED to increase my chances for survival. I'm willing to accept that when I jump without one, my chances for survival are decreased and I'm ok with that. But I do think my AAD DOES increase my chances for survival.

Do you do any jumps (regardless of AAD) that you don't have zero doubt about? Have you ever?

Dave

[davelepka 4]

Quote

We're coming from very different perspectives since I don't have 4000 jumps, but I have doubt on every jump.

Doubts about what? Your performance during the jump? Your acuracy on landing? We all do.

Doubts about surviving your parachute descent? Not me.

You can look at this thing from both sides all day long. I use an AAD becasue it's a good idea, and it has proven itslef to be a 'no penalty' layer of safety I can add to my skydive. By 'no penalty' I mean that it does not interfere with my skydiving in any way. The only penalty of any kind is the cost, and that is low in comparison to the benefits.

I have had doubts in the past. Maybe my first wingsuit jump. This was years ago, when the first Birdman suits hit the market, and there was no safety record to speak of. Would I do the same today? I'm not sure. It may have been a mistake on my part. It may have been prudent to wait, and see how the suits performed on the market. Maybe wait until Birdman certified some instructors, and taken a FJC.

Regardless of the mistakes I have made in the past, what's more important now are the things I know today. If you are happy taking chances, rock on.

I prefer to be a bit more conservative. Sure I fly a small canopy, and I swoop, but I have been doing it for years, and it has become the norm for me. I took chances when I was youger, and less experienced. It seemed worth the risk then, but now it seems better to be more cautious, and come back tomorrow for more cautious fun.

Quote

when I jump without one, my chances for survival are decreased and I'm ok with that.

Thats just fucked up. My survival is my #1 concern. Lets face it, if I don't survive, whatever concerns I may have had become irrelevant.

[AndyMan 7]

These two statements

Quote

I have ZERO doubt when I leave the plane with a freefly student that I wil land safely and in one piece. ZERO.

and

Quote

You do everything you can to keep yourself alive, or you may not be.

Seem to be at odds with each other. Aren't they?

It seems to me that people with a whole lot more experience and knowledge than anyone posting here have proven your second statement true. It's for that reason that I think your first statement must be categorically false.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I don't think the AAD is NEEDED to increase my chances for survival

You do if you need it to decrease risk below your risk/benefit ratio....................

Derek

[davelepka 4]

You almost got me on that one. I had to re-read my post to figure it out.

My refernce to 'ZERO' doubt in my mind that I will land safely is in regards to factors within my control such as the selection of my equipment and my selection to make a perticular skydive. This was in line with the gist of the thread; which is consious desicions made regarding AAD's, and their use.

The second statement was in the end of the post where I was interjecting some of my thoughts on safety and general survival. It was reffering to the unknown, random factors the pop up from time to time. My point was that with those factors out there, why not take every advantage you can, so if one does pop up on you, you are as ready to as you could be.

I suppose I could have made that a little more clear, but when I get going, I jump to some conclusions which are foregone in my mind, but sometimes less obvious to others. It's almost a stream of consiousness thing, and it's another reason why this is a shitty way to communitcate.

[teason 0]

Quote

In the case of a low pull, the AAD may increase the risk of being injured or killed. 2 outs can be dangerous.

While your statement is technically correct, the generalization of the origional point cannot be disputed. If we focus on one possible scenario, we won't be able to see the forrest for the trees as it precludes all others.

This brings up an important point. AADs reduce your margin of safety when deploying a main. How many of use practice a loss of altitude awareness and the correct actions when we go through emergency scenarios?
How many of us are going to dump our main when we realize we are to low? I'd bet lots.

It's all about understanding the dangers and risk involved on our jump.

p.s. I've never seen a low jumper go for the reserve first, they always seem to go for their main. I've done it three times including the time 4yrs ago I thought my AAD was broken for when it didn't fire.(turn, flare,land all that quick)
Shame on me!
This may be a deeper issue.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

In the case of a low pull, the AAD may increase the risk of being injured or killed. 2 outs can be dangerous.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Weak argument.

Low pull/no pull have killed far more people than two-outs.
Before Cypres was introduced, a consistent 1/3 of fatalities - in USPA summaries - were low pull/no pull.

Two-outs are tame in comparison.
The toughest part about two-outs is maintaining the disciple to only make tiny control inputs, forgetting about flaring and being ready to PLF.

• Quote

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Before Cypres was introduced, a consistent 1/3 of fatalities - in USPA summaries - were low pull/no pull.

Weak argument. :)

AAD != Cypress

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

If you feel an AAD is needed to increase your chances for survival, you may be making the wrong skydive. I have ZERO doubt when I leave the plane with a freefly student that I wil land safely and in one piece. ZERO.

I bet John Faulkner thought he same thing when he did a freefly coaching jump with his CYPRES turned off. Nice guy, I really miss him.

...

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

[davelepka 4]

Was that the guy who's student corked into him? Maybe last summer at SDC? I'm not sure just from the name.

[teason 0]

Jeez Rob, I hope you didn't think that was me saying that!

People hyper focus on one potential yet unlikely scenario. It's like the anti-seatbelt dude that says a seatbelt can kill you. The argument focuses on one possible scenario and precludes the vast majority where the opposite is true.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.