Would you lower your min cutaway altitude if you had a Skyhook?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I can only think of one type of jump I wouldn't make without an AAD, really big ways.

If the risks are too high without an AAD, then they are too high with an AAD.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Too many skydiver negate the increased safety potential of safety devices by increasing their risk level when they have them. I strongly disagree with this practice.

Well this is what brings up my question. What makes you so sure firing the reserve into a spinning malfunction at 400 feet has less risk than cutting away when you have a skyhook? If it works as advertised more often than reserves entangle with spinning mains, you've decreased your risk by cutting away. I realize there are way too many variables to give a definite answer, but what is the likely outcome of firing the reserve into a spinning main? What's the likely outcome of cutting away from the same malfunction at 400 feet when you have a skyhook?

Not saying you're wrong... I'm asking.

Dave

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

If the risks are too high without an AAD, then they are too high with an AAD.

I don't like that generalization. I understand it, but I don't like it. It's been discussed a million times. What about the case of a jumper that won't jump at all without an AAD? The risk IS too high for that person without an AAD, but is not too high with an AAD. History has made a very good case for this line of thinking. Skydiving seems to be significantly less risky since the cypres became common.

Isn't deciding what is "too risky" a personal decision? Skydiving is "too risky" for most people. Skydiving without an AAD is "too risky" for some skydivers. Skydiving WITH an AAD is "too risky" for some skydivers.

I understand your point. An AAD is not a license to be reckless, just as airbags in cars don't mean you can pretend they're bumper cars. But I simply don't agree with your general argument.

Dave

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Well this is what brings up my question. What makes you so sure firing the reserve into a spinning malfunction at 400 feet has less risk than cutting away when you have a skyhook?

Because a) multiple emergency procedures complicates what needs to be as simple as possible, b) if the Skyhook fails to operate and the reserve doesn't inflate in time, I'm dead, and c) my odds would be better firing a reserve into a mess than cutting away at 400 feet.

Quote

but what is the likely outcome of firing the reserve into a spinning main?

I would have a lot of fabric over my head for sure, making a survivable landing a good possibility.

Quote

What's the likely outcome of cutting away from the same malfunction at 400 feet when you have a skyhook?

I would either go in with not enough of a canopy over my head or land a fully inflated reserve, depending on if the Skyhook worked and if it didn't if the reserve inflated in time.

What if you were at 100 feet and had the choice of cutting away (and either living or dieing completely dependant on if the Skyhook worked or not) or firing the reserve into the main (and hoping for the best)?

Would you drive faster/carelessly if you had an airbag?

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I understand your point. An AAD is not a license to be reckless, just as airbags in cars don't mean you can pretend they're bumper cars. But I simply don't agree with your general argument.

But that is exactly what people are doing when they will do a big way (for example) because they have an AAD. They are driving faster because they have an airbag, it is the same thing. Airbags reduce the likelyhood of injuries or death if the driver is involved in an accident just like AAD's reduce the chances of bouncing if the jumper doesn't pull for whatever reason. It is commonly agreed that you shouldn't drive any differently because you have an airbag, but people will make a jump they wouldn't because they have an AAD. I don't see any difference.

If the jump is too dangerous without an AAD, it is too dangerous with an AAD.

Derek

[billvon 2,990]

>What about the case of a jumper that won't jump at all without an AAD?

It's possible that that person might be too dependent on AAD's, or may rely on them to do more than they can.

> The risk IS too high for that person without an AAD, but is not too high
> with an AAD. History has made a very good case for this line of thinking.

Well, at least one jumper is dead because he used that line of thinking.

>Skydiving seems to be significantly less risky since the cypres became
>common.

Right, but I'm sure that having all cars equipped with adaptive cruise controls and lane-excursion detection systems would make driving safer too. You wouldn't even have to look at the road; just set the cruise control to follow 200 yards behind someone and then look up whenever the lane alarm went off.

Sure, the highways would get safer. But drivers would also, in all likelihood, get worse. Is that a good tradeoff?

To put it in skydiving terms, there are now far more people who depend upon cypreses to save their lives; the number of cypres saves far outweigh the number of people who used to die from no pulls even factoring in the growth of the sport. Are we better off as a sport if fewer people are able to pull on time? Even if more of them survive?

>Isn't deciding what is "too risky" a personal decision?

Of course. But I am sure you've met the 100 jump wonder who is positive he can handle the 1.8 to 1 Stiletto he just got his hands on. He understands the risk, it's a personal decision, you're not his mother blah blah blah. We can still decide that's a stupid decision for him to make.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Bill Booth was right

Derek

[Canuck 0]

Derek,

I don't have an airbag because of the way I drive, I have an airbag because of how all the other assholes on the road drive. No matter how safe and cautious I may be, I can't control for the guy who runs a red light...

AADs make skydiving safer. I have never once made the decision to go on a particular jump because I've had an AAD, but I have sure as hell thought to myself in the middle of a cluster-fuck hybrid dive "Man am I glad I've got Cypres on board!"

Canuck

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I can only think of one type of jump I wouldn't make without an AAD, really big ways.

If the risks are too high without an AAD, then they are too high with an AAD.

Aren't [really] big ways just dangerous, period? Accidents are common, no? Doesn't seem bad to throw in an extra backup. But that's that other subject.

28-0 is the poll, but a lot of people seems to be giving answers on the other side. It will be interesting to see what happens in another 5-10 years, esp if RWS licenses it out into common use. It seems a bit early to change common practices.

The proper car analogy may be antilock brakes. Offered great promise, initially garnered insurance reductions, but it hasn't turned to improve overall safety. People are tailgating more now and ABS usually lets em get away with it. Until it doesn't. Then the air bags save em!

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Aren't [really] big ways just dangerous, period? Accidents are common, no?

Right, so the jumper must decide if the risk is acceptable or not, without consideration given to an AAD.

Quote

Doesn't seem bad to throw in an extra backup.

Of course not, unless that back up is counted on to reduce the risk level to an acceptable level.

Quote

It will be interesting to see what happens in another 5-10 years, esp if RWS licenses it out into common use.

Like I linked to Bill's post above, unfortunately people will probably negate the safety benefit from it.

Quote

The proper car analogy may be antilock brakes. Offered great promise, initially garnered insurance reductions, but it hasn't turned to improve overall safety. People are tailgating more now and ABS usually lets em get away with it. Until it doesn't. Then the air bags save em!

Exactly, you shouldn't tailgate because you have ABS and you shouldn't do a big way because you have an AAD.

Derek

[jakee 1,489]

Most people would do a freefly jump with a vector 3 that they wouldn't do with say, a wonderhog or even a vector 2. is that trusting technology too much?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Canuck 0]

I'm seriously not following you on this one Derek...

By your argument, we shouldn't only go on a skydive if we have a reserve, because by having one, we have admitted that there is too much risk that the main will malfunction.

The reserve, as a back up device, reduces the risk of dying.

An AAD, as a back up device, reduces the risk of dying.

A life jacket, as a back up device, reduces the risk of dying. It would be ludicrous to say I shouldn't go white water canoeing because I wouldn't do it without a life jacket.

Where are you going with this?

Canuck

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Most people would do a freefly jump with a vector 3 that they wouldn't do with say, a wonderhog or even a vector 2. is that trusting technology too much?

This isn't about trusting technology too much, it is about using back up decives to offset increased risk, negating their increase in safety they should provide.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

By your argument, we shouldn't only go on a skydive if we have a reserve, because by having one, we have admitted that there is too much risk that the main will malfunction.

That is not my argument at all. My argument is that some jumpers negate the increase in safety back up devices offer by increasing the risk they accept because they have them. A reserve is considered ‘standard equipment’, like a seat belt in a car.

Quote

Where are you going with this?

Read Bill Booth's post, I put a link in one of my above posts.

Driving faster because you have ABS or an airbag is silly. Jumping on a big way because you have an AAD is silly. They both negate the increased safety benefit of the device in question.

Derek

[jakee 1,489]

Ok, I see how that applies to the skyhook.

But thinking along the lines of the AAD/ bigway thing, all other things being equal, is someone on a bigway who wouldn't be there without an AAD any less safe than someone with an AAD who would be there without one? And surely that person isn't less safe than if they didn't have an AAD full stop.

I would jump without an AAD (although they're mandatory at my home DZ) but I know people who say they wouldn't, who are all very concientious about safety procedures.

Just thinking out loud really but I suppose I don't see how those people are negating whatever extra safety an AAD gives.

(BTW, I don't have an audible either, FWIW, so I'm probably not device dependant)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Canuck 0]

Quote

Quote

Doesn't seem bad to throw in an extra backup.

Of course not, unless that back up is counted on to reduce the risk level to an acceptable level.

Quote

But this is EXACTLY what back up devices are for! They do reduce risk to an acceptable level.

I understand what you are saying about negating added safety measures. For example, lets say skydiving is 80% safe. Adding the Skyhook makes it 90% safe, unless we add 10% more risk to our skydiving behaviour, in which case we are back down to 80%. But your AAD/big-way argument just doesn't hold water.

Here's another one for you. I think you're a BASE jumper. Would you jump lower objects with a vented canopy than you would with a non-vented canopy? Would you jump lower objects with a larger PC than with a smaller PC? Couldn't your same argument apply here - that if the object is too risky to jump a non-vented canopy with a small PC, then it's too risky to jump with a vented canopy and a large PC?

Canuck

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[billvon 2,990]

>They do reduce risk to an acceptable level.

What Hook and I are saying is that you should:

1. Reduce risk to an acceptable level by using good jugdement and getting good training and experience and THEN

2. add devices to reduce risk.

Don't do them in the opposite order. Don't decide to get a device that allows you to overlook good jugdement i.e. don't get on a risky bigway because of the added confidence your cypres gives you. Don't get an audible so you don't have to look at the ground (or your altimeter) during freefly jumps. Don't get a Skyhook so you can delay deciding what to do about a mal. Don't get an RSL so you can use a soft reserve handle with slippery gloves.

By getting an AAD to make a risky jump OK, you are not increasing your safety factor. Indeed, if that AAD saves your life on a risky jump but you are left paralyzed from the collision, that AAD may have done far more harm than good. Much better to be on the ground wishing you had made the jump than wishing you hadn't later.

[Canuck 0]

Do you jump your square/square in conditions that you wouldn't have jumped a square/round or a round/round?


Canuck

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Jumping on a big way because you have an AAD is silly. They both negate the increased safety benefit of the device in question.

What I can't get my head around is that you seem to be saying that someone on a big way with an AAD who would do the jump w/o an AAD is not negating the benefit, while someone who would not do the jump w/o an AAD is negating the benefit. Aren't they both taking the same risk with the same back ups?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

But this is EXACTLY what back up devices are for! They do reduce risk to an acceptable level.

No, that is not what they are for. They are supposed to increase your safety level so you are safer.

Quote

I understand what you are saying about negating added safety measures. For example, lets say skydiving is 80% safe. Adding the Skyhook makes it 90% safe, unless we add 10% more risk to our skydiving behaviour, in which case we are back down to 80%. But your AAD/big-way argument just doesn't hold water.

Exactly, but the big way/AAD example does hold water. If a jumper considers a 100-way too dangerous. Then they buy an AAD so they are now safer. They decide that because they have an AAD they will now do 100-ways. That is not what back up safety devices are for, they are counting on that AAD to lower their risk level. If is shuts off unbeknownst to the jumper, they are now unkowningly accepting a risk level they consider too high. They are also negating the added safety an AAD can offer by using to offset risk.

Quote

Here's another one for you. I think you're a BASE jumper. Would you jump lower objects with a vented canopy than you would with a non-vented canopy?Would you jump lower objects with a larger PC than with a smaller PC? Couldn't your same argument apply here - that if the object is too risky to jump a non-vented canopy with a small PC, then it's too risky to jump with a vented canopy and a large PC?

Does a vented canopy open faster, always, than a non-vented canopy? If yes, then I am simply selecting the right tool for the job. I am still accepting a higher risk level, regardless of the canopy, by jumping a lower object. Poor example. A better BASE analogy would be would I pack sloppy because I had WLO toggles? Of course not. I wouldn't pack sloppy because I had a way to clear a slider up lineover, that would negate the added safety benifit WLO togggles can offer.

Choosing the right tool for the job can reduce risk level. That is a completely seperate discussion. I am discussing negating the increase in safety a back up device can offer by accepting a higher risk level because of that back up device.

Bill Booth's example was he designed a deployment and release system that allowed a jumper to deploy, cutaway, and get a reserve out in 500 feet less altitude than before. So instead of being safer rigs, jumpers started pulling 500 feet lower, negating the increase in safety. This is akin to driving faster because you have a car with an airbag, negating it's increase in safety.

Derek

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

No, the idea of additional saftey devices is to make things safer, not allow dumber things.

I probably wouldn't mind having one, but it would not make me want to hum it any lower than I would.

Besides, I don't even jump with a RSL anyhow...

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Aren't they both taking the same risk with the same back ups?

Yes, the difference is one is actually exposing themselves to a risk level they feel is too high without even knowing it.

Take 2 drivers. Based on their abilities, reaction times, experience, etc, one won't drive more than 5 mph above the speed limit, the other won't drive more than 10 mph over the speed limit. The 5-mph over driver doesn't have an airbag, the 10-mph over driver does. The 5-mph over driver buys a car with an airbag and decides they can now drive 10-mph over the speed limit. Do you see the flaw in the thinking? Are they taking the same risk, 10-mph over the speed limit with airbags?

What if the airbags in both cars are broken and won't activate in a collision and the drivers do not know they are broken?

Derek

[billvon 2,990]

> Do you jump your square/square in conditions that you wouldn't
>have jumped a square/round or a round/round?

Definitely. And I would take my Nitro in winds that I wouldn't fly my paraglider. But I would fly a C182 in winds that I wouldn't jump in, depending on the airport.

[diablopilot 2]

Because I choose not to rely on a complex system that increases the chance of a rigging error.


The device is a good idea, but not one to be relied on just like a Cypres is a good idea, but should never be relied on.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Quote

But this is EXACTLY what back up devices are for! They do reduce risk to an acceptable level.

No, that is not what they are for. They are supposed to increase your safety level so you are safer.

Ugh. What in the world is the difference between risk and safety level? Safety just so happens to be my job. Risk is how we define safety level.

Your argument simply makes no sense to me. Listen, I don't disagree with you. Safety devices reduce risk level EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL. You're simply suggesting that we leave everything else equal when we add safety devices. I have no problem with that. But the examples you're using just don't support that argument... at least not to me.

How much risk is acceptable is a personal decision. Sure some people may choose to accept way too much risk, and in this sport, that can affect everyone so we have rules, like BSRs, and guidelines, like wingloading charts, to prevent that from happening when it can be avoided. But this is a dangerous sport. There's no question that we all take a pretty big risk every time we jump. In theory, people with AADs are taking slightly less risk.

A 100 way is more dangerous than a solo. A 100 way with an AAD is slightly less dangerous. Should something go terribly wrong, it might just save your life.

What's wrong with being fine with doing a solo with no AAD but wanting one for a 100 way? YES the risk of the 100 way is higher! BUT THAT'S OK WITH ME! And assuming I have the skill to go on that jump, why do you care whether or not I'd do it without an AAD? It's MY choice how much risk I want to take - to a point, as I said above.

Why not extend your argument to helmets? Never make a skydive with a helmet you wouldn't make without one? Well I wear a helmet on solos just in case. Should I not do a 2-way because I want the extra protection of a helmet?

I AGREE that I should take the same care not to smack my head into anything when I wear a helmet as when I don't. That's fine. But you're arguing something much broader.

Dave