Back up devices (from incidents)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Anyone who says you shouldn't make a jump with a CYPRES that you wouldn't make without one. This is not much different than saying you shouldn't downsize without doing this or that to prove that you can. It is more than a hint, it's a challenge.

You misunderstand. I have said several times that it is a good thing to have an AAD in your rig. I NEVER said take it out to prove that you would jump without it. I did say do not make a skydive that you wouldn't make if you didn't have an AAD. So far you are the only one that is reading into my posts that I am challenging anyone to take their Cypres out of their rigs.

To make it clear, I am not suggesting/challenging/hinting for anyone to remove their AAD.

Derek

[metalslug 36]

Quote

Are you saying you'd be OK with a jumper that cutaway and let theor RSL or AAD activate their reserve for them or just didn't pull at all and let their AAD fire and save them?

To your knowledge, has this scenario ever happened ? i.e: a scenario where the jumper was altitude aware, made a conscious decision not to pull any handles and passively waited for their AAD to fire?
If it has happened, then I absolutely agree with you that such a level of reliance is unacceptable.

The tandem incident that you mentioned would appear to not be such an incident, as the TM was not altitude aware and did not deliberately wait for the AAD to fire. Device failure was involved (the alti), but as you have mentioned yourself already, human error occurred in the TMs failure to make use of his senses. Where one device (and one human) failed, a second device saved, and I'm sure that TM is a grateful and wiser man today as a result.
Would you speculate on the level of reliance in the Perris incident that sparked this thread ?
Do you think its likely that the jumper made a conscious decision not to pull and just wait it out ? ...or is it more likely that harness issues / unfamilar gear / delayed reaction were factors in the no pull/low pull ?

I believe that what kallend has been pointing out is that human error does occur and will occur in future, at all levels, and that it doesn't even have to be your own error that kills you (canopy or freefall collisions etc). Such errors are certainly not excusable or lightly dismissed, but they happen.
It is for these moments, when the human fails, that many devices take their place, and that can surely not be seen as an undesirable level of reliance ?

We do not know the exact circumstances that resulted in the no pull/low pull of the Perris incident, but we do now know the exact circumstances that prevented Cypres activation, which has indirectly allowed many conclusions to made about how that particular aspect of the incident could have been prevented. I believe this is the reason why so much comment has been focused on the Cypres in that incident.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

To your knowledge, has this scenario ever happened ? i.e: a scenario where the jumper was altitude aware, made a conscious decision not to pull any handles and passively waited for their AAD to fire?
If it has happened, then I absolutely agree with you that such a level of reliance is unacceptable.

Yes, it has.

Quote

Would you speculate on the level of reliance in the Perris incident that sparked this thread ?
Do you think its likely that the jumper made a conscious decision not to pull and just wait it out ? ...or is it more likely that harness issues / unfamilar gear / delayed reaction were factors in the no pull/low pull ?

I have no idea why they didn't pull, there couldbe so many different reasons that to throw one or two of them out wouldn't be fair to the dozens of others that are equally possible.

Quote

It is for these moments, when the human fails, that many devices take their place, and that can surely not be seen as an undesirable level of reliance ?

No, that is the desired level of reliance, when back up devices only come into play after a human failure. It is a mindset more than anything. A way of thinking about back up devices and your role in saving yourself.

Jumpers need to ask themselves few questions;

1) Do I jump differently because I have/don't have an AAD?

2) Do I rely on my altimeter(s) to tell me when to pull or does my altimeter(s) simply confirm what my eyes are telling me?

3) Am I prepared for an altimeter failure?

4) Is there any doubt in my mind that I will save myself barring an incapicating incident (shoulder dislocatioon, collision, medical issue, etc)?

Derek

[Ron 10]

Quote

To your knowledge, has this scenario ever happened ? i.e: a scenario where the jumper was altitude aware, made a conscious decision not to pull any handles and passively waited for their AAD to fire?

Yes it has happened several times.

I know of a tandem master that didn't pull his reserve cause he thought his RSL would do it....And he ended up with a CYPRES fire.

The offical CYPRES saves page has quite a few people who just waited...

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

To your knowledge, has this scenario ever happened ? i.e: a scenario where the jumper was altitude aware, made a conscious decision not to pull any handles and passively waited for their AAD to fire?

Yes it has happened several times.

I know of a tandem master that didn't pull his cutaway cause he thought his RSL would do it....And he ended up with a CYPRES fire.

The offical CYPRES saves page has quite a few people who just waited...

In the pre-CYPRES days there were a number of people that just waited too. All the way to the ground. There is no indication in the data that this behavior is anything new.

...

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

[livendive 8]

Quote

Here's a graph I posted about 4 years ago on rec.skydiving during a similar "discussion".

The naysayers lamented the increase inthe number of CYPRES saves and how it indicated device dependency and bad attitude among new skydivers. Oh dear!

I, on the other hand, looked at the bottom line, which is that the number of fatalities due to no and low pulls declined dramatically, with a remarkable (inverse) correlation to the saves.

To be quite honest, I don't much care if skydivers become dependent or not, as long as the bottom line is that they live longer.

What was the source of your "saves" data? It seems low by at least an order of magnitude.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

I know of a tandem master that didn't pull his cutaway cause he thought his RSL would do it....And he ended up with a CYPRES fire.

What? Do you mean didn't pull his reserve?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

In the pre-CYPRES days there were a number of people that just waited too. All the way to the ground. There is no indication in the data that this behavior is anything new.

No one waited for their Cypres to fire before Cypres's were around. Being capable of pulling and waiting for your Cypres to fire is new.

Derek

[Ron 10]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I know of a tandem master that didn't pull his cutaway cause he thought his RSL would do it....And he ended up with a CYPRES fire.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What? Do you mean didn't pull his reserve?

He expected the RSL to pull it...When he realized it did not he went for the Reserve...The CYPRES had fired.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I know of a tandem master that didn't pull his cutaway cause he thought his RSL would do it....And he ended up with a CYPRES fire.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What? Do you mean didn't pull his reserve?

He expected the RSL to pull it...When he realized it did not he went for the Reserve...The CYPRES had fired.

OK, I get it. The way you wrote it suggested he was waiting for the RSL to pull the *cutaway*.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jumpwally 0]

Splitting hairs again,,,aarrgghhh

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[Ron 10]

Quote

In the pre-CYPRES days there were a number of people that just waited too. All the way to the ground. There is no indication in the data that this behavior is anything new.

Waiting for the Cypres is new and there are cases of it.

Quote

July 1994:
Dortmund, Germany - Expert CYPRES: A skydiver was unable to pull her hand deploy. At about 2000 ft. she made the decision to deploy the
reserve but in spite of using both hands was unable to do so. CYPRES worked as expected and activated her reserve. She later said she fully
trusted CYPRES and had waited "patiently" until the appropriate altitude was reached.

Quote

August 1995:
IItaly - Expert CYPRES: A skydiver exited at 3,800 m. When he prepared for opening, he became unstable keeping his hand deploy in his hand.
At 600 m he realized he was very low, and he decided to do nothing but let CYPRES open his reserve. CYPRES worked as expected, and the
jumper had an uneventful landing.

Quote

16.July 1999
Moscow,Russia:
A skydiver with 182 jumps experienced a hard pull on her BOC handdeploy. She tried to solve this problem until the CYPRES fired. She had the
same problem already one year ago (May 98) when she had approx.80 jumps. As on the jump in 1998, she was now saved the second time by
the CYPRES

Quote

24.May 2003
Germany, Gera: After a normal freefall with separation in 1200 meters the skydiver attempts to pull his BOC pilotchute at approx. 900 meters, but
does not find it. He decides to pull his cutaway handle. The first and only attempt to find the reserve handle is negative. At this moment the
jumper decides to go into stable box – position and to wait for his CYPRES to activate. The skydiver was wearing camera and was filming the DZ
hangar, which became bigger and bigger. 12 sec. canopy ride after CYPRES activation.

A quick check found three that admitted to waiting on a CYPRES. And one who had TWO fires for the SAME problem in less than a year.

This shows a clear dependance on the toys.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I know of a tandem master that didn't pull his cutaway cause he thought his RSL would do it....And he ended up with a CYPRES fire.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What? Do you mean didn't pull his reserve?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


He expected the RSL to pull it...When he realized it did not he went for the Reserve...The CYPRES had fired.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OK, I get it. The way you wrote it suggested he was waiting for the RSL to pull the *cutaway*.

Uh, you see I wrote it that way since I am very clearly stupid.

Quote

I know of a tandem master that didn't pull his cutaway Reserve cause he thought his RSL would do it....And he ended up with a CYPRES fire.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Praetorian 1]

ok ok good point, people do this ... people do stupid stuff, however please don't lump all people in the same catagory because you can find examples of stupid (or at least ignorant) actions on the part of in DUH viduals ... In the first instance though the post claims she tried with both hands and was unable to pull the reserve ... hard pull? maybe she was dead without the cypres. In the others ..... well some divers should be involved in a sport with a heavy ball and 10 pins, at least until they seekout and get proper training ... and even then some will still find a way to get their skull up past their sphincter.. I'm glad when they do we get to mock the stupid or ignorant .. and in somecases the unluckey to their face insted of posthumusly.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

however please don't lump all people in the same catagory because you can find examples of stupid (or at least ignorant) actions on the part of in DUH viduals .

I don't tend to lump everyone in the same class...

However, to be honest none of these people before the jump would most likely say they would have not pulled the reserve.

I don't know any active jumper that does not think that they will react correctly.

I doubt any jumper that ever bounced thought they would.

What I *HAVE* seen is that due to AAD's being so good and reliable that many people are doing things that they would not have done without an AAD (Or RSL, or Audible Alti).

The fact that these people will do things with these devices and not without them is a clear indication that people are relying on these devices.

While I am glad that people are not bouncing, I am unhappy that people are doing things that they would consider unsafe if they did not have an AAD.

If you would not do the jump without an AAD, you should not do the jump at all.

And my BIGGEST problem is how some people think the dependance is OK. Some even here are trying to say that the ADD failed, or was confusing.

The AAD had nothing to do with this accident. It did not cause a fatality.

And I am just amazed that some people think the AAD failed.

She failed to stop the jump.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

A quick check found three that admitted to waiting on a CYPRES. And one who had TWO fires for the SAME problem in less than a year.

This shows a clear dependance on the toys.

I don't dispute that. But what were the people who waited and burned in without CYPRESes waiting for, Ron? It's not like it's a new phenomenon.

Every save, for whatever reason, is one fewer dead body. I get the distinct impression that some people wish they'd burned in instead.

...

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

[billvon 2,991]

> Every save, for whatever reason, is one fewer dead body. I get the
>distinct impression that some people wish they'd burned in instead.

I prefer them to not jump at all.

Imagine you have 100 people throughout the US who are cypres dependent. They will not jump without one; they tend to freeze up under pressure, so they won't jump without the security a cypres affords them.

Case 1 - they all have cypreses and they all jump regularly. Eventually they have malfunctions. 50% of them freeze up. In 90% of those cases, the cypres saves their life. The other 10% turn their cypres on at home, or forget to turn it on, or their mal doesn't generate enough speed to fire it or whatever. They die.

Case 2 - they all get told "do not jump with a cypres unless you can jump without one." The prospect terrifies them, so they don't jump.

Case 1 - 5 people dead. Case 2 - 0 people dead. I prefer case 2.

A cypres is not a magic device that will save your life no matter what. It is a device that will help in some cases. You will have fewer fatalities if you have competent people jumping without cypreses than if you have incompetent people depending on their cypreses to save them - so if that's your choice, then I'd have to go with the fewer dead people option.

A much better option is to have competent people jumping with cypreses; that's the best case scenario. So how can you determine who is cypres dependent? One way is to simply ask them if they will jump without one. If the answer is 'yes' then they are not cypres dependent. If the answer is 'no' then they _may_ be dependent.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I don't dispute that. But what were the people who waited and burned in without CYPRESes waiting for, Ron? It's not like it's a new phenomenon.

Waiting and thinking that a CYPRES will save you IS new. Its the thinking you will be fine and giving up since you had a cool toy that is new.

You could not wait for a CYPRES before they existed. Yes, people burned in for a number of reasons...

But today we have people who instead of trying to save themselves wait for a back up device to save them.

Also we have people doing more dangerous things just because they have them.

I don't see how you fail to grasp that simple concept.

Quote

Every save, for whatever reason, is one fewer dead body. I get the distinct impression that some people wish they'd burned in instead.

Thats like me saying I think you wish people would stop pulling reserve ahndles since a CYPRES is so good.

I wish people would wear a CYPRES, but act in a manner that they don't allow themseves to do stupid things since they have one.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[cbain 0]

Quote

What I *HAVE* seen is that due to AAD's being so good and reliable that many people are doing things that they would not have done without an AAD (Or RSL, or Audible Alti).

The fact that these people will do things with these devices and not without them is a clear indication that people are relying on these devices.

While I am glad that people are not bouncing, I am unhappy that people are doing things that they would consider unsafe if they did not have an AAD.

If you would not do the jump without an AAD, you should not do the jump at all.

In the 4 examples you listed do you think that they felt the jump was beyond their ability without having an AAD? I don't see any indication in the reports that they were low timers doing big ways or planning some crazy trick for the jump that they would've felt they needed an AAD to do.

They definately were depending on their AAD but if you asked them before hand, "would you do this jump if you didn't have an AAD?" They probably all would've said yes. And if they went on to actually do the jump without the AAD, they might have all died instead.

I don't think asking the question "would you do this jump if you didn't have an AAD?" is a clear indication of whether someone is depending on the device to save them or not. Maybe a better question is "Do your EPs at any time include waiting on your AAD to fire while you do nothing?"

On a side note the first time I read Derek's posts in the incidents forum I also got the impression that one should at least be willing to do a jump without an AAD and without an altimeter and that somehow jumping with these things all the time means you're automatically depending on them. He did later clarify though to say that jumping with these things is good but just not to depend on them.

Christina

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Even hinting that someone should make a jump without an AAD just to show that they are willing to do that is, IMO, irresponsible.

Who did that?

Derek

A year back in the last really long discussion on gear reliance, I believe multiple people suggested it, and that anyone unwilling to do so indicated an unhealthy dependency. None of the statements in the current tense have been so direct, but we're seeing many of the same differences in thinking about what reliance is. That is - is a Cypres used as an extra edge, or an unhealthy crutch?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Did anyone think I suggested that you go out and drive with your airbag disabled and not wear your seatbelt?

I did say you should drive like you don't have an airbag..........

People say you should act though you are surprised if your main opens so that you are ready to execute your EP's, that does not mean you should cut away on every jump to prove you are ready.

That is NOT my point at all. My point is, do not drive faster/riskier because you have a seatbelt and airbag and do not skydive riskier because you have an altimeter and an AAD. Do not depend on back up gear, because the second you do, it is no longer back up gear. That is my point.

Everyone says, well I don't depend on my AAD or altimeter, but these same people have their Cypres fire because their altimeter broke. They were relying on it, they just didn't realize it.

Derek

[AndyMan 7]

Hmm.

I often drive faster and riskier because i have faith in my seatbelt, airbags, and brakes.

When I was street racing, I only did so after I installed a 5-point harness.

It would be terribly unwise to do so on the basis of trust that I can hit the brakes fast enough to "save my own life".

Now that I'm old and fat, I won't drive on the highway without a seat belt.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I often drive faster and riskier because i have faith in my seatbelt, airbags, and brakes.

Wouldn't it make more sense to slow down and reduce the odds of needing the seatbelt/airbag in the first place?

Derek

[AndyMan 7]

You'd like me to slow down while street racing? That seems to miss the point or "racing".

Gear dependence is nothing new, and rarely is it considered a bad thing.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

ou'd like me to slow down while street racing? That seems to miss the point or "racing".

I'd like people not to make skydives so risky that they need an AAD.

If you are street racing, as in racing on public streets, then I want you to stop before you kill someone. If you are racing on a track, have at it. I watch NASCAR for the crashes.

Derek