Jumping at a DZ that requires an AAD

[Gravitymaster 0]

If your current DZ suddenly notified you that a functioning AAD was required for all jumpers, would you continue to jump there?

Please feel free to comment.

[rsibbald 0]

Leave it to the jumper to decide, there's already too much red tape in the world.

I guess that's why people turn to less regulated sports...

[mailin 0]

I'm not allowed to jump at my DZ without one - special circumstances in my case though.


Jen

Arianna Frances

[speedy 0]

My answer wasn't there.

I would continue jumping there without an AAD.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[peckerhead 0]

Orange?/Hartwood?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Orange?/Hartwood?

I'm wondering if this is a growing national trend and am just curious how people will react if it is. Please don't read anything more into it. BTW, I rarely jump at Orange and Hartwood is pretty much a done deal IMO.

[vt1977 0]

No option for, "my current DZ requires AADs and I still jump there".

I don't necessarily agree with forcing people to jump with AADs, but since I choose to jump with one the rule doesn't really bother me one way or another.

Vicki

[tri160 1]

Hi Jen,
Why are you required to have an aad? As far as I know only students and unliscenced jumpers need one there.

[mailin 0]

Hi Mike,

Long story - I'll tell you over a beer some time

Hope your mending well - come out and say 'hi' this weekend!


Jen

Arianna Frances

[HeatherB 0]

Special circumstances? What on earth?

Did you get in trouble for a low-pull or something?

[Designer 0]

I have to say no to this 1!My home DZ is the only dz in the area that "Doesn't" reguire a person to have an AAD.For that reason and that reason alone I do not jump at any other DZ's.

[mailin 0]

nope

Arianna Frances

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I have to say no to this 1!My home DZ is the only dz in the area that "Doesn't" reguire a person to have an AAD.For that reason and that reason alone I do not jump at any other DZ's.

One of my motivations for starting this thread is because I suspected this was a growing trend. It would be interesting to find out how many DZ's have this policy.

[riggerrob 643]

Yes, mandatory AADs are a growing trend.
AADs are already mandatory at Quebec DZs and the trend is growing across the country.
My DZO does not require AADs for licensed jumpers, but the day is coming. Since he believes that instructors should lead by example, he loaned me an 01-year-old Cypres.
My second/wingsuit/back-up rig does not contain an AAD, but I am looking for another 10-year-old Cypres.

[FrenchyDiver 0]

Hey Bob
I believe it is also a growing trend. Now if you take the case of France, for example, AADs are mandatory over there. It certainly created a fuss when it was implemented, but it certainly did not stop the willing to jump. Skydiving is still going strong there.
Now as to certain DZs that require a specific brand or AADs, well that's another story

Hispas Brothers President
HISPA #2,

[HeatherB 0]

Nevermind. I see.
AAD requirement? Yeah, I'd still jump there. I have one and it wouldn't affect my actions.

Wingloading? Sure. I'm at just over 1:1. Wouldn't affect me.

RSL? No. I don't have one and I don't have the desire to suddenly start jumping with one. (I think an RSL requirement is much less likely than the others...I was just thinking about different possibilities).

[skydiverton 0]

A growing list of DZ's require an AAD for everyone because AAD's (Cypres/Vigil) simply safe lifes, so less trouble for the DZ owner and staff.

By the way: National organisations follow this trend too. France and Belgium for example (maybe more)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habit,
Especially when you are jumping a sport rig

[Eule 0]

Quote

One of my motivations for starting this thread is because I suspected this was a growing trend. It would be interesting to find out how many DZ's have this policy.

[computer_geek]
With the right access, you could probably run queries on the "find a dropzone" database here and see
how many have the "AAD required" box checked. Now, this may not be very accurate: How many listings
are done by the DZO/staff vs. by customers? If a particular DZ requires AADs for students but not for
experienced jumpers, should the "AAD required" box be checked or not? I know there are a few listings
for defunct DZs, as well.

I'm about 99% sure you can't do this with the Web form, or at least not with the one available to non-
premier members. Sangiro could break it down in many ways with a few minutes' worth of SQL. Or,
maybe you could ask for an extract of a few fields (maybe state/province, country, AAD required) into a
spreadsheet and play with it yourself.
[/computer_geek]

Eule

[Gravitymaster 0]

It can't be done by a Premium Member either.

[dzguy99 0]

Maybe USPA has info on this?

[Airman1270 0]

I have endured a remarkable array of obtacles in this sport, including long drives, being grounded at two DZ's (one over politics, the other after a low/hard
reserve pull), medical bills as a student, job changes, and a wife who complains about the time/money I spend at the DZ even though I don't even make 50 jumps a year. None of this has forced me out. But if the local DZ's required AAD's, that would be the end for me.

Some people are defending mandatory AAD use by noting that DZ's which implement such policies manage to survive and "people still skydive." Meanwhile, Chris Needles wrote anout essay about declining membership figures. How many people would skydive, but don't because the cost has been artificially forced out of their reach?

Do DZ's that require AAD's also require that they be turned on? What annoying procedure to they employ to verify this? And if "safety" is the sole justification for this, why don't they simply ban all canopies under 150 sq.ft.?

Cheers,
Jon S.

[skybill 22]

Hi GM,
Sure I'd jump there,.....if the DZ owner furnished the AAD's or gave me the money for one. I havn't had oneall these years and I think that I can get along fine without one . The new generation has grown upon Ram Air Canopys, AFF and AAD's. All this good stuff was still on thedrawing board in the "Bad Old Daze!!" Mind you, we dreamed of "the day when" we wouldn't crash into the ground under C-9's, and now thatday is here!! But the more things change, the more they remain the same. In spite of having canopys that can give us powder puff landings, people still get hurt and killed under good canopies. And, although I know of no known incident where a turned on properly maintained AAD has failed there is something else that bugs me about the situation. That is where people are rabid about not jumping without one!! The attitude that Iam safe because I have an AAD!! Sure you are. Although they don't require AAD's (yet?) I like Perris' recent policy of grounding you if you get stupid enough to have your AAD go off while you are having too much fun,....at 750'!!!

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[billvon 3,073]

>Do DZ's that require AAD's also require that they be turned on?

Yes.

>What annoying procedure to they employ to verify this?

The honor system. Generally the DZO asks if everyone has their cypres on in the morning.

>And if "safety" is the sole justification for this, why don't they simply
>ban all canopies under 150 sq.ft.?

Same reason they don't ban freeflying or AFF or Raven reserves. They think all those things are safe enough. If you disagree, you can always find another DZ.

[Airman1270 0]

...And if "safety" is the sole justification for this, why don't they simply ban all canopies under 150 sq.ft.?

Same reason they don't ban freeflying or AFF or Raven reserves. They think all those things are safe enough. If you disagree, you can always find another DZ...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Raven reserves? There's a story here, but I never got the fax. A few years back they seemed to have an excellent reputation. What went wrong?

It's easy to say "if you disagree, you can always find another DZ" but in practice this is simply not an option. How many of us are fortunate to live within an hour's drive of several DZ's?

Where I live, north of Atlanta, there are two DZ's fairly close by. There are two others a bit further away, about a two-hour drive. If they all decided to mandate AAD's I'd be out of the sport. Many people don't even have one DZ within easy driving distance of home.

This mandatory AAD nonsense has already resulted in people not becoming skydivers because they can't afford it. I am living proof that one can safely enjoy this sport even if one does not have the time, money, or inclination to turn this hobby into a lifestyle. I make a few jumps each month without sacrificing other priorities and cutting too deeply into family time. There's no way I can simply write a check for $1300-ish in addition to the portion of household income I already spend on this sport.

I used an old rig for many years and put up with the steady stream of curious and occasionally hostile comments because there was always something more important to do with the money. I watched students graduate, buy brand new gear, and, within a few years, surpass my skill level because they could spend unlimited time & money at the DZ. I never complained because I couldn't meet such a schedule. I just enjoyed my turn in the sky, confident that I'd be back in a few weeks to do it again.

I take this "AAD nazi" thing seriously because this is the one single trend in the sport that will literally force me out. In another thread you referred to the woman who failed to set her cypress properly and went in without pulling her reserve. It appears she'd still be alive today if she DIDN'T have an AAD. I was a student with 13 jumps, doing 10 second delays, when I had trouble locating my ripcord. Even then I knew enough to pull the reserve. The fact that there are, among us, brain dead idiots who won't even try to pull the silver in an emergency is no justification for forcing us to become reliant on a prohibitively expensive piece of hardware.

Of course, I don't really believe small canopies should be banned. The point is that people die every year because of them. If these DZO's want to be consistent, they'd require larger canopies. Last year I downsized to a 220, which is plenty fast enough for my skill level. The fact that I don't have, or want, an AAD does not make me a high-risk skydiver.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[billvon 3,073]

>Raven reserves? There's a story here, but I never got the fax.
>A few years back they seemed to have an excellent reputation. What
>went wrong?

That's for another thread. Suffice to say they cannot be loaded heavily and flared like a regular canopy, and they have some problems with line attachements. They are not dangerous, just require different precautions than other reserves. The R-Max solves some of these problems though.

>It's easy to say "if you disagree, you can always find another DZ" but
> in practice this is simply not an option. How many of us are
> fortunate to live within an hour's drive of several DZ's?

In the 4 places I've lived so far, there have been at least 2 DZ's within a 2 hour drive. I wasn't claiming "if you disagree, you can choose another DZ that is as close as your current DZ." If you disagree strongly, you can drive farther and find another DZ. If your disagreement isn't that strong - buck it up and jump there.

>There's no way I can simply write a check for $1300-ish in addition to
>the portion of household income I already spend on this sport.

If there are a lot of people like you, then the nearest DZO that does _not_ require AAD's will make a lot more money than their competitors, and they will win in the end. So no worries.

However, I would strongly recommend you consider an AAD. You're in a group (infrequent jumpers) that ordinarily is in a higher risk category; that $1300 (or $1000, or $600 or whatever) could be a good investment.

>In another thread you referred to the woman who failed to set her
>cypress properly and went in without pulling her reserve. It appears
> she'd still be alive today if she DIDN'T have an AAD.

That may well be. She's also be alive if she set her AAD correctly. There was another jumper some years back who would also be alive if he had not depended on his AAD.

I don't think AAD's should be mandatory. But I think DZO's should be able to make that decision. It's their drop zone, and it's their neck on the line if someone goes in because of a no-pull (or because a cypres fired in a swoop.)

>Of course, I don't really believe small canopies should be banned.
>The point is that people die every year because of them. If these
> DZO's want to be consistent, they'd require larger canopies.

No, not the same. "If they require a USPA rating, why not ban small canopies?" "If they don't let experienced jumpers jump in over 15kts wind, why not ban small canopies?" "If they don't let foreign jumpers jump their own gear, why not ban small canopies?" Requiring X for safety reasons does not mean you must require everything to be as safe as possible - because to be as safe as possible you keep everyone on the ground at all times.

>The fact that I don't have, or want, an AAD does not make me a high-risk skydiver.

I agree. Jumping infrequently, however, MAY make you a high risk skydiver. In the past, infrequent jumpers have been shown to have a higher risk per jump of having a problem.