shunkka 0 #2 August 11, 2004 http://www.cypres-usa.com/saves05b.pdf from 1991 til august 2003 ------------------------- "jump, have fun, pull" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #3 August 11, 2004 I counted 20 tandem saves out of 293 total saves. THAT'S CRAZY!Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #4 August 11, 2004 Do you really find that out of wack? 7% of saves? Considering the equipment is a lot more complex and there is a lot more body parts to deal with... Anyone have a figure of what % tandem jumps are in regards to total jumps?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rtroup 1 #5 August 11, 2004 Why is that craxy? Tom you should of been there sunday!(insert philosophical quote here) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #6 August 11, 2004 QuoteWhy is that craxy? Tom you should of been there sunday! I expect students to have problems. I even expect some of our "experts" to have problems, but I like to think our tandem instructors are among the best of the best, and are not going to need a Cypres. Some of the reports are just nuts...there were at least three saves when tandem instructors started the skydive with intentional backloops, and then forgot to even throw the drogue. HELLO! I guess I think 20 tandem Cypres fires is wack because I was jumping tandems back in the day when we didn't have AAD's. When they were first introduced very few drop zones bothered to install them, and even after RWS required them, I had to fight like heck to get AAD's on our Strong rigs. Obviously they are necessary, but I really wish we were good enough not to need them on the tandem side.Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #7 August 11, 2004 These are documented saves. I don't think any of the 5 or 6 at my small DZ were sent in. My guess is that until the FAR change ALL tandem saves were documented. Also my guess is that the total is much higher.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vertifly 0 #8 August 11, 2004 There are 5 or 6 Cypress fires recorded at your DZ? Doesn't that seem like a lot for a small DZ?? I was expecting the total number to be in the 30's or maybe 50's. But not in the hundreds. Regardless, it is still nice to see that 293 extra skydivers are walking because of it. They should hold a big way of the largest formation of people with only 8 lives left. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shunkka 0 #9 August 12, 2004 QuoteThese are documented saves. if i know well if a cypres fired it will be sent to the factory...looks like an official list who knows/who cares important that cypres done his job very well my question is: anyone can give me an example of a cypres who don`t fired? ------------------------- "jump, have fun, pull" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #10 August 12, 2004 Quote it will be sent to the factory I dont think so. Cutters are field replacable now.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #11 August 12, 2004 QuoteThere are 5 or 6 Cypress fires recorded at your DZ? Doesn't that seem like a lot for a small DZ?? I was expecting the total number to be in the 30's or maybe 50's. But not in the hundreds. Over 11 years, with the advent of freeflying at higher speeds and odd body positions, and with newer canopies that snivel for 700'? No I don't think that's a lot. I may have even forgotten a couple. A couple were low pulls, two out; two were post collision deployments on unconcious jumpers, one or two were jumpers fighting gear problems that may or may not have been fatalities. In 30 plus years of operation we've had 1 fatality pre AAD that was a visiting jumper who just didn't pull, a one fatality from the freefly collision. That's pretty good. US fatality rates have stayed about the same, 20 to 30, but deaths from no pull low pull impact have decreased. I attribute this to the cypres. They've been replaced with deaths under open canopies.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
j3zz 0 #12 August 12, 2004 I agree in a short read of the doc I saw at least 3 backloops to OH I thought I pulled the drogue senarios, This is crazy, I know at the DZ in SA I jumped at a TI was required to touch evey handle while in freefall(read drogue fall) and if there was camera on it you better believe they were doing it. I only hope they were when not being filmed If this had been the procedure it would have prevented 3 cypres fires which need never occured but thank goodness they did under those conditions. After reading this article I think a bit different about cypresses and am glad I have one. "Now I know why the birds fly" Hinton Skydivers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 150 #13 August 12, 2004 Yeah...well..an AAD fire could realistically be regarded as a bounce that didn't happen.... I would hope that the individuals who had them fire as a result of their incompetence then had their ratings removed......permanently.... No room for dickheads doing tandems.....(or any other skydives for that matter....)My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakydiver 0 #14 August 12, 2004 I know of at least 5 in my 10 years in the sport that I highly doubt were sent in... -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakydiver 0 #15 August 12, 2004 Don't forget the notorious lost prarie low cloud cypress fires - those have been happening for years -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flypunk 0 #16 August 12, 2004 I know of at least 3 expert cypres and one student that are not in there. as far as the TI's that did the intentional backloop and then proceeded without the drougue, if there was a camera, he would've been on his head to keep up wit them. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sweep 0 #17 August 12, 2004 QuoteA couple were low pulls, two out I guess it depends on the exact circumstances of the low pulls but I'm surprised you included those as saves. Fires, obviously, but if these are the "The jumper lost altitude awareness and deployed low. During the main deployment sequence the CYPRES fired" type then personally I'm not sure I'd consider it a save. Since the jumper now has the problem of a two-out to deal with at best, entanglement / deployment problems at worst. Although the other side to the argument is I guess that if you're throwing the pilot chute at 800' it's not a good time to be waiting for some 1000' snivelly "comfy-pack" opening and maybe getting a fast opening canopy up there is a better idea. Not really fighting for/against CYPRES just interested in people's perception of what counts as a "save". Blue Skies Sweep---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #18 August 13, 2004 >>but I like to think our tandem instructors are among the best of the best<< So would I, however: After an exit with a female passenger who’s doing a birthday tandem, C found, after deploying the drogue, he’d neglected to attach either upper snap. At the time C is fully rated and current. After the incident a few long time instructors got together to discuss the event. Including myself, these were guys who’d come up as Instructors the old school way. In that method you’d begin, with no rating at all, by assisting in S/L first jump courses, i.e., you’d demo the first PLF, hold the malfunction pictures over students heads (in the really old days, you’d just yell, “Line Over Malfunction!”) and generally learn at the feet of an already experienced instructor. The next step is you are encouraged to observe experienced Jumpmaster handling static lines and dealing with students on board the A/C. I remember paying for many of those slots and doing a lot of hop and pops. From there, and with a “C” license you were eligible to apply for a Jumpmaster rating. Performing the actual duties of Jumpmaster for 2 years (an apprenticeship really) made you eligible for the Instructor rating. This enabled you to teach the FJC and supervise all aspects of student training. Back in our little ad-hoc meeting the biggest concern is the question of, where are these tandem masters coming from? The answer is clear that we’d allowed the system to be dumbed down for the sake of DZ profit. In our case our DZO didn’t hold any kind of instructional rating, and this person wouldn’t hesitate to give you, “the look” when you announced the FJC was winded. One problem is; Two Instructors can be compared side by side, where one has twenty years experience dealing with students, and the other has six months, but for all intents and purposes they are both of the same rank. Now the following is mostly a large DZ problem, but I’ve seen it in too many places and too many times, DZOs tend to favor Instructors who push hard to get students in the air. In the case of my DZ, which had already suffered every major skydiving catastrophe possible, a single student with a broken leg, or worse, just didn’t seem to matter that much. Then we started to see tandem masters, without any other type of student experience, begin to teach new tandem instructors and this completed the circle that left the art of being a true skydiving Instructor swirling down the drain. When the title tandem master is changed to Tandem Instructor, we all gagged. Finally, after the system that worked was trashed, the USPA realized something was wrong and tried a bunch of quick fixes like the BIC and the Coach rating. The main problem today, is in too many cases the people who “actually” have the power to oversee student programs, from DSOs to various elected USPA officials are totally out of their element. Instructors, have been defanged, (there was time an Instructor could ground anyone, with no questions asked) as the operating motive has swung from quality instruction to profit. BTW, C, to his credit, managed, at about 7000 feet, to get one upper snap in place. When I spoke to him after the jump, he was ashen white, and told me the nightmare of thinking, after he deployed the drogue, the student was hooked up to him at all. C, a good person, and his student (also probably a good person) were failed by the system. Nick D D-8904 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #19 August 13, 2004 >>but I like to think our tandem instructors are among the best of the best<< The key words there are "I like to think." I don't however, really believe that's the case, and I agree with everything you are saying. We recently had a tandem instructor open at 4,000 feet then struggle with some kind of slow speed line entanglement down to about 1,000 feet. Multiple ground witnesses gasped as he cutaway, then watched as he miraculously had a complete reserve opening. I watched him land, drop the rig, grab another tandem rig, and then run for a back-to-back with scarcely a care, all as the DZO looked on. I can't understand how that kind of behavior is allowed to happen, other than conceding that it is obviously profit driven. Yup, I'd like to believe our tandem instructors are among the best, but the Cypres numbers and anecdotal evidence sure suggests otherwise.Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #20 August 13, 2004 Tom, It's a bit funny, maybe even naive now, but when tandem first appeared on the scene, as an Instructor, I thought terrific, now people who couldn’t jump otherwise, due to infirmities, like blindness, paralysis, or very old age, could make a least one parachute jump. I never dreamed in my wildest imagination tandem would become what it has. I believe except business wise, it’s been a disaster for the sport. When I landed with a tandem student and they’d say to me, “Man, I could never have done that on my own,” I’m sad, because I know, with the proper training; they could have indeed made the jump, more or less, on their own. They are getting the wrong impression of the sport. Tandem students don’t spend the time on the DZ necessary to experience it all. The idea any student doesn’t hang around for the campfire and a beer, that they don’t get socialized to the sport is a great loss for us, and for them. On the other side of the coin we now have “skydivers” that should have been automatically weeded out by the fact, that before tandem, you had to be the type of person with the confidence to say, “Yes, I can learn, and I can do this.” This was an automatic by-product of a difficult to finish student status. It was difficult for a reason, that’s still very valid today, it’s a dangerous sport and not everyone is cut out to skydive. So we spoon-fed them the gift of flight, and now we have people who can’t pack or feel they need to know anything about their gear except how to put it on their backs. I guess, you and I, and the rest who’ve been around awhile, have no one to blame but ourselves. In the late 1980s we should have marched en masse on USPA headquarters, shook them by the shoulders, and asked, “What the hell are you doing?” Oh well . . . Hey Tom, will I see you at Bridge Day? Nick D D-8904 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
