Why?

[Skylark 0]

Could somebody please, please tell me why it's not yet illegal in either the US or the UK (or any other DZ for that matter) to jump a rig without an AAD?

Here in the UK, a law was passed many years ago that made it illegal to travel in a motor vehicle without wearing a seat belt. The law was passed for the simple reason that it would save thousands of people from death and serious injury every year.

I understand that at certain DZ's (such as Empuriabrava) the use of an AAD is mandatory. I'm particularly interested to hear from other DZ owners who don't have a similar policy. What are your 'excuses'?

"Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience

[spidermonky 0]

First, this thread should probably be moved.

I'm just a newbie in this sport but I have a few thoughts.

We have helmet laws for motorcycles, why not make helmets mandatory for ALL skydivers?
People often die from high performance canopies, why not make a law against sub-100 sq ft. canopies?
The point is each person is responsible for themselves. I wouldn't jump without an ADD, but over-regulating every aspect of the sport isn't necessarily the answer.

[Zenister 0]

possible troll bait and in the wrong forum(imo), but in my mind its very simple.

Its my life. Wearing a seatbelt, or a helmet, or an AAD is an additional safety measure to help save your life in the event of unforseen circumstance. Using these devices is the smart way of doing things, but

its my life to risk, not yours, not anyone elses. mandating additional precautions is a form of tyranny, over the only thing i can ever really be said to possess.


no excuse nessesary. btfu.


defending your rights as an automotive projectile

[mikeat10500 12]

Skylark
You buying?

-----------------------------------
Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1
Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists.

[Skylark 0]

"We have helmet laws for motorcycles, why not make helmets mandatory for ALL skydivers?"
Good question. Why not?

"People often die from high performance canopies, why not make a law against sub-100 sq ft. canopies?"
People DON'T die 'from' high performance canopies. They are killed from using them incorrectly. Used sensibly and with responsibility they are safe.

"Its my life to risk, not yours, not anyone elses. mandating additional precautions is a form of tyranny, over the only thing i can ever really be said to possess."
Unfortunately, by adopting that particular attitude you send a reckless message to students and others entering the sport that neglecting to wear an AAD is worth the 'risk'. It begs the question, what do you have to lose from wearing an AAD?

"Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience

[MuffDiver 0]

A couple hundred bucks. I have an AAD, but do not see it necessary to make it illegal without one.

__________________________________________________
Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive.

[indyz 1]

Quote

Here in the UK, a law was passed many years ago that made it illegal to travel in a motor vehicle without wearing a seat belt. The law was passed for the simple reason that it would save thousands of people from death and serious injury every year.

Wearing an AAD doesn not significantly reduce your chances of dying in a skydiving accident. It would seem to make more sense to require RSLs and large canopie before requiring AADs.

Edit: Forgot my quote

[skymedic 0]

because I know I can pull my own handles....and I am carefull who I jump with.

even if I did have an AAD who's to say A:it'll work, B: I remembered to turn the thing on, C: even if it does work, I better have as skymonkey one puts it....a divinely guided reserve. a no flare landing could also kill me....D: that anything in skydiving is guaranteed....if you jump out of an airplane you can DIE...with an aad, with everything done right, you can still die.....

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[AndyMan 7]

Because Americans are very independent minded. They don't like people telling them what to do.

America was one of the very last country to require seat-belt use. Common thoughts were that "that government aint gonna tell me I have to wear this thing". Skydiving is the same. Even people with Cypres fight against the requirement of them, simply because they're against government regulation.

It will happen, but it will be a very slow battle.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[PhreeZone 20]

>It begs the question, what do you have to lose from wearing an AAD?

My life and that of my buddy. In a CRW stack an AAD misfire is a potential fatility waiting to happen.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Casch 0]

A new seat-belt or a new helmet doesn't cost $1200

[Skylark 0]

Rather depressing, 'I'm too tough' attitudes (Skymedic, you won't be able to pull your own handles if you're knocked unconcious after a freefall collision). Maybe someone can post the total number of lives saved by the use of AAD's. Or better still, the number of needless deaths caused by jumpers who thought they were 'too cool' to wear them.

"Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience

[JYorkster 0]

The government should ONLY limit a person's rights if the activity they are limiting is done so to protect the rights of others. In the case of requiring helmets and seatbelts, government has crossed the line. They should only require such precautions on individuals who can not think for themselves (children, mentally challenged, etc.) But when a person makes a personal decision to wear or not to wear a seatbelt, it is exactly that...a personal decision. The government should not be required to protect people from their own irresponsibility. Also, statistically, requiring AADs would not save an exceptional number of individuals each year. Look at last years fatality reports and the reasons.

That being said, I wear my seatbelt always, I wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle, and I have an AAD. I just don't think the government should REQUIRE me to have one. In the case of a DZO requiring AAD usage, it's his or her business. They can make whatever rules they deem necessary.

Rock

[PhreeZone 20]

The FAR majority of cypres saves are just plain loss of altitude awareness. I think only 3 saves in 12 years are due to knocked out skydivers and even one of those died of injuries later.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Casch 0]

I think there are very few people that feel that they are "too cool" to wear an AAD. I know I would prefer to have one, and I'm very happy that student gear are required to have AAD's. I may just be a lowly (near) "A" license holder, but this is how I feel about them. They are an excellent life saving device and most everyone (with the exception of the CREW Dogz) would be safer wearing one. When I get around to buying my own gear, it would be nice if it has an AAD, but if it doesn't, I won't sweat it. I will get it when I can afford it. If I run into a situation where an AAD would save me and I don't have one...That's one extra risk in my life and I'm ok with it.

[lazerq3 0]

Here in utah we have NO helmut laws for motorcycles so I guess that also includes AAD's !! Man I hope this is a troll.....hey lets also add no jumping w/out gloves..goggles , altimeters...audibles.....there all a type of saftey device!!

jason

Freedom of speech includes volume

[Skylark 0]

All very interesting. It seems some people are concerned about the cost ($1,200) of purchasing an AAD. Personally, I consider my life to be worth rather more than that, as do my family.

It begs another question. If one loses altitude awareness and is only 500 ft from impact, would one rather they hadn't been so macho and were wearing an AAD or not?

"Into the dangerous world I leapt..." William Blake, Songs of Experience

[beowulf 1]

I am against the Gov requiring seat belts and helmets
Its my business if dont use these things and no one elses. By not wearing them I ony harm myself, therefore its my business and no one elses. I dont need the Gov to wipe my ass for me.
same for AAD's

[cloud9 0]

I think the problem is when you start requiring or making laws to protect people from themselves, where do you draw the line? Who do you let make the rules? It starts with AAD, then as stated earlier canopy size, then maybe reserve size, then helmets, boots, the type of jump suits ect. You may say well I'm only talking about AAD's but some one right behind you thinks no one should jump a small canopy, or no one should swoop.
The bottom line you really can't protect people from themselves, nor should you.

[lazerq3 0]

I dont wear an AAD and if you want to call me macho becuase of that than thats your call....Then I also guess theres a lot of MACHO jumpers out there!!! Well then fuck it ..I'll be macho ...cool ..... badass ...what ever you want to call me ....but guess what the fact still remains here in the US its our choice!!!!! And yes for me $$ is an issue and so I guess my life isnt worth 1200$ but thats ok cuase my policy I have through the USPA covers more than 1200$ so I guess I'm ok with that!

jason

Freedom of speech includes volume

[Zenister 0]

1000$

seriously I do wear one. Students should be required to as they do not have the knowledge to make an informed choice. Once they have been sanctioned by whatever body governs the activity (driving,flying etc) the manner in which they do it so long as it does not endanger others should not be restricted by an unnecessary regulation. not wearing a helmet, seatbelt or aad endangers no one else.

unnecessary?? you might ask? absolutely. a helmet, seatbelt or AAD is not necessary to survive any of those activities under normal conditions. additional precautions taken should be at the discretion of the individual. Its part of being free.

your life, your choices. not anyone elses. btfu.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[mikeat10500 12]

I have nothing against AAD's unless you jump
square/square configuration. Whhhoooooooo
now that's scary!!!

-----------------------------------
Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1
Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists.

[MuffDiver 0]

Quote

If one loses altitude awareness and is only 500 ft from impact, would one rather they hadn't been so macho and were wearing an AAD or not?

I really don't think that anybody considers themselves macho by not wearing an AAD. If it was mandatory the cost to get into the sport would be that much higher and make it harder for everyone to jump. Besides that, losing altitude awareness is a big mistake(although it does happen). As I said earlier I wear an AAD, but if you are comfortable jumping without one then by all means go ahead.

__________________________________________________
Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

All very interesting. It seems some people are concerned about the cost ($1,200) of purchasing an AAD. Personally, I consider my life to be worth rather more than that, as do my family.

Quote

Good for you, then buy one if you feel safer with it. Just don't tell me I HAVE to have one.

It begs another question. If one loses altitude awareness and is only 500 ft from impact, would one rather they hadn't been so macho and were wearing an AAD or not?

I might also wish I was driving a Tank if I'm riding my motorcycle down the road and see a car in my lane heading towards me.

Quote

Rather depressing, 'I'm too tough' attitudes (Skymedic, you won't be able to pull your own handles if you're knocked unconcious after a freefall collision). Maybe someone can post the total number of lives saved by the use of AAD's. Or better still, the number of needless deaths caused by jumpers who thought they were 'too cool' to wear them.

The truth about AAD's is Skydivers don't really buy them in case they get knocked out as that rarely happens. The buy them in case they F*ck Up and then say they bought them in case they get knocked out. $1200 is better spent on more training.

[D22369 0]

I understand that at certain DZ's (such as Empuriabrava) the use of an AAD is mandatory. I'm particularly interested to hear from other DZ owners who don't have a similar policy. What are your 'excuses'?

>>simple, no excuse..... I have seen waaaay too many electronic devices fail......suddenly and catastrophically. I know where my handles are and how to use them, when I step outside the plane to hang there and wait for the tandem to leave, I like the security of knowing their isnt a electronic gizmo that could possibly *not that it is likely* fire and take my life. **And if the dz makes it mandatory then the first person who dies from a misfire would trigger a very big lawsuit..... even with the waivers in place....can you see the headlines??........."son/daughter killed by hardware designed to save...news at 11..."...........welcome to the USA........we are a very "rediculously" litigatious society........I prefer to save myself......and if you are too scared to jump without one, maybe you should take up golf.....
Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.