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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Ugh. What in the world is the difference between risk and safety level?

The difference is risk is how much danger you are exposing yourself to. Safety level is how safe you are. If the risk exceeds your safety level, you are probably going to get hurt/killed. For example, if you are jumping a Stiletto 107 loaded at 2.0:1, you are at a high risk level. If you have 50 jumps you have a low safetly leel and stand a very good chance of hammering in. If you have 1000 jumps on the canopy, 3,000 jumps total, are current, etc, you have a high safety level and stand a low chance of hammering in.

A 100- way can be a risky jump. If you have a lot of RW experience, are current, etc, your safetly level exceeds your risk level and have a good chance of being OK. If you have very little RW experience or low jump numbers, your risk level exceeds your safety level. Using an AAD as a crutch to increase your safety level above your risk level is foolish.

I think my 5-mpg over/10-mph over example says it very well. The airbag doesn't give the person that can safely drive only 5-mph over the speed limit the added safety level to drive 10-mph over. Increased experience, better reflexes, eyesight, etc can do that, but not an airbag.

My point is some jumpers use AAD's and other back up safety devices as a crutch so they can make a skydive that their abilities alone would not allow them to do.

If you can't handle a 100-way without an AAD, you shouldn't be on a 100-way with an AAD.

If you can't drive 10-mph over the speed limit without an airbag, you can't drive 10-mph over the speed limit with an airbag.

Some jumpers are driving 10-mph over because they have an AAD, etc that are only capable of 5-mph over.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

I don't disagree with anything in your post (except your definition of safety level).

But your general argument included more cases than you just menioned. What about the guy with 10,000 jumps and 50 100-ways under his belt. What's the problem if HE chooses to only participate in 100-ways if he has a cypres? It's no crutch, it's a backup device being used as designed. How about someone with 200 jumps that won't make a solo without a cypres? You have been arguing that those people shouldn't make those jumps BECAUSE they refuse to do them without a cypres. That's the argument I don't understand.

And to be clear, in the wonderful world of safety, we consider risk to have two components: severity and probability. The severity of hooking a tiny canopy in is the same for an experienced jumper as it is for a novice. The probability is reduced for the experienced jumper. The risk level is lower for the experienced jumper. But that's just wording.

Dave

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

I think you hit the distinction in post 52 - probability versus severity. The risk of a bad situation happening on a big way is the same with or without the AAD. The device does nothing to prevent that, it just works to improve the outcome of the incident. In their eyes, the participants should not be assuming the Cypres will bail them out should they screw the breakoff. Or - measuring the risk of an incident versus the risk of serious injury.

Unless the jumper runs out to buy the AAD right before getting on the plane for Thailand, I don't know how you determine if the AAD is a crutch or not for someone else. Seems like a point for self reflection.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I see exactly where you're coming from hook... but I have quite a different take on the question.

I participated in the thread which obviously spawned this one and was interested to see the answers given by egons who was evidently heavily involved in the testing of the skyhook.

My question in that thread, I’m sure you remember, was essentially with regard to the safest course of action at 500ft with and without a skyhook when you find your canopy suddenly becomes unlandable.

Ok, so my drill is at that height I fire my reserve into the mess and take my chances, just as you have stated. That’s the risk I accept every time I step out of a plane. The reserve might inflate enough to land me safely. It might get choked off and I might die on impact. It might get choked off but provide enough drag to save my life albeit with a bit of a hospital stay. Those are the risks I take and I acknowledge them or I wouldn’t be in the sport.

Now what if I have a skyhook? Does that piece of equipment cause the odds to sway in a different way in that very specific niche situation?

Are your odds of survival now better if instead of simply firing your reserve off into the mal and clenching your butt cheeks, you cutaway and the skyhook has an open reserve in 100-200 ft say? Ok, you're still taking a risk – the risk this time is that the skyhook will not work, and you’ll fall to your death with nothing out at all. Or hell perhaps chaos theory prevails and you still end up with some kind of two out mess. Should you take that choice, those would be the risks you accept, just as in the first scenario.

This is not a question of taking a new safety device and using it as an excuse to allow oneself to participate in more dangerous activities or do more dangerous things; the question is whether or not this new safety device actually means carrying out the old drill is the more dangerous activity.

Now the answer given by egons, (rightly couched in terms of what he would do as opposed to actual advice) was that at 500ft with a skyhook equipped rig he considered the least risky course of action was to cut away and take the risks associated with the failure of the skyhook. The other possible action of course would to not cut away and simply fire the reserve into the mess and take the risks associated with a reserve deploying past a malfunctioning main. Egons it would appear, considered this action to be a more dangerous choice (for him at least).

I realize this specific question doesn’t carry so much weight with you as your stated minimum cutaway altitude is 500ft in any event, but it is of great interest to me and I'm sure many others. For me I have a simple scenario: 500ft, no skyhook, don't cutaway and take my chances. But then what if I'm on a skyhook equipped rig? What actions have the greatest chance of getting me to the ground alive and able bodied?

Now I'm looking at this from an impartial position. I don't have a skyhook, nor do I have any intention of buying another new rig in the near future. I don't have to cross this decision bridge yet so this is all just a mental exercise for me. But for some this question could be the difference between walking away from a freak mal with a "no shit there I was" story and being carried off by the county coroner.

I still wonder what the answer is. What's the safest course of action? Egons, a guy who’s been heavily involved in the development of the skyhook, thinks he would take his chances with it. You evidently consider that choice is simply an excuse to do something more dangerous based on the fact that he has a new toy in his rig; as opposed to a considered decision based on where the relative risks lie for his particular gear set up.

You're both highly experienced jumpers; I'm still not sure what the answer is.

I entirely agree that doing something more dangerous based on the safety features of one's gear is tantamount to risk homeostasis and is a very bad thing. I just can't quite see how that principal applies in this one specific situation though - surely staying with the old procedure would be risk homeostasis as that would be the mechanism by which one would maintain the old level of risk.

The skyhook in this situation would appear, in the estimation of some at least, to offer a lower level of risk in this specific situation and therefore it ought to be seen not as risk homeostasis (bad) but risk mitigation (good).

[Tonto 1]

Quote

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

Agreed. Unfortunately though, it's not usually the case, and Bill Booth has mentioned this several times.

When the throw-out allowed for more consistant openings, people went lower.
When the 3 ring allowed for a faster release, people went lower.
When the cypres provided a reliable deployment in the event of the jumper failing to do so - many pushed harder than their skills allowed.
When better materials allowed for more efficient aerofoils, people went smaller on both main and reserve - even though their reserves were made out of the older materials.
When audiables became prevelent, many left their visuals on the ground or "waited for the alarm" (Dispite what they may say)

Someone should tell the ground how safe all this new gear has made us... cos looking at the incidents forum, I don't think it got the Memo.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[LawnDart21 0]

"If you can't handle a 100-way without an AAD, you shouldn't be on a 100-way with an AAD."

Just your opinion. Lucky for both of us you dont organize bigways then, because they'd only be 10-ways...............

I CAN handle a 100 way without an AAD. I am just SMART enough to say I WONT jump a 100 way without one.

If your soap box gets any higher you'll be able to log getting off it as a base jump.

Your opinion is just that, your opinion. I'll bet if you asked most people on a 100 way if they would still jump it without thier AAD you would get some "nos". Does that make them any less safe? Nope. Does that mean they don't deserve to be on the 100 way becuase they are "negating the additional safety" as you said. Nope on that too.

I trust ME and MY ABILITY on 100 ways, I dont trust my AAD, and I dont trust all of the other 99 people swooping in and getting back out to do it perfectly safe. I jump 100ways becuase they are fun, and yes the risk is worth the reward, and I jump them with an AAD, becuase in the unlilkely, yet possible event that I get knocked out in freefall by someone else, I wont go through a house or a car at 120mph and ruin someone elses day.

If you approached every jumper on the world record jump and said "hey we took your AAD out while you were dirt diving becuase Hooknswoop says you shouldnt be on the jump with it", do you HONESTLY think they would have built a 357-way?

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Stop talking out of your ass.

Nice to see you being mature...as normal


Oh and 5-1 section E point 4. of your SIM...Might want to read it once in a while.

4. You should decide upon and take the appropriate actions by a predetermined altitude:

a. Students and A-license holders: 2,500 feet.

b. B-D license holders: 1,800 feet.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I don't know how you determine if the AAD is a crutch or not for someone else. Seems like a point for self reflection.

I don't know either. It is a point of self reflection. You would have to look hard into yourself, putting ego, id, etc aside and really see what is in there. You would have to be brutally honest with yourself, something that is very lacking in skydiving.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Just your opinion. Lucky for both of us you dont organize bigways then, because they'd only be 10-ways...............

Not at all. I would organize 500-ways.

Quote

I CAN handle a 100 way without an AAD.

And you could be on it.

You are getting hung up on a point I didn't make. I didn't say go take your AAD's out of your rigs. My point is don't use an AAD to offset risk down to an acceptable level. The risk should already be acceptable and the AAD should make you that much safer.

Look at my 5-mph over and 10-mph over analogy. The 10-mph over has an airbag and that is great. They choose to drive 10-mph over, not because they have an airbag, but because they can handle it. The airbag is a bonus, making them safer inthe event of an accident. The 5-mph over driver uses the airbag as a crutch to drive 10-mph over even though they shouldn't. Even though they are both driving 10-mph over with airbags, the driver that increased from 5-10 over because of the airbag isn't as safe as the driver that would drive 10 over without the airbag and has the airbag just to increase their safety level. From the outside, they look identical, 10-mph over and airbags, but they are different. And probably the only one that knows theya re different is the 5-10 mph over because of the airbag driver and only if they are brutally honest with themselves.

Derek

[craichead 0]

Quote

Oh and 5-1 section E point 4. of your SIM...Might want to read it once in a while.

4. You should decide upon and take the appropriate actions by a predetermined altitude:

a. Students and A-license holders: 2,500 feet.

b. B-D license holders: 1,800 feet.

I don't know what SIM you're reading. Section 5 of my SIM is titled "General Recommendations." Section 2 is titled "Basic Safety Requirements and Waivers." I see nothing about dealing with malfunctions and minimum cutaway altitudes in Section 2.

Since when did a general recommendation become a BSR?

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

From the outside, they look identical, 10-mph over and airbags, but they are different.

Your analogy doesn't work for me because they DON'T look identical to me. You're talking about 2 people with different skill levels trying to do the same activity. Different risk levels.

Lets talk about two race car drivers. One always wears a seatbelt, even in his airbag equipped minivan driving around town. The other is fine even running an entire NASCAR race without wearing a seatbelt. When they're racing, and both wearing seatbelts, THEY ARE TAKING THE SAME RISK. Just because one of them is dumb enough to drive a race without a seatbelt and the other feels a seatbelt is ALWAYS necessary doesn't mean that they are taking different risks.

If you want to make an analogy, make one that fits ALL scenarios, not just one subset of the broad statement you are making.

Fitting your example to mine would be like a NASCAR driver and a 16 year old who just learned to drive, going head to head in a race. The 16 year old is only willing to enter the race because he'll wear a seatbelt. That's wrong... no argument there. But you're ALSO arguing that the NASCAR driver that ALWAYS wears his seatbelt shouldn't be racing because he isn't willing to take the risk of racing without a seatbelt. THAT argument makes no sense to me.

Dave

[Ron 10]

Its in the SIM...And instructor should know that

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Your analogy doesn't work for me because they DON'T look identical to me. You're talking about 2 people with different skill levels trying to do the same activity. Different risk levels.

Right. The driver that was only willing and capable to drive 5-mph until they got an airbag and with that being the only change, now drive 10-mph over shouldn't drive more than 5-mph over even with the airbag. There are some jumpers that exceed their abilities-driven risk level because they have an AAD, audible, etc. That is my point. If you are only capable of driving 5-mph over the speed limit, an airbag does not mean you can now drive 10-mph over. People think they can though. The 500-ft faster deployment so you pull 500-ft lower is the perfect example. The willing to do a 100-way is an imperfect example.

Derek

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Oh and 5-1 section E point 4. of your SIM...Might want to read it once in a while.

I still don't understand what a "General Recomendation" has to do with the BSR's I aparently have so little respect for.

Quote

4. You should decide upon and take the appropriate actions by a predetermined altitude:

I also still don't understand what this has to do with the original question, which was regarding a "Minimum cutaway altitude", which is ENTIRELY different than a "hard deck", which I presume 5-1.E.4 refers to. Strangely, http://www.uspa.org/publications/SIM/2004SIM/section5.htm Doesn't have a 5-1.E.4. It does have a 5-1.E.3(c). I hate being pedantic though, so at least I'll grant that the SIM does mention the notion of "hard deck". I am curious why you think this is relevant to the notion of "minimum cutaway altitude", though. Would you chop from a wrap at 1,400 feet?

Derek himself admits his minimum cutaway altitude is 500 feet. Why aren't you lecturing him about his flagrant attitude towards this fictional BSR's?

Or, is it maybe that you didn't understand the question?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Would you chop from a wrap at 1,400 feet?

I have cutaway from 700 feet before.

Quote

Derek himself admits his minimum cutaway altitude is 500 feet. Why aren't you lecturing him about his flagrant attitude towards this fictional BSR's?

Well for starters he does not jump anymore.

Quote

Or, is it maybe that you didn't understand the question?

Possible, but more likley I see a person who is going to trust a device to allow them to make more dangerous choices.

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I see a person who is going to trust a device to allow them to make more dangerous choices.

Egons considers cutting away from a damaged canopy at 500ft to be a less dangerous choice with a skyhook than deploying his reserve into it.

He knows the skyhook inside out. He considers dumping his reserve into the mess to be the "more dangerous choice" (for him at least).

The other situations I agree entirely about increasing risks because of a techno toy. This is the only situation where I feel the "toy" may actually afford a mitigation of an existing risk where drills are changed to allow it to do so.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Possible, but more likley I see a person who is going to trust a device to allow them to make more dangerous choices.

Ok Ron, your turn. You're at 400 feet, skyhook equipped rig, and someone flies through your canopy, destroying it. Do you cut away or just pull your reserve?

Based on your statement that I quoted above, I'd guess you'd follow your standard emergency procedure for a low altitude malfunction and just pull your reserve. Right?

What evidence have you seen that suggests that cutting away was the more dangerous choice?

Also, just for the record, if I was in that situation, I'd be so freaking scared I can only hope I'd have the brain power to do SOMETHING. I can't even imagine how much guts it would take to cut away at that altitude even if it was 100% PROVEN to be the best course of action.

Dave

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I have cutaway from 700 feet before.

So you yourself violate this fictional BSR you invented. Interesting.

Quote

Well for starters he does not jump anymore.

So Derek's off the hook because he doesn't jump anymore. Why are you off the hook, then?

Quote

--Or, is it maybe that you didn't understand the question?

Possible

Thought so.

Now maybe you can actually answer his question.

Me? I can't answer his question, because I don't have a Minimum Cuttaway Altitude. Do you? Did you decide on it in the last 24 hours?

Like I said, I haven't decided on mine. I can't come up with a simple round number that works in all cases. At the altitudes we're talking about, something as simple as whether you're over a building or not could affect your survivability just as much as the gear you choose.

Consider Skydive Chicago where there's a large river about two hundred feet below ground level. If I'm over the river, I might be willing to cuttaway even lower than normal - if things were bad enough. Likewise, if I'm jumping at a DZ that has hills nearby, I'd hope I remember that when the time comes, too.

Of course, to be in this situation in the first place means there's been a long series of errors that've already happened. I think it far wiser to avoid the issue by breaking the links earlier in the chain than planning to death every contingency that can happen at 300 feet.

That said, if I find myself in that situatin at 300 feet I will use every tool I've got to keep myself alive. If that includes the skyhook, so be it.

I hope the day I need it, I've got it. As for now, I don't.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Derek himself admits his minimum cutaway altitude is [was]500 feet.

I have also cutaway a perfectly good main, have something like 54 intentional cutaways, intentionally deployed 2 canopies for a 2-out situation (one of which wrapped up and caused the use of the last reserve), etc. I know how fast my reserve deployed from actually using it. I am/was also able to make real-time decisions about altitude, landing areas, deployment altitude/time/traffic, etc because a cutaway was a non-event for me.

Quote

Or, is it maybe that you didn't understand the question?

It was a leading question that really has nothing to do with the Skyhook or reserve deployment altitudes. I was trying to use it to illiustrate my point that because you have an AAD, you shouldn't increase your risk level the same way you shouldn't drive faster only because you have an airbag.

I see a problem in 2 cases.

1) The driver that can handle 5-mph over the speed limit, but increases that to 10-mph over because they now have an airbag and,

2) The driver that can handle 10-mph over the speed limt and consideres the airbag strictly a back up, but decides to go 20-mph over and justifies the decision because they have an airbag.

In both cases they are negating the added safety benifit of the airbag by increasing their risk level.

I don't see a problem with someone that can handle 5-mph over the speed limit and doesn't drive more than 5-mph over the limit, but feels they really should have the added safety benefit of an airbag and won't drive without it.

Derek

[Ron 10]

Quote

Ok Ron, your turn. You're at 400 feet, skyhook equipped rig, and someone flies through your canopy, destroying it. Do you cut away or just pull your reserve?

Damn fine question. I have not put much thought into a Skyhook equipt system E-procedures yet...I don't have a hook.

What I would do right now is pull the reserve and monitor the opening to see if I can cutaway the main cleanly.

I have performed my cutaway live from around 700 feet once already.

A skyhook will reduce the altitude that you will get a reserve...However both Egon and Bill have said that there are times when any RSL could not work due to being disconnected.

With that in mind I would most likey perform the same procedures.

Quote

What evidence have you seen that suggests that cutting away was the more dangerous choice?

Just use Egons story of the RSL not being hooked up at Quincy. I know several stories of people having RSL's that wer enot hooked up when they needed them. The111 had a story about a year ago.

Quote

Also, just for the record, if I was in that situation, I'd be so freaking scared I can only hope I'd have the brain power to do SOMETHING. I can't even imagine how much guts it would take to cut away at that altitude even if it was 100% PROVEN to be the best course of action.

I agree that when the shit hits the fan you will react and not have the time to think it out as some on here claim they will.

I have 6 cutaways. The last one was kinda "normal". But thats after 3500 jumps and 6 mals. It was the first one that was not exciting. The only cool part was my main landed in the swoop pond at Zhills...Hows that for a spot? Other than that I tend to doubt that in a wrap at 400 feet I will be calm and able to think rationaly.

Call me cynical, but I doubt anyone with less cutaways or none will be able to either.

So its best to have a plan and stick with it. The BEST plan is to stop the skydive and the best way to do that is the reserve.

Depending on the Skyhook to be connected and work, even though I have very little doubt it will, is putting too much reliance on the device...Its kinda like going stable and waiting for the CYPRES to fire.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

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


I have cutaway from 700 feet before.

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


So you yourself violate this fictional BSR you invented. Interesting.

No, I was PLANNING on cutting away at 1600, but was unable. 700 feet was the first I could get the handle. After and altitude check and knowing that I was dead if I did nothing the only choice was to cutaway. I didn't think "If I had an RSL I would be fine...So I'll just pull the cutaway handle"

Quote

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


Well for starters he does not jump anymore.

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


So Derek's off the hook because he doesn't jump anymore. Why are you off the hook, then?

Who said I was off the hook? I did some stupid shit and lived. You seem to think that a device will allow you to do dummber stuff. That is device dependency and is dangerous and not safe.

Quote

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


--Or, is it maybe that you didn't understand the question?

Possible

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


Thought so.

Love how you left off that I think you are sustituting smart choices for toys.

Quote

Me? I can't answer his question, because I don't have a Minimum Cuttaway Altitude. Do you? Did you decide on it in the last 24 hours?

I have a stepped E-Procedure system that I am not going to share in an open forum...If you want PM me and I will tell you about it. Its a PERSONAL choice and not somehting I would teach of encourage others to use.

Quote

Like I said, I haven't decided on mine. I can't come up with a simple round number that works in all cases. At the altitudes we're talking about, something as simple as whether you're over a building or not could affect your survivability just as much as the gear you choose.

Consider Skydive Chicago where there's a large river about two hundred feet below ground level. If I'm over the river, I might be willing to cuttaway even lower than normal - if things were bad enough. Likewise, if I'm jumping at a DZ that has hills nearby, I'd hope I remember that when the time comes, too.

If you think you can factor all that in and still have time to save your life I think you are saddly mistaken.

The number one comment in all accidents is "It was just happening so fast".

Quote

That said, if I find myself in that situatin at 300 feet I will use every tool I've got to keep myself alive. If that includes the skyhook, so be it.

I hope the day I need it, I've got it. As for now, I don't.

And even if you do have it, it may not work. Ask Egon.

I hope oyu nevre find yourself in that situation...But really do you htink you will be so calm as to be able to rationaly think out the choices you have in the very limited time you have left?

I'm not sure I will be able to, and I have plenty of mals....I pack like shit

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

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Its in the SIM...And instructor should know that

I can't believe I'm doing this but I'm with Ron on this one.

The SIM is updated often so each person could be looking at a different year. I suggest everyone read the new one.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Thats the kind of rebuttal I was hoping for earlier. You consider the risk that the skyhook will be disconnected (or will disconnect - eg Mr. Booth's comment on shackle being the week link in the system) to be greater than the risk that the reserve will be choked off by the malfunctioning main.

Now that's a considered conclusion that I can perfectly respect, even if it does differ from the one given by egons.

I certainly hold it above those who have simply said – don’t modify your drills based on the existence of safety equipment. I wonder if anyone was ever chastised for suggesting maybe the best thing would be for them to cutaway before deploying their reserve because they had this new fangled three ring circus thingamajig?

>>><<<

And a comment to everyone and no one in particular: we’re here discussing gear and its effect on our safety. Surely there’s no need to take snipes at each other? We all ought to see this topic with a vested interest in our combined safety, certainly no cause to start and actual argument. Discussions, even those including wide disagreement, can be conducted in a civil fashion.

[craichead 0]

Quote

Quote

Its in the SIM...And instructor should know that

I can't believe I'm doing this but I'm with Ron on this one.

The SIM is updated often so each person could be looking at a different year. I suggest everyone read the new one.

Judy

Yeah, I agree with that statement, as well. However, he was claiming that a general recommendation was a basic safety requirement. An instructor should not only know the information contained in the SIM, but s/he should also know the difference between a recommendation and a requirement!

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[billvon 3,121]

>Stop talking out of your ass.

The usual warning.