katzas

This. Speculation happens because the people who do have all of the available information don't share it immediately for various reasons. Generally the information comes out anyway, either in the form of a well-written complete report like those that come out of SDAZ, or through bits and pieces of information that filter out through various sources, or in most cases something in between. If there is believed to be criminal activity involved (very rare!), law enforcement will get involved as appropriate. If the incident may have been caused by a failure to follow relevant regulations in the US, the FAA will get involved. The USPA would add no value to such investigations and might in fact complicate it. We already have a good understanding of nearly all of them. Even the best analysis won't get you statistical significance, but USPA (well, actually it's Paul Sitter, who's been doing the analysis for USPA for a long time now) does a pretty good job of aggregating and tracking incidents over the years. If you haven't yet read the annual analysis that comes out in Parachutist, take a look. Then try to convince me what a "CSI" type of body could add to the analysis that would justify the overhead of such a group. Ahhh....dear lady.....I rarely if ever try to convince you (or anyone else on here) of anything I merely pose the questions. The answers (yours in particular) to several of my questions have been most enlightening.

Try decaf FWIW ~ NEW gear can have it's problems too, I had a canopy with THREE jumps on it split nose to tail...none were hard openings. Ran into a guy at another DZ that had 20 on his when the same thing happened...they were 3 apart in serial numbers. I've also bought a used canopy with 400 jumps on it...I put another 500 on it, gave it to a buddy who has jumped it for 3 years now...no problems. So just keep in mind regarding your 'good parachute is a good parachute' ~ ~ That reserve you probably have is 'brand new' as in 0 jumps...if MY 'new canopy' can blow up - so can YOURS As Mycroft Holmes correctly opines....."balance of probability". New gear can blow up--but the probability of it happening is much lower than with old stuff. However, this canopy with about 50 jumps on it seems to be the exception. Two major repairs in 50 leaps? Serious problem. I If I knew that a particular canopy had opened so hard on several occasions as to cause serious and potentially life threatening injury to a skydiver I would walk away from the deal at any price. There is something dreadfully wrong with this Safire 2. Maybe it's because it's a non-standard size--maybe it's been built wrong--whatever. Trash it--and hope that Icarus will give you a deal on a new standard sized canopy. That x-ray of a broken neck should scare the shit outta anybody.

I seem to have a penchant for asking provocative questions--so here goes another one. Is it time for the USPA to create, train and deploy a CSI-like individual or team to investigate incidents--particularly fatalities? Before y'all jump on me I will state for the record that I am NOT suggesting they do it.....I am asking the question to see what y'all think of the idea. I do see some potential advantages to it. The guy or gal or team would have to be highly experienced in skydiving and gathering of forensic evidence--people who actually go to the site of the incident and gather evidence. It would eliminate or greatly reduce the whuffo comments from the press. It would also educate us as to their best estimate of what actually went wrong and how to avoid it. Recommendations could be made as to gear design, emergency procedure training, statistical analysis, etc. It would help us all to understand the whys and whens of incidents. I confess ignorance as to what the FAA does when a fatality occurs in skydiving. But--I will speculate that the FAA does not have the specialized skills to deal with these situations. They do when it comes to aircraft incidents--but these are rare in our sport (and sadly, yes it does happen). The speculation as to the causes of fatalities I note in the incident forum runs rampant after every one (and there have been too many fatalities already this year). How it is set up, who would be part of it, how it would be funded are all organizational issues to be decided later. The first thing--in my opinion--is deciding on whether or not it should happen. What do y'all think? OH--btw--dumping on me for asking the question will be regarded with the appropriate amount of not giving a shit.

Because it is safer to assume that and act now than to try something cool and risk another problem from preventing you from dealing with it later. 1-10-100 principal. The faster you fix a problem, the less energy it costs to fix the problem. Lets say you chop from 12k.... Well you can always follow your main. Yes, you might lose the freebag. Now lets say you decide to ride the wild ride. Soon you find yourself dizzy and starting to black out. Guess what? Now it might be too late to chop. Why risk it? Again, 2000 dollar vs my life. Easy to answer. Precisely correct. You main is a mess and you're relatively ok with it AT THAT MOMENT. You have absolutely no idea what is going to happen IN THE NEXT MOMENT. The relatively gentle spin you're in could accelerate at any moment to a high g-force situation where you might not be able to do what you planned to do--that is, ride it down to a lower altitude and then chop. I've had two--and as soon as I figured out that my main was fubar I chopped because I knew exactly what the (good) choices were AT THAT MOMENT. Things change--especially when you're out of control falling like a brick. If I can do it now I will.

Welcome back. I too have re-entered the sport after a reallllly long hiatus. Some advice from an old fart (worth what you pay for it). Avoid skygods at all cost--they will fuck you up and make you sorry you ever came back. Recognize that the kids are not going to see you as a veteran skydiver--they'll see you as an early alzheimers victim and not to be trusted. Enjoy jumping solo. I don't give a rat's ass if anybody wants to jump with me or not--I just like what I like. Buy the absolute best gear you can afford if your old gear just won't cut it. Using any canopy older than 15-20 years is just playing russian roulette. (That statement is sure to cause a riot on here, I know). Stake out your winter and summer DZ hangouts. For me it's Zhills and CSC near Chicago (so far) but there are lots of choices. Take all the good advice and help you can get from the non-skygod skydivers. Get trained again--it isn't like riding a bike--some things you do forget. Above all--have fun. Nice to see you back. It takes balls.

Well, here I am replying to my own post. I ordered a new Icon Nexgen and a new PD reserve. I intended to put a 210 sq ft Pilot or it's equivalent into the rig but haven't ordered it yet because I wanted to demo a couple of different canopies before making that decision--which, btw, you can demo three different canopies over six weeks for about $300.00 if you time the demos right. I have been diligently searching the ads for that genre of canopy to no avail--until this week Suddenly there are three used Pilots for sale. Okie dokie--let's have a look. One is pushing 300 jumps and the asking price is about $1500. The other two have about 60 jumps on them--both about $1850. Obvious choice, right? No. The canopy with 300 jumps is closing in on a re-line which costs about $250.00 to $310 making the real cost about $1700 to $1800 or between $200 and $300 difference to a brand new canopy. The other two are within $150.00 of a brand new canopy (to be fair one canopy is ZPX--all black but with dacron lines--re-line to micro line and ka-ching--$300.00). So--what's the decision going to be? Unless one of those sellers is willing to accept a significantly lower offer--its gonna be new--with the colors I want, the line material I want, etc. To me, $150.00 difference between a new canopy that I design and a used canopy with who knows what kind of history is mice nuts difference.

Small (read high performance) canopies are already de-facto banned by the manufacturer for folks without enough experience. Try buying a super hot cross braced canopy from PD with only 50 jumps on a Navigator under your belt. Sure--you could probably buy one used--or get around the manufacturer's policy somehow--thus proving Darwin's theory.

You have essentially proven my point about local regs. While they may not stand a challenge in court someone has to do the challenging. Local officials (wanna be politicians) probably know or at least strongly suspect that whatever local ordinance they dream up will eventually be struck down--but they don't care. They can say to their dimwitted constituents, "well, I tried--my intentions were good--blame the court" thereby adding another arrow to their re-election quiver. Unfortunately, it takes time and money to challenge even the most absurd of local laws--or even not-so local laws. As to the insurance situation--well, Lloyds insures practically anything for anyone (at a price) but I take your point. Apparently, according to another post the makers of the Cypres AAD are included in a lawsuit where evidently the person who packed the reserve neglected to pass the closing loop through the cutter. If true, it seems absurd to me that Cypres should be sued--but--lawsuit generally get filed against those with money to pay. Sad, but true.

Well, golly gee I guess my ignorance of economics and pricing are soooo obvious that it must be just dumb, bumbling luck that has made me so much money following that ignorant path all my life. Making accusations without any proof is the hallmark of ignorance. Personal attacks are the modus operandi of those who have neither the credentials or evidence to make a reasonable counter argument. Back it up or back off. I clearly stated that I had no idea how many AADs are sold today. I made a SWAG. But I guess that point was lost in your zeal to point out how little I know about real economics. Clearly I (and you) have no idea how much the cost would come down--but, barring any other significant influences on price, they should.

Pretty much all your statements are true--TODAY. Now--as far as a local government making a local regulation where the FAA claims jurisdiction--well, it happens all the time. Case in point is where local governments sought to usurp federal regulation and jurisdiction with regard to amateur radio. The FCC has jurisdiction but that didn't stop communities from passing regulations that adversely impacted that hobby. Ultimately, federal law prevails--but it takes a challenge and, in many cases, years of costly litigation to do so. Voters didn't have much interest in that either. Government encroachment on personal choice is rampant and seems to be getting worse--and it doesn't take congress passing a law either--just a stroke of a pen from the likes of the EPA can do it. As to the logic of the FAA requiring AAD use in light of most fatalities being attributable to non-AAD life saving opportunities--well now you're being logical. Logic and government rarely coincide these days. Optics seem to rule. I agree--I hope they don't--but--they could if some whuffo do-gooders make enough noise. Hell, most of them wish we would just go away anyway. Personal choice seems to be under attack in practically every venue. We choose to skydive--and that, in today's political climate seems to be a reason to suspect one's sanity and motives. More than one non-skydiver has looked upon our choice as a thumb in the eye to conformity. My license plate on my car was LMTFA. Leave Me The Fuck Alone. Insurance companies could require a DZ operator to mandate AAD use or either pay a lot more for his liability insurance (any excuse will do if it means more $$$ in their pockets) or not issue a policy at all. Precedent is as close as your car. If you are injured in an accident and it can be proven that you weren't wearing your seat harness--good luck. I too hope none of the above happens. But you did ask by whom--and I offered a plethora of possible sources. I hope our thread doesn't give anybody ideas to actually do it.

Scary shit. Made me wonder at what point did this guy realize that the AAD just saved his ass? He continued to fiddle with his chest strap even after he landed--and then it seems reality sank in. Wow.

Now this is getting scary. Maybe I expect too much from the skydiving community that is allegedly smarter and more perceptive than your average whuffo. Silly me. WHERE IN ANY POST THAT I MADE DO YOU FIND THE WORDS "SHOULD BE REQUIRED" THAT YOU SAY I USED? In fact I believe that in most if not all of my posts I state that I am NOT in favor of mandatory AAD use and emphasize choice. So--show me where I advocated mandatory use of AADs or retract your statement. Maybe I am wasting my time by doing this--but what the hell--I certainly don't have anything better to do right this minute. At the almost certain eventuality of casting pearls before swine I will try one more time to place before you the monetary analysis of AAD vs no AAD. It is true that the Cypress AAD must be returned to a refurb and calibration center at the fourth year and eighth year of it's twelve year lifespan. I didn't include that cost because it would make no meaningful difference in the calculations--but--I will now. To my knowledge the cost to return a Cypress is about $250 (give or take a buck or two). That is done twice--so the cost of $500 can be amortized over 12 years. Got it so far? That adds a whopping $41.66 per year to the cost--or to put it another way--about 1.5 jumps per year--or to put it in even simpler terms--a couple cases (or in Canada ONE case of Export) of decent beer--per year. See why I didn't include that cost in the initial calculations? It's mice nuts. As to the down time while your Cypress is being checked.....well, it seems that a lot of skydivers time that for their down time OR buy the other AAD on the market (Vigil) that does not require return to the factory every four years and has a service life of 20 years (which saves you the whopping sum of $41.66 a year). As to skydivers having multiple rigs--well--gee--if someone can afford to have two or three complete rigs then I guess the financial considerations become even LESS meaningful. I mean--if someone has say, $12-15,000.00 worth of skydiving stuff then..........well, golly--good on them. For those of us who enjoy CREW--and to answer your question which I thought would be quite obvious--there's a little button on the AAD--it's called "ON/OFF". With an RSL there's a little ring on it that, if you pull it, will disconnect it--you know--just like that little button on the AAD. Sigh. I note that you didn't mention the cost analysis of adding an RSL. Given that the additional--and one time--cost of adding one is so low I can see why. I suggest you actually read what I write rather than making unsupportable accusations as to what you think I write. Ready, Fire, Aim generally means you miss the target--not to mention suffering the embarrassment that inevitably follows. Blue skies.

Believe me, I agree--thankfully I am not your Nanny. By the way, who is?

Wow. Ignoring for the moment the must have vs the option of having--let's take a look at the monetary segment of this discussion. Today's AADs are essentially microprocessors hooked up to a pyrotechnic device. Now, I am old enough to remember when a cell phone (another microprocessor driven device) cost a crapload of money. Today they practically give the damned things away. Why? Economy of scale for one. I have no idea how many AADs are sold every year--but I bet it's under 500 from both Cypress and Vigil (to the sport market--military is another whole can of worms). Production costs vs profit in that quantity are bound to be very high. Sooooo......if every rig purchased from today onward HAD to have one (and again, please, I am not advocating that)--that production number is bound to go up significantly thereby driving the cost down. The seat belt comparison you use is valid and proves this point--every car has to have them so they cost bupkus. OK so far? Now--as to what it costs today. According to your profile you have 3300 jumps over 34 years--roughly 100 jumps per year. Can you honestly say that an additional $1500.00 would impair your ability to jump as you want to? If you purchased today's equivalent of an AAD 34 years ago (like the FXC back then) the cost would be about $130.00 per year (assuming replacement of a Cypress every 12 years). At today's cost per jump that would make five fewer jumps per year--or one half less jump per month for twelve months--assuming you used that money for jump tickets. I know that jumps cost less many years ago--but the cost in today's dollars was probably higher. So--what is the price point that makes an AAD worth it? $1000? $500? Sorry--but I just don't see it. If you--or anyone--could ask our deceased brothers and sisters who died because they didn't have an AAD if they would buy one....well, I don't think I need to finish that sentence. Choose or don't--it's personal choice--but as far as the cost rationale--well--it just ain't there.

anyapxw wrote: Well this thread is pretty much the same "AAD/RSL can save you" and "there's no reason not to use one", blah blah blah. I don't see why people avoid the fact that others want to save money, and even if it doubles your chance of dying it doesn't change the fact that skydiving is an extremely safe sport. Why don't never BASE jump then, at 100 times the fatality rate I'm sure it's more dangerous than no AAD/RSL. To the BASE jumper, the fun of the jumps are worth the increased risk. To the skydiver, the fun of the extra jumps are worth the increased risk. See--here is a prime example of an individual making a statement(s) that he would have us believe is an axiom. "To the skydiver the fun of the extra jumps are worth the risk." Perhaps, more accurately put, to YOU as a skydiver the fun of the extra jumps (presumably the money you would have spent on an RSL or an AAD you will spend on jumps) is worth the risk. Well, let's see......an RSL--costs what? $100.00? That's the cost equivalent of four jumps at most DZs in the USA. Even a skyhook costs under $300.00 which makes it 12 jumps. An AAD costs about $1300.00 or about 50 jumps using the same cost per jump. Spread out over say, two years time that makes it 2 jumps per year in the case of the plain ol' RSL or 6 jumps a year in the case of a skyhook. Admittedly an AAD bumps the number up--but--if you use the Cypress' lifespan of 12 years that makes the jump to cost number go down to about 4 jumps a year (ignoring the likelihood that jump prices never go down but most assuredly do go up over time) but I think the point is obvious. Choose to use or don't choose to use--it's all up to you--as it should be but please do a bit more thinking about making statements that justify your decisions. As to the statement that people are avoiding the fact that others want to save money......try as I might I don't see anyone in any response saying that or avoiding the topic. Skydiving is an expensive sport. My philosophy is that there are at least two things you don't want to do on the dirt cheap. Heart surgery and skydiving. But that's me.

I am going to assume that the question you asked, "mandated by who (whom)?" is a serious question and not rhetorical. Well, let's see--mandated by DZ operators, by their insurance company, by the USPA, by the FAA, by local or state ordinance in the DZ's local.....any number of those or all of them could do it. For me it's "mandated" by logic and common sense. But that's me--and again, for the record, I do not favor mandating AAD/RSL use. I choose to. You make your own choices.

Some of the points you make are the same as I have after I did a detailed point of failure analysis of both the current popular choices on the market. I won't list all of them here--but there are some. Cutting the loop is, as you point out, exactly what they are both designed to do which, in my humble opinion, is far from an ideal solution. Ideally, an AAD should mimic as closely as possible the skydiver's actions in an emergency--that being to pull the pin out of the loop. To my knowledge there is no AAD currently in favor that does this. There is an AAD that does that without the use of pyrotechnics and vulnerable solid state devices powered by a battery. I am sure there are some deficiencies and anecdotal stories that can be listed against that device as well. Any mechanical or electrical device can malfunction. Combine both mechanical and electrical components and the malfunction risk increases. Layer a pyrotechnic device into that mix and it increases again. Am I confident that I can handle an emergency properly? Yes--and have done so in the past on more than one occasion. Am I equally confident that every single licensed skydiver who died was just as confident as I am and never expected to be in a situation where they either couldn't (unconscious or otherwise impaired) initiate those procedures or didn't do it in time because of loss of altitude awareness? Yes. Am I confident that given a "do-over" those dead brothers and sisters would have used an RSL or an AAD would make that choice? Yes again. That being said, I will jump with an AAD and a skyhook. I don't advocate mandatory use.....I dislike government mandates intensely....but having done the research and read the reports I choose to do so just as I and all of you chose to skydive. If others don't choose to use one--that is their choice as well. Use or non use, in my opinion, does not define whether you are a "better" skydiver. It may, however, define the difference between life and death. Blue skies.

At the risk of starting a verbal riot I think this question needs addressing. In light of the recent fatality in Eloy during the big way attempt--and many others--are we heading toward mandatory AAD requirements? Should we? I have no idea at this time why that sister died in Eloy. Initial reports said she cut away too low which implies no AAD--but until more info is released about that tragedy we don't know for sure. If the manufacturer's claims are to be believed there are hundreds of us walking around today who wouldn't be if they didn't have an AAD. Some DZs, particularly in Europe, require them. The Golden Knights require one. So--thoughts? Before you start ragging on me--I am the one asking the question--not promoting an agenda--ok?

I sent the relevant information to you in PM.

Retraction accepted. At the risk of beating this horse to death I think I pointed out and "backed up" many advantages to buying new. Now, I do realize that cost and value are relative terms--the difference in cost of a new rig vs a used one may be substantial and not in the budget of many--but--that difference may be less substantial to those who make the call that the prices they (and I) see here in the classified section just don't justify buying someone else's used gear. It's analagous to the new vs used car market when it comes to a precious few brands. Toyota Camry holds it's value so well that, in many cases, the trivial discount a buyer of a used one gets isn't worth it as opposed to buying a new one. My point is---again---buy new and, in a couple of years when you're ready to sell it, you're likely to lose between $1000 to $1500 on the resale. Buy used and you may or may not lose a lesser amount--but--rent for two years and you lose all of it. For the record, and I believe I stated this in my initial post--if you can buy something safe and that fits your body and your style in the used market--by all means do it. But--for those like me who need a larger HC and canopy, it ain't easy to find and almost impossible to find at a price that makes sense. To me, if you are serious about continuing in skydiving, renting gear past a dozen or so jumps is just pissing money away. As to your comment about promoting the sale of new gear by declaring really old reserves unpackable--well--I prefer to trust rather than suspect especially when my rather ample ass depends on it. Perhaps one day we can have this discussion over a beer--I'll buy (new, not used).

Please point me to where I said a new canopy is always better than a used one. If you are unable to do so then I expect a retraction of your statement. If you take the time to really read my statement about the 20+ year old reserve question I point out that 1. The president (George Galloway) and master rigger of the Precision Aerodynamics Company stated, in an email letter (by way of an attachment) to me that he would not pack his or any other manufacturer's reserve that was in excess of 20 (my error on the number of years--but the point is still valid since the canopy in question is that old) years old. You and anyone else reading this are welcome to make your own inquiry at (information@precision.net). I did not say anything about whether or not the canopy in question was airworthy or not. It may be--it may not be. Personally, I would not purchase it or use it. 2. Nowhere in that reply did I say that a new reserve was "better" than a used one. I did point out that a reserve by definition is your last chance and asked the somewhat rhetorical question of what that is worth. For the record--and perhaps your enlightenment, I have in the past purchased and jumped used equipment--including a reserve that saved my ass twice--but--that reserve wasn't 20 years old. As to my previous posting about new vs used gear--I never said in any of my postings anything about what is "better". My purpose in raising that issue was to illustrate that the initial cost of all new gear, while high, was, in many cases, worth it when compared with renting used DZ gear given that the resale of new gear seems to be quite good. I did say that rental gear, by necessity, is not custom made to your body and the comparison most skydivers make to using one-size fits-none gear to a rig that is tailored to you is very positive. If that isn't "better"--well, I guess I don't know what is.

Did and am doing exactly the same things. More than just the gear has changed. Body position, arching from the hips not belly--BUT--whatever works for you still works. You'll still find skygods--but having lived another 25 years or so they'll probably make you laugh (unintentionally on their part, of course). Check out the rigging forum for a discussion of new vs used--some interesting perspectives there. I just ordered all new stuff because after looking around for 18 months or so I just couldn't find what I needed used at anything close to reasonable prices. Best of luck--welcome back.

Yes. I have a letter from the manufacturer of the Raven line of reserves that says he (president and master rigger) would not sign a packing card on a reserve that is more than 15 years old. Consider that if you have to use a reserve it's your last chance. What's that worth to you?

OH hell--it seems that one tandem jump (as the passenger) qualifies the super cool to call themselves skydivers. Probably works as well with duhhhhhhhhh chicks as if you had a D and a few thousand freefalls. Good luck. Use a condom.

Yes, yes and yes. It's amazing what a difference it makes when the stuff actually fits. My last jump on rented gear felt like a fight between me and the gear to see who was in charge during freefall. Damn thing was sliding around on my back and I found myself having to compensate for either center of gravity changes or aerodynamic changes to keep flying properly. Now, maybe the rig wasn't adjusted properly--but when I put it on it sure felt like it was--as well as a one size fits none rig could be. It opened well enough--and my landing was uneventful but it sure didn't feel like the old rig I used to have that was made for me. Happy for you that you could find a used rig that worked for you. If I had been able to do that I sure would have. Will post again after my first jump on my brand new NexGen.