pilotdave

NEEDING the AAD does not mean not jumping without it. It means going to die without it. I totally agree that it would be dumb to go on any skydive that you thought you'd NEED an AAD or a reserve or a helmet or floatation equipment or whatever. But when someone refuses to make a particular jump without an AAD, it does not mean that person believes he or she will NEED an AAD on that jump, just that the probability that he or she will die without it is elevated to some extent (determined individually). I think billvon's quote from Kate Cooper is very true and kallend's reply was totally off the mark. But I still don't agree that "needing the AAD to make the jump" has anything to do with a person's choice to use an AAD or not. Nobody NEEDS an AAD until they're at 700 feet with no canopy over their head and not trying to put one there. It's not a crutch, which helps someone accomplish something. I'm guessing kallend doesn't ever think he NEEDS an AAD when he does 10-way. He uses one because he thinks he MIGHT need one. His choice not to do 10-way without one is not an indication that he thinks he'll NEED one. Anyone that goes on any jump without thinking they MIGHT need an AAD hasn't read the incident reports lately. The probability of needing one is not the same on every jump of course. Where you draw the line between safe enough and not safe enough is up to the individual, when they have the experience to make that decision. Dave

NickDG just recently posted the whole story behind the Lutz jump: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1609006#1609006 Dave

Basically none. I look at posts here and there on probably 6 or 7 different skydiving message boards... and use a lot of google translator! I like to add links on skydivingmovies.com to forum discussions about various videos. Just so happens a lot of them are in dutch, norwegian, french, german, spanish, portuguese, whuffo, polish, russian, and "other." It's amazing how much talk there is about skydiving going on on the internet. Dave

Yep, nobody ever used to go in until the cypres was invented... The cypres shouldn't change anyone's emergency procedures. If you're experienced or not and don't trust your emergency procedures, get some training or quit jumping. That's not what a cypres is there for. It's not a substitute for pulling... it just does that if you don't, for any reason. But we all know no experienced jumpers have ever lost altitude awareness. Dave

I'm with you. My dad's a doctor. Every time he hears someone give advice to drink tons of water, he explains that drinking more water than your body needs just makes you have to pee more. Course he doesn't believe in herbal medication or any voodoo science either. Dave

Here's what a cutaway with only a left hand looks like: http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=1209. Soft housings were the cause of the hard cutaway, but even hard housings and riser housings for the excess cable won't make every cutaway easy... Dave

Who says the real kallend will go on ANY 10-way, unlike bizzaro kallend who sits out certain sorts of 10-way? You're comparing apples to oranges... Kallend is perfectly capable of deciding what jumps are or are not too risky for him. The AAD does not make him an idiot. They'd only be a 5-way team anyway...half of em are AAD dependent and need to give up 10-way. The other 5 won't jump together anyway...too much risk of injuring a non-AAD-equipped kallend. Dave

Umm, I said there was a single reason and I listed it. But anyway, first of all, parachutes don't come anywhere near the glide ratios attainable by modern gliders. Second of all, the flight characteristics of a pendulum type device (since i cant call it an aircraft) are never like those of a true 3-axis glider. Add an engine and you now have an infinite glide ratio. That's something different. But regardless of what makes a parachute different from a glider, a parachute isn't a glider because the FAA says so. Dave

Parachutes aren't aircraft for only a single reason. The FAA doesn't define them that way. If a parachute was an aircraft, it would be considered an ultralight glider and fall under FAR 103. They simply don't. It's not worth arguing, it's just the way things are. Dave

What cloud clearance requirements do you follow? You only jump when you can see for 30 miles? Come on... you know the real world. Skydivers aim for holes at best. Dunno if you're painting a prettier picture in case the media is reading this or what. I'm not saying it's safe... or at least as safe as it would be if we only jumped under clouds. But it is the real world. Dave

I'm not going to answer for kallend and I'm not going to bother looking up the wording of his original post. But here's what I assume is going on in his mind. 10-way is dangerous. There's a high risk of collision. The AAD might save his life following a collision. There is no benefit on 10-way to not using an AAD. There is possible benefit to using one. He has one. There's no reason not to use one. There's no reason to consider not using one. There's no reason to be willing to not use one. None of those would have any benefit to him. Using one may have benefit. Therefore he chooses to use one. Every time. It's dangerous, not TOO dangerous. But anyway, regardless of it all... Lets say 10-way IS too dangerous for kallend (him, specifically). What does that mean? What if it was too dangerous for him WITH an AAD and he still does it anyway. What if it was too dangerous for him without an AAD and he did it without an AAD? What are you trying to accomplish here? To make kallend safer by quitting 10-way? What if we were talking about someone else. ~200 jumps, no fear, jumps a small canopy but he's comfortable with it. It's not "too dangerous" for him. He does 10-way. Dives really hard, stops fast, wears a cypres if possible. It's not too dangerous for him. He says so. Who is more likely to be hurt (or hurt someone else) on a 10-way jump... Him or kallend? AADs aren't the problem sometimes. Overconfidence is a big killer in this sport. We see it in the incidents forum all the time. You're focusing your energy to keep kallend safer by not going on 10-way. That's all well and good but I think there are bigger fish to fry. Kallend isn't a danger to himself or his teammates. Many others in this sport are. Qualified AFF instructors aren't a danger. Qualified freefly coaches aren't a danger. People that think "I don't need a cypres or a helmet, I have skillZ" are a danger. Dave

That is exactly what I said. Probability AND severity. You're choosing to ignore severity, I am not. You are saying risk stays equal. That is true, if you choose to just ignore half of what makes up risk. I am not ignoring probability. Probability doesn't change, just like you said. Severity does change. AADs protect against a small number of hazards. They don't protect against broken bones or being killed by a collision. They protect against hitting the ground at terminal velocity if you are knocked unconscious or forget to pull. The hazards they protect against are the reasons people use them. You say over and over that they don't prevent accidents. That's very true! Nobody is arguing that point. Nobody is also arguing that any skydiver is better off jumping than staying on the ground. You jump well within your risk threshold. That makes you a safe jumper. You'd be an even safer jumper if you stayed on the ground. When someone chooses to use an AAD for a particular jump, it may appear that the person is only jumping because of the AAD. That's how you view kallend doing 10-way. I don't see that. I see that kallend is going to do 10-way, and THEN he chooses to add a cypres because of the risk of a collision. The AAD isn't allowing him to do something dangerous. The AAD isn't an excuse to take greater risks. The AAD is nothing but a decision on his part to have some extra protection in case he cannot pull for himself. The fact that he won't do 10-way without a cypres doesn't change that. It doesn't magically make 10-way "too" dangerous for him. Adding a cypres isn't what makes it safe enough. It is safe enough because he has the skill to do it safely. His choice not to do it without an AAD is an entirely different issue and has no bearing on his safety when he's doing 10-way. Therefore I see it as totally irrelevant to anything. Perhaps if his team found out, they'd kick him off because of the chance he'll screw them by riding the plane down during a competition. But that's not a safety issue. If you want to promote safety, focus your argument where it makes a difference as far as safety is concerned. In kallend's case, or the case of a freefly coach, or the case of an AFF instructor, there's no safety difference between someone that is willing to jump without an AAD but is wearing one and someone that is not willing to jump without one. Kallend IS less safe by going on 10-way jump instead of watching from the ground. That is true for every single human being in the history of the world. His choice to use a cypres when he does 10-way does not make him less safe while doing 10-way. Dave

Alright I'm not gonna argue who has the better dictionary. I use the definitions accepted by the military and aerospace industry (MIL-STD-882 and SAE ARP4761), as well as the insurance industry. If you use risk as a synonym for hazard, then sure, there's still a hazard when you add an AAD. The severity of that hazard is not the same. The hazard is being knocked unconscious by a freefall collision. The AAD reduces the severity from fatal to nonfatal, at least in some cases. The AAD doesn't prevent broken arms, backs, etc. Nobody uses it to prevent those hazards. Kallend said people do wear pads for 10-way to help prevent other injuries. If the jump is too dangerous to do without pads, is it too dangerous to do with pads? If it's too dangerous to do with no helmet, is it too dangerous to do with a helmet? This is just my opinion here, but I think you're unfairly attacking AADs. Yes, people use AADs to go on jumps they are qualified to do but wouldn't otherwise go on. Just like helmets and even reserves. Relying on an AAD to save your life, like someone that doesn't pull their reserve but instead waits for the reserve to fire, is obviously wrong for many reasons. Going on a 100 way when you don't believe you have enough skill to participate on that jump but will anyway due to an AAD is wrong for many reasons. Going on a jump that you are qualified for, AAD or not, is your decision. It is not right or wrong. It just is. Dave

I didn't say not to try. I didn't say not to lie about our ability to spot traffic to make us look better. I said it's unrealistic to spot all traffic. We rely on our pilots to follow proper radio procedures, and we rely on other planes to listen to the radio AND avoid areas where skydivers might be. We rely on our own eyes from the airplane very little, in my opinion. You are entitled to believe otherwise. We don't purposely jump through clouds, but we do purposely jump near them. Is a 4000 foot diameter hole big enough to spot a plane that we might run into a minute later? That's also generally why I believe cloud clearance requirements are pointless to begin with. I like the british rule when it comes to clouds. I think it's british... if you can see the DZ from the exit point, you can jump. Safe? Well, who knows. Less safe than our rules? I doubt it. Dave

AHH! Here's a big problem I've had. You're misusing the word "risk." Risk the product of the severity and probability of an event. You are using risk to mean probability alone. True, the AAD does not change the probability of an accident. It is not true that the AAD does not change the risk of an accident. Dave

Ron, I agree that you have never said to jump without an AAD. You HAVE said that if someone WON'T jump without an AAD, they shouldn't jump at all. I then make the leap (no pun intended) that, in order to jump out of a plane, I must be willing to do it without an AAD. Do you disagree with that statement? If you don't disagree, then I have a followup question which you have failed to answer before. Why SHOULD I be willing to jump without an AAD? Dave

I absolutely disagree. Risk assessment happens to be my job. Potential outcome has EVERYTHING to do with risk. Dave

So you disagree with Ron who says kallend shouldn't do 10-way because he will not do it without an AAD? Dave

I am a firm believer that it is not possible for skydivers to spot all traffic they may encounter during their skydive from the plane. Maybe someone should have seen the glider, maybe it was nearly impossible. Nobody will ever know the answer to that. I believe that anyone that believes all traffic can be spotted before exit is fooling themselves. Face it, we're lucky it's a big freaking sky. I'm not saying don't try. And I'm not saying pilot's shouldn't avoid areas where people may be skydiving. But to say we CAN avoid all close calls just by looking out the door and windows is, in my opinion, unrealistic. Dave

NO HE DOESN'T! This is where I get confused. He (and Ron) says if you won't do a skydive without an AAD, don't do it at all. If you won't do any skydive without an AAD, don't do any skydive. But don't jump without an AAD. And you don't have to be willing to jump without an AAD. It's just that if you won't, you shouldn't jump. See they're different. I guess... Dave

Define risk. Really... when you say risk, what do you mean? Dave

You're so freaking device dependent! You should be ashamed. So why wear a helmet? Is it to protect your head in case of a collision? Why wear an AAD? As a second level of backup in case the helmet doesn't adequately protect your head? Or do you just blindly believe the AAD will protect you so therefore you don't have to be careful? Dave

That's irrelevant. The point was that if you don't have the skill to safely do 10-way and you choose to do it anyway, that is the business of the rest of your team. You don't fall in that category. I agree with your comment above. When your skill is not in question, how much risk you choose to take on any skydive is only your business. Your AAD dependence (or lack thereof) has no effect on your 10-way team. You can do 10-way absolutely as safe as someone that would do it without an AAD, but you choose to not accept the added risk associated with a collision when an AAD is not present. With an AAD, the probability of a collision is not reduced. What is reduced is the severity of the collision, at least in some cases. Would you do 10-way without a helmet? Dave

Alright whatever. Reread what I wrote. I never misquoted you. I asked how my statement was different from your statement. All you did was repeat that you never said my statement. That's it again. That's your quote. "If you will only jump with an AAD..." What's the alternative to that? Why is it wrong to "only jump with an AAD?" I asked before why I might want to consider not jumping with an AAD. I see no benefit in it, and you aren't even suggesting it. But yet you keep bring up that it's somehow wrong to "only jump with an AAD." Oh well, guess I'll never understand this. I think I'm just too stupid. Dave

Finally a quote I like. Here's the question. What about driving on the freeway is too risky for that person? If this person has the skill to drive on the freeway safely (ie has done it before safely, with or without an airbag), I see no problem with that. The fact is freeway speeds are higher than on city streets. Airbags may be more important in a crash. I mean, I don't want to get into a discussion of airbags, but assume they do offer protection over just a seatbelt at freeway speeds. What's wrong with making that choice? The person can drive on the freeway absolutely as safely as anyone else. He/she just chooses to only do so if the car is equipped with safety equipment that may protect them in the event of an accident. The person isn't doing anything reckless. Not trying to go have an accident or attempting to narrowly avoid an accident. The person is just driving well within their skill level. They could just as easily say "i wont drive on the freeway in any car that doesn't have a radio." It doesn't affect anyone else. When their radio dies, they stay home till its fixed. So what? It's his/her choice. Dave