Hooknswoop

If you use the Cypres to allow you to go beyond your acceptable risk threshold, then I think it is a wrong attitude towards safety. You should never go beyond your acceptable risk threshold, because by its very definition, you are now at an unacceptable risk level by your own determination. The purpose of safety gear, helmet, AAD, PFD, whatever, is to increase safety, not allow you to do something you either don’t have the ability to do or think is too dangerous. Some people realize that is an abstract concept, but really very simple. Some people keep trying to twist words and read into things. Derek

The PFD shouldn't influence that decision. Whitewater kayaking is either beyond my acceptable risk threshold or it isn’t. A PFD doesn’t change that. If I can’t roll a kayak or paddle well enough to handle the water, a PFD doesn’t change that. If I feel that whitewater kayaking is beyond my risk threshold, then whitewater kayaking with a PFD is beyond my risk threshold. If I feel that whitewater kayaking is beyond my risk threshold, then whitewater kayaking with a PFD and a helmet is beyond my risk threshold. A PFD doesn’t affect my acceptable risk threshold. If I felt whitewater kayaking was within my acceptable risk threshold, I would do it and wear a PFD and helmet while doing it. Derek

No, I think she is wrong for using an AAD to do something she considers beyond her acceptable risk threshold. No, I feel it is also wrong to do something beyond your ability level, like my kayaking examply clearly shows, just because you have an optional safety device. That is why I said: "either because of my abilities or because I felt 100+ ways are too risky for me" I don't think a Cypres should be used to compensate for ability or to exceed your acceptable risk threshold. If someone posts that they don't think they can handle a 200-way, but would jump on a 200-way if they had a Cypres, I would think that was wrong also. How did you get that "Clearly, skill level is not part of your equation." when I specifically said it was? I keep saying the same thing and you keep reading it differently. Derek

Yep, we are on the same page here. I didn't say that someone that kayaks without a PFD is unsafe. They are not being as safe as they could be. I didn't say that someone that jumps without an AAD is simply demonstrating they don't depend on it. They aren't different. Using an AAD/PFD/Helmet, etc are great. I don't have a lot of kayaking experience. I can't roll a kayak. I have no business running class rapids in a kayak, it is way beyond my acceptable risk threashold. If I said, "i can run run class 5 because I have a PFD and a helmet", that would be wrong/bad. If I though anything over a 100-way was beyond my acceptable risk level, either because of my abilities or because I felt 100+ ways are too risky for me, to say, "Well, I'll do the 200-way because now I have a cypres." would be wrong/bad. Derek

The same USPA that lowered the standards to be an AFFI? The same USPA that backed down from making a better student program, the ISP, mandatory? I'll say it again. AAD's are great, just don't use them to go beyond your acceptable risk threshold. Derek

That is NOT what I am saying. How did you get that out of: "Harness - safety gear. Failures have killed people. That is like saying a kayak is a piece of safety gear. It isn't. No kayak and you can't go kayaking. A rig is required gear to skydive like a kayak is required to go kayaking. A PFD and helemt is safety gear. a Helmet and Cypres is safety gear. "?????? Like I said, a PFD and helmet doesn't mean I can safely run class 5 rapids in a a kayak. You should always wear a PFD and helmet while whitewater kayaking. What you shouldn't do is go whitewater kayaking in rapids you are not capable of handling just because you have a PFD and helmet. Derek

It was a Crossfire 104 for the birdman jumps. A larger canopy lowers the risk level. Using a larger canopy for birdman jumps is using the right tool for the job. I was jumping tghe 104 anyway because I hadn't jumped in 6 months and felt the VX-60 would be too much because I wasn't current with it. So, I really didn't upsize to fly birdman, I was jumping the 104 anyway. Going to a larger main isn't using a safety device to exceed my risk threshold. I didn't go over my acceptable risk threshold. That is completely different from using an AAD to justify exceeding your acceptable risk level. Derek

No, John, it's not about qualified or not. She has determined that freefly coach jumps are above her acceptable risk threshold. "I won't do freefly jumps with newbies that are learning to freefly until i get my cypres back. The chances of jumping with someone that isn't yet stable just isn't worth it to me. I'll stick to jumping with more experienced people." So she uses a Cypres to offset the risk she isn't willing to accept. How does an AAD affect a jumper’s acceptable risk threshold? Explain to me how a Cypres can allow a jumper to do jumps they consider too risky? Isn't that like me going kayaking in class 5 rapids even though I know that it would be too risky for me, but because I have a PFD and a helmet, I run the rapids anyway? Isn’t that like driving faster and taking more chances because the new car has side impact airbags? I’ll say this again: Everyone should always jump with an AAD. No one should exceed their risk threshold because of an AAD. Also, you didn’t explain to me how I am supposed to make sure no one misunderstands when you say someone ALWAYS misunderstands……….. Derek

That is all I am saying. Derek

I had one for 831 jumps when I was flying a FX-70 and for the 900 or so tandems I did. Other wise I didn't have one. So, just over half my jumps was with one. nothing ever changed about how I jumped when I changed from having one to not having and from not having one to having one. All I am saying is I don't think jumpers houls accept a higher risk level than they normally would simply because they have a Cypres. That is all. I think everyone should have a modern AAD in their rigs. Derek

That is like saying a kayak is a piece of safety gear. It isn't. No kayak and you can't go kayaking. A rig is required gear to skydive like a kayak is required to go kayaking. A PFD and helemt is safety gear. a Helmet and Cypres is safety gear. Derek

I agree, but I don't think one shoud increase their risk level beyond what they feel is acceptable based on their safety gear. Should I go run class 5 rapids in a kayak even though I don't know how to roll one because I have the latest in PFD's, helmets, etc? Does all that gear make me safe? I don't think I should. I should first learn how to roll a kayak, etc, getting good enough to handle class 5 rapids without needing a PFD or helmet, then wear that stuff for the rapids. That is being safe. Safety gear doesn't mean one is safe. Well, unfortunately there is. There are even more doing it unknowningly. I am trying to do the opposite, don't do anything you wouldn't do without a Cypres with a cypres. Derek

I disagree for the same reason I don't drive any faster or take more chances because our new car has side impact airbags. Derek

"The chances of jumping with someone that isn't yet stable just isn't worth it to me." I know that is what they do, but if the risks aren't worth it, a Cypres shouldn't make it worth the risk. Derek

You are relying on an AAD to offset the risk that you normally wouldn't accept. Making jumps that you consider to risky simply because you have a Cypres defeats the purpose of the Cypres. Did everything I learned in my 8 years and 3333 jumps disapear when I quit jumping? I still know more about skydiving than you do. I think you just don't like my opinion, so you attack me. Attack my opinion, not me. Derek

Except for PD-R's from the same era. Funny how Ravens and PD-R's are from the same generation. PD still makes and sells the same PD-R's while PA is on the 3rd version. Derek

So how does a Cypres make it OK to "do freefly jumps with newbies that are learning to freefly" Kallend: Can't say that anymore. Derek

Ah, you are right. Get a PD or Icarus ZP main. They open, fly and land better. Derek

Ravens suck. Get a PD-R. They open,fly and land better. Derek

You refuse to understand. Show me where someone said you are less safe........... If you don't do any jump you wouldn't do w/o a Cypres, then you are safer for having it. You are not the issue. I am not saying you or jumpers like you are less safe with a Cypres. I NEVER said that. I did say there are jumpers that make jumps they wouldn't without a Cypres because they are too risky or beyond what they can handle. They use the Cypres to justify making a jump they wouldn't make without it. These are the jumpers that I am talking about. Derek

I don't have a list or anything, but there are more jumpers who factor in the AAD into their decision making process, even if they don't realize it, than you would think. I don't think running a red light is worse-case. Pick your analogy, run a stop sign? Drive 10-mph over the speed limit? Whatever. The point is the teen shouldn't drive any differently because you have a seat belt, you should drive as if you don't have one, but still wear it. Then you are being safe and getting the full benefit ofwearing a seat belt. Too many jumpers take on risks they wouldn't take on if they didn't have an AAD. I disagree with that practice. No, you should ride as if you didn't have a helmet. Otherwise you are negating the increase in safety from having a helmet. With too many jumpers, that is exactly the case. How else can it be said? Derek

If the card is in date, but forged, the FAA would probably never know. If an actual rigger signed it off, then the rigger could be held responsible, if the FAA ever found out. Derek

The possible downside is someone making a skydive that is too risky because, “I have a Cypres, I’ll be alright.” No, this is like telling the teen, “Now just because you have a seatbelt, don’t drive like an idiot. Drive as though you don’t have one. Would you run that red light without a seatbelt? No? Good. Now don’t run it because you feel safe because you have a seatbelt.” Derek

Exactly the problem. It has been explained many different ways. Bill Booth explained it and people still don't get it. If Bill Booth can't explain it, maybe it is not the presenters that have the problem. Maybe people simply do not want to understand because they do not want to change the way they make skydiving decisions and how they jump. Statistics aren’t everything. They can be wrong, misinterpreted, misunderstood, etc. So much has changed over the years besides AAD’s, that the numbers aren’t very meaningful. Real life is very different from a classroom and textbooks. I do I make sure someone does or doesn’t do something? I have stated several times that I am not saying to take out your Cypres and jump without it and AAD’s are a good thing. What else do you want me to do? How can I make sure no one misunderstands when you say someone always misunderstands. You want me to do something you say is impossible. Derek

Kallend- You continue to misunderstand my (our) point. I have never said don't use an AAD. In fact, I have said using an AAD is a good idea. I am posting negatively about AAD usage, I am posting negatively about how some people use them. Let me say this as simply as possible. If the risk level of the skydive is beyond what you are willing to accept without an AAD, then you should not make the skydive with an AAD. Read Bill Booth's post about skydivers simply increasing their risk whenever a new safety device comes out, negating the added safety benefit of the new device. Instead they should use the device to increase their safety level. His example of being able to cutaway and get a reserve out in 500 less feet is a perfect example. Instead of jumpers being safer, they just pulled 500 feet lower. A AAD only makes you safer if you do not negate it's benefits by makeing riskier skydives because your rig has an AAD instsalled. There is always someone that will get the wrong message because they only hear what they want to hear. That doesn't mean no messages should be put out there. Derek