Hooknswoop

Simple, "I won't do xyz, because it isn't worth the risk to me." If someone says that, then I think they shouldn't do 'xyz'. If they then say, "I'll do xyz because I have an AAD." then I think they are AAD-dependant and are not treating the AAD as a back up. That is all I have been saying all along. Derek

What the hell does he consider close then? he didn't stick the plan, putting you both at risk. He either doesn't want to admit how close you two were or doesn't comprehend it. Either way he is a dnager to himself and others. Derek

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=848519;search_string=smart;#848519 I mentioned the 4 plastic vs. 6 metal slider stops a while ago when someone asked about the Smart. Derek

I agree and am not disputing that. I am saying don't exceed your risk/benefit limit because you have an AAD, you are saying to go ahead and exceed it because you have an AAD. I don't see a difference with what you are saying and saying it is OK to drive faster than you think you should because you have airbags. Derek

I dunno, you'd have to ask Aerodyne why they have 4 plastic stops and PD has 6 metal stops. Derek

No, not too far up, they aren't there. There are 4 stops, not 6. Derek

You do if you need it to decrease risk below your risk/benefit ratio.................... Derek

But what about the person that does? Isn't saying that coach freefly jumps aren't worth the risk saying it is one of the million things you wouldn't do? Isn't that saying coach freefly jumps are beyond their risk/benefit ratio limit? Then this is where we disagree. I believe someone is also AAD dependant when they depend on it to mitigate risk so that it is below their risk/benifit limit. That is depending on something. Because if they didn't depend on it, then the jump is above their risk/benefit ratio. and they wouldn't do the jump. That is depending on the AAD to reduce risk. I don't think anyone should depend on an AAD to either fire or reduce risk. If you are counting on something to reduce risk because it is otherwise above your risk/benefit limit, then it isn't a back up device anymore. You are saying it is OK to drive a car above your risk/benefit ratio if you have airbags. I don't think you should drive a car above your risk/benefit ratio because you have airbags. Depending on your airbags to work because you ram a building is definately dpending on your airbags. Depending on your airbags to lower the risk to below your risk/benefit raio is ALSO depending on them. Either way, youa re depending on them. A back up device should not allow you to exceed your risk/benefit ratio, nothing should. Isn't that the point of a limit? If your hard deck for cutting away, i.e the lowest altitude you try to fix a main before cutting away, is 1,800 feet. Does the fact that you have a Skyhook that may get your reserve out faster change that hard deack? If you allow it to, then your are not any safer because you have a Skyhook. If you don't change your hard deck, then you are safer with a Skyhook. I think you shoud use safety devices to be safer, not to exceed your risk/benefit ratio. I guess we'll have to disagree. But I think my concept results in a jumper that is less likely to ever need an AAD. Derek

Is a 100-way? a 200-way? I'm sure you have a risk/benifit limit. If the risk of a collision on a 300-way isn't worth it to you, should you go ahead and do the 300-way because you have a Cypres? Let's say you think a 200-way is too risky to be worth it to you. Would you do 200-way if you had a Cypres? Again, out of those million things that you wouldn't try, are they any that you would change your mind about and try because youhave an AAD? You are saying you may not know if you feel a jump exceeds you risk/benifit ratio. What if the jumper does know? In Sunshine's case, she does know that free fly coach jumps are not worth the risk of collision, but she will do them anyway because she has a Cypres. What would it take for someone to be AAD- dependant in your opinion? I think I am seeing light at the end of the tunnel here

OK, however you want to say it, works for me. What do you think constitutes being AAD-dependant? Do you think that if someone does a jump that is beyond their risk/benefit ratio because the have an AAD is being dependant on it? Derek

I think it is something you can only determine by asking. Hopefully they know. From my first post in this thread: "* How do you determine if you are using a Cypres to exceed your personal risk threshold or just feel you should always jump with one because it is a good idea to have one? I know of no pass/fail test you can do to make that determination. You have to be honest with yourself and make an honest assessment of how much risk is acceptable and how much risks you are taking, leaving the Cypres out of this determination." No, she said the risk of coaching free fly jumps were beyond her limit ("The chances of jumping with someone that isn't yet stable just isn't worth it to me."), and she uses an AAD to bring the risks back below her limit ("I won't do freefly jumps with newbies that are learning to freefly until i get my cypres back.") No, my opinion hasn't changed. I think I have done a poor job of articulating my opinion and it has gotton misunderstood. To me, no it is not definately an indicator that he should not be doing a 400-way. From my first post; "* Refusing not to jump w/o a Cypres is OK. They are great and you should jump with one. Using a AAD to exceed your personal acceptable risk threshold is not OK because it isn’t smart to use back up safety devices that may not work to justify doing something you feel is too risky." I think it takes saying a jump has a higher level of risk than their limit and that they are doing the jump anyway because they have an AAD, like in the example above. Derek

Hence the "all other things being equal". Derek

have they brout the Carbanara back? It was a special for a while and then they took them off the menu. I stopped going to Quiznos when they took it off the menu. Derek

No, I agree. The choice to use or not use an AAD in and of itself does not indicate if they are treating it like a back up or not. Using an AAD on jumps more risky than others is OK. Using an AAD to make jumps that you determine have more risk involved than your personnal limit of risk is not OK. The point you keep missing is the personnal limit of risk. If they feel that the risks in AFF aren't more than his personal limit and just adds an AAD as a back up, then he should do AFF. If they feel that the risks in AFF are more than their personal limit and adds an AAD to offset the risk that is over their limit, then they are not treating the AAD as a back up and shouldn't do AFF. How can I tell if the person just likes having an AAD and it is just a back up or if the person is relying on it? I can't. Not unless they tell me several things. 1) They feel, for example, the risks on AFF jumps are higher than their personnal limit, and 2) They will do AFF because they have an AAD even though they admit the inherent risks in AFF are more than their personnel limit for risk. If they say both 1 and 2, then they are not treating the AAD as a back up, they are depending on it to bring the risk of AFF down below what they consider their limit of risk. If you are depending on something, it isn't a back up. Derek

Unfortunately without the definition of "safer jumper" it is up for interpretation and those who define "safer jumper" as one less likely the be injured or killed, will see a conflict with statement 1. [1.) AADs lessen the likelihood of being seriously injured or kill by a low/no pull. ] No. If you define a "safer jumper" as one less likely the be injured or killed by a low/no pull, then an AAD jumper is safer than a non-AAD equipped jumper. I define a "safer jumper" as a jumper less likely to be injured/killed at all. For 2 jumpers with the same limit to the amount of risk they are willing to take; An AAD-equipped jumper is no more a "safer jumper" than a non- AAD equipped jumper except from sub AAD activation altitude pulls or no pulls. They are equally exposed to any other injury or cause of death unless given all other things being equal. The AAD equipped jumper that goes on jumps that exceed their limit of risk because they have an AAD has a higher chance of something happening (except sub AAD activation altitude pulls or no pulls) than the non-AAD eqiupped jumper that does not go on jumps that exceed their risk limit. Again this is if both jumpers have the same risk limit. By making riskier jumps (above their risk limit), the AAD-equipped jumper has a higher chance of something bad (besides injury/death from sub AAD activation altitude pulls or no pulls) happening. By making less risky (at or below their risk limit), the non-AAD equipped jumper has a smaller chance of something bad ((besides injury/death from sub AAD activation altitude pulls or no pulls) happening P.S. Nice post. Derek

No, there are several back up air sources, the mini bottle would be the 3rd back up, for a total of 4 sources. If he feels that the risks in AFF aren't more than his personal limit and just adds an AAD as a back up, then he should do AFF. If a jump has more risk than the person is willing to accept, then they shouldn't make the jump. If the jump does not have more risk than they are willing to accept, then they should make the jump. You should jump an AAD (you don't have to but it is a good idea), but shouldn't make a jump because you have an AAD. I care. I care a lot. If I think a jump has too high oif a chance of injury or death, I wouldn't make the jump. I wouldn't think, "Well, I may break my arm, but I'll still be able to pull, and if I can't pull, well the AAD will fire." I'm guessing the helo pilots wouldn't go fly if one of the engines was showing signs of imminent failure. The dual engines serve as a back up for each other. But just because they only need one engine doesn’t mean they should go fly when they know they will probably need the back up. Safe to say? I think this is the root of our misunderstanding and very important to what I am trying to say. 1) We each set a limit for ourselves how much risk we are willing to take. 2) We each evaluate the risk (or least hopefully we do) of doing something before we go and do it. I look at the risks of a 300-way and decide that the risk is less than my limit for risk or the risk of a 300-way is more than my limit. 3) If the risk is below my limit, I make the jump, if it is above my limit, I don’t make the jump. 4) An AAD never enters into the equation. If I allowed myself to consider the AAD, I would make more dangerous jumps. I don’t think it is a good idea to do something you feel has more risk than your limit because you have an AAD. If you do, then you are depending on the AAD to bring the risk down below your limit and I don’t think depending on AAD’s to function is a good idea. I wouldn’t make a jump that I felt had a higher level of risk than my personal limit because the chance of injury is too high. Having an AAD that should fire and save me after that injury if I need does not change that. I wouldn’t go on a 30-way head down dive because the chances of a collision are too high for me. Having an AAD that should fire if I need does not change the fact that the chance of a collision is too high for me. If I felt that a 30-way head down dive did not have too high of a chance of collision for me and decided to go do it. Having an AAD that should fire if I need it does not change the fact that the chance of a collision is not too high for me. The chances of, for example, a collision is enough for me to make a decision about whether or not to make the jump. The Go/No-Go decision gets made before I would ever get to factoring in an AAD. It doesn’t matter if I have an AAD or not. Derek

Exactly, but you have a limit to how much risk you'll take. A 5-way has a certain level of risk of collision with other jumpers. If a jumper feels the risk is too high, then they shouldn't do 5-ways. An AAD does not reduce the chance they will be injured in a collision.

No, not afraid. He feels a 5-way is to risky for him. You have your limit too, right? Would you swim with great whites in a seal outfit with blood in the water? My point is why do something that you think is too risky to do? Isn't that the point of having a limit? So that you don't go over it? Derek

Doesn't the 5 way have a higher chance of a collision like a 300-way has a higher chance of collision than a 4-way? Being afraid to screw up or performance anxiety can reduce your performance, increasing his chances of a collision. I'm saying don't go on jumps you think are too risky for you. Others are saying go ahead and do whatever jumps if you have an AAD. Which is safer? Derek

It doesn't have to be. The NBL didn't do it. It isn't that hard to not depend on back up devices. Just don't do something that you think is too risky because of back up devices. Derek

Then we have to disagree, since to me risk depends on injury-free survival. Exactly why if the chance of a collision is too high, having an AAD does not mean you should go on the jump, since the chance of a collision has not changed. A collision can result in a broken arm. If I think a jump has too high of a chance of collision, I won't go do it just because I have an AAD. I won't go do it because I don't want a broken arm and feel the chances are too high of getting one. If all that matters was survival, then 100 jumpers with 50 jumps each and AAD's could go try a 100-way. They make collide, knock each other out, break bones, etc, but they would all survive. If survival was all that mattered, then jumpers with AAD's would not have limits, they could go do any jump. I disagree that survival is all that matters. Because an AAD shouldn't be relied upon. That is why NASA didn't allow the umbical line to be routed around structure, because then we would be relying on that mini bottle and it wouldn't be a back up anymore. Is NASA wrong for not allowing us to route the umbilical line around structure which would mean we would need that mini bottle in the event of a loss of air supply? I don't think they were. It's a litmus test, maybe a poor one, or poorly phrased. I think someone else said it better, "Don't go on a skydive BECAUSE you have an AAD." If you do, then it is no longer a back up. If you go on a dive that you feel has too high of a chance for a collision because you have an AAD, then the AAD is no longer a back up like it should be. Again, what I am trying to say there is don't make a jump that you think is too risky because you have an AAD. Treat an AAD like a back up and you'll be safer. 2 jumpers, "A" and "B", both have AAD's. Both are OK w/ 4-ways but both think 5-ways are too risky because of the chances for a collision. One gets on a 5-way, figuring, "Well, if something happens, I have an AAD.". The other goes on a 4-way. Who is the safer jumper? Derek

I agree. The only two rsik asessments that matter are how much risk a jumper is willing to take and if that jumper feels a particular jump exceeds that or not. It is completely personal. If the jump is too risky, the jump is too risky. AAD's don't change how risky a jump is, only the odds of surviving if something does happen. If the jumper isn't comfortable doing 5-ways, they shouldn't do 5-ways. If they do do the 5-way because they now have an AAD, they aren't treating it like a back up device. An AAD shouldn't allow to do something you aren;t comfortable doing. The jump is either too risky for you or it isn't. An AAD shouldn't change that. As a safety diver, we had to keep a clear path back to the donning stand and keep the umbilical line from preventing us a clear shot to the donning stand. Adding the extra air tank didn't change that even though we had more time to get them back to the donning stand with the tank. If we would have allowed the umbilical line to go around structure because now we had more time witht he spare tank, that means we would relying on it in the event of a problem, and it was no longer a back up device. I disagree. Put 5 people with no jumps out of the airplane with Cypres's. Now put 5 people w/ 1000 jumps each out of the airplane w/o Cypres's. Which 5-way is safer? To me safety isn't just landing under an open parachute, it is avoiding the need for an AAD in the first place. I think the second 5-way is safer because they are less likely to need AAD's in the first place. Given 2 identical 5-ways, one w/ AAD's, one w/o, the 5-way with are safer. That leaves out a key point. Using an AAD for riskier jumps is fine by me. Using an AAD for jumps that are too risky is not. By this I mean the jumper that is uncomfortable doing a 5-way, but will do a 5-way with a Cypres. If his limit is 4-ways, his limit is 4-ways. If the policy is a clear shot to the doning stand, then that's the policy, regardless of the extra tank or not. If NASA had just looked at the system at the NBL as a whole and not considered the mini bottle a back up, then we could have changed what we were allowed to do with regards to routing the umbilical cord. But NASA didn't look at it as a system, they looked at what was necessary, and then what was safety back ups and didn't change anything when the extra mini bottles where installed. That is how back ups should be treated. If we had depended on that bottle we could have accepted more risk. Instead, because it was a back up, we didn't depend on it and it just made things safer, as a back up should. I have never argued that a jumper shouldn't wear an AAD or is safer w/o one. Please quote anywhere I have said that a jumper is safer w/o an AAD. Derek

I agree totally. In this case I would think the airbags are like an AAD and the type of car, metal/fiberglass 2wd/4wd, etc are you main and reserve. When I was a safety diver at the NBL, several times a reduntant air supply tank was added to the EMU suits in the vent all the other air supply systems failed, the diver could turn on this mini bottle for the subject. It was strictly a back up. No added risks were taken when it was installed. The same rules and procedures applied regardless if that bottle was installed or not. To truly be a back up, a back up shouldn't be relied upon. I think an AAD should be treated strictly as a back up. I believe a back up device should not allow the risk level to be increased. I think a back up device shoud make you safer. If you increase your risk exposure because you have an additional back up device, you aren't safer than before. Derek

I'm going to take a break and think this through again Derek

I am not omiting it, I am treating it like a back up. When you decide how fast to drive, do you consider if you have airbags or not? I don't. They are back ups only and do not allow me to drive any faster. I would prefer not to ever use use and make driving decisions with that goal in mind. I do not drive faster because I have airbags. If I did I would be depending on the to mitigate the risk of driving faster. I don;t think it is a good idea to depend on airbags or AAD's. I think they should be strictly back ups whose use is avoided. You mentioned that the AAD is there to save your life if the human part of the system fails, but didn't mention which part of the system the reserve is there for in case it fails. That is the main part of the system. The reserve is there in case the main canopy part of the system fails. The AAD is there in case the human part of the system fails. 2 different purposes. That is why I treat them differently, they have different purposes. Derek