HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: AAD Question
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:48:10 GMT

Reply-to: BRIAN.KEAHL@p0.f524.n133.z1.fidonet.org (BRIAN KEAHL)
Fido-To: 0632cs03@uhdvx3.dt.u

 0 >the team found themselves approaching 1,000 feet in free fall.  All
 0 >Canadian team members are equipped with FXC 12000 Automatic Activation
 0 >Devices.
 0 > 
 0 >Each deployed their mains, but ALL SIX AADs began to fire.  They all
 0 >found themselves under main canopies and struggling to smother their
 0 >reserves.  Kent and all the team landed uneventfully with a good, if
 0 >somewhat unusual story.
 0 > 
 0 >=====================================================================
 0 > 
 0 >Question:  Does this incident make you more or less likely to use an
 0 >           AAD personally?
 0 > 
 0 > 
   >-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
I would say that these skydivers used poor judgement in several areas.
  1) They made a poor deployment decision at low altitude and/or
  2) Set the AAD too high
  3) Set to low of an initial breakoff altitude
  4) Failed to plan for the one big weak point of AADS: Low Pulls.
 
I have an AAD (FXC 12000) and had it fire when it was set, but not
when I wanted, because I chose to deploy my main at 800ft rather
than dump the reserve.  I made the above mistakes to a greater
degree.  I now have a definate "AAD" oriented deployment plan:
 
      1) AAD set to just inside red zone (900ft).
      2) Main deployment at 1500ft and above.
      3) AAD deactivation as soon after deployment as possible.
      4) 1500ft or below and it's the silver handle.
 
I consider the Canadian incident as well as my personal one as
arguments FOR AADs (What were we doing down there anyway?).
Like all things, AADs require some consideration.  Deployment methods
have pluses and minuses.  The upshot of an AAD is that a skydiver gets
a canopy out if he is unaware for some reason, the downside is IF HE
screws up he may have TWO canopies. From personal experience with AADs
for myself and in drop zone operations I have found that they are
extremely reliable devices (not prone to misfire).  I have also found
that the few "misfires" that folks talk about are not due to a
malfunctioning unit but due to incorrect/no calibration prior to jump
or "I dumped at 1800 and it was set for 1500, why did it go off?".
 
  -- I have an AAD and always will --
 
By the way, the 800ft deployment was after a four point four way from
3500 ft. A low breakoff after wasting 1000ft "arguing" about a fifth
point.  Sometimes we just get stupid ...
 
        Brian
 
 
--- OurBBS Mail Packer v3.0 ---
--- eecp 1.45 LM2 

 * Origin: SpacePort Atlanta BBS (404) 739-6667   (1:133/524)
--  
SKYDIVE - via FidoNet node 1:233/13    (ehsnet.fidonet.org)
From: jmills@cass.ma02.bull.com (John Luke Mills)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: AAD Question
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:50:27 GMT
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.

In article <2APR199221302350@uhdvx3.dt.uh.edu> 0632cs03@uhdvx3.dt.uh.edu (Andy Calistrat) writes:
> After some groping and grabbing for air (one team
>member and Kent got clear enough to deploy their mains) six members of
>the team found themselves approaching 1,000 feet in free fall.  All
>Canadian team members are equipped with FXC 12000 Automatic Activation
>Devices.
>
>Each deployed their mains, but ALL SIX AADs began to fire.  They all
>found themselves under main canopies and struggling to smother their
>reserves.  Kent and all the team landed uneventfully with a good, if
>somewhat unusual story.
>
>Question:  Does this incident make you more or less likely to use an
>           AAD personally?

This doesn't make me any less likely to use an AAD.  It does however
indicate a potentially valuable lesson.  If you have an AAD, there is
now a minimum altitude where you should consider deploying your main.
This will vary depending on the tolerances and trigger altitude of the
AAD.  Below this altitude you should use your reserve to avoid the
possibility of two canopies fighting for the same altitude.

Assuming I buy an expert Cypress, this tells me below 1,300 feet,
deploying the main is a bad idea, go for the reserve.  If you get
this low, this might be a good idea even without the AAD.

                )
         o     /
        >     /    )__  __
       /     /    /   )   )
      /     (    /   (   (
  (__/
--
From: SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: AAD Question
Date: 5 Apr 92 19:18:37 GMT

Reply-to: Chris.Irwin@p0.f68.n110.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Irwin)
Fido-To: 0632cs03@uhdvx3.dt.uh.edu

> Question:  Does this incident make you more or less likely
> to use an
> AAD personally?
 
I've always said that if everyone had 'em, there would be more accidents.  I think it works out well the way it is; those that think they need them wear them.  I think that a lot of people see them as a potential source of danger in larger RW formations.

--- DB A1065/009283
--- eecp 1.45 LM2 

 * Origin: BETA 1063 available - 300 baud MINIMUM! (1:110/68)
--  
SKYDIVE - via FidoNet node 1:233/13    (ehsnet.fidonet.org)
From: robbins@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: Any reasons not to get a Cypress AAD?
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:55:05 GMT

In article <606.29E43FD8@ehsnet.fidonet.org>, SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE) writes:
> Reply-to: Chris.Irwin@p0.f68.n110.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Irwin)
> Fido-To: jmills@cass.ma02.bull.com
> 
>> Will the explosive sniffing dogs seek me out?
>> (The Cypress uses a small pyrotechnic device to open the
>> reserve)
>  
> Then it's illegal to take this with you as checked luggage.  You'll probably get arrested trying to carry a threatening explosive device onto a plane. The judge might believe you, but the security cops probably won't.
>  
> One time I had to argue about carrying my rig on board, just because the guy had some idea that all rigs had these "explosive, pressure-sensitive things that would blow up."   I convinced him that my rig contained no exposives after a while and they let
 me take it.
> 

Not so.  You can check the device, even with charge, and have no problem.
When police and military personell who are required to carry weapons
(courriers come to mind) they either:
		1. Check weapon with pilot.   not often done...
or		2.  Check it with luggage along with documentation, photocopy
			of I.D. and orders and such.

When bomb dogs or gas chromatographers find it, they give it a cursory
inspection,
check passenger list to see you are there., and let it go.


A AAD with manual and letter explaining function would probably do the 
trick.

					Steve

Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
From: dpuchals@caen.engin.umich.edu (Douglas Puchalski)
Subject: Non-fatal incident
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 20:51:27 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

AAD Incident report:

On April 5, 1992, a student exitted at 3.5k feet from a Cessna 182
on his first static line jump.  He was wearing an SST Racer with
a Manta main and a spring loaded (freefall) pilot chute.

He apparently negative arched on his hanging exit (pushed off?) and
went immediately back to earth.  The static line extracted the pin
and began to pull out the pilot chute, but somehow either the
bridle or the main's lines got wrapped around his arm.

Uh oh.  This seems to be the WORST possible malfunction for a 
student.  He's got lines around his arms, and a bag out that's
not opening.  All those lines flying around would scare the hell
out of me.

I assume this all means that the pilot chute and/or bridle was
caught on his arm.

He attempted to get "it" off his arm, and as we watched from the
ground (in horror:  I forgot **all** about his AAD).  Right before
we would lose sight of him behind the trees, with everyone saying
"pull it man!" (ala Fandango) we saw the round reserve open.

The jumpmaster followed him out.  They landed in between four 
houses with large (thank God) yards.  He was OK!

The cutaway handle was found near him, and neighbors found the
reserve handle some unkown distance away (not too great, the
wind was LV so he probably went almost straight down).  He claims
that he pulled the reserve and thought that he opened it, but
investigation revealed the AAD did fire.  However, I don't think
it would be unusual for the AAD to fire right after the handle
is pulled, if close enough to the firing altitude.  (It was a
sentinel AAD, the one with the green and red light, I forget
the model #).

All of this leads *me* to believe that he pulled his reserve and
*then* cut away.  But whatever he did, he was lucky his reserve
didn't entangle with all of those lines.

Whew.

AAD's:  I'll definately have one.  If another jumper knocks me 
unconscious, I'll want to live.  Or if I just screw up.  It
happens.
From: dpuchals@caen.engin.umich.edu (Douglas Puchalski)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Oops
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:54:10 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Sorry about the multiple postings...our usenet is CRAZY these
days...
From: grx1512@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Dale Southard Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: Opinions on a Glide Path Nova
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:06:21 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services


In article <1992Apr8.011029.964@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, sparkie@spock.cs.wisc.edu 
(Mark Horn) writes:
> 
> Well, I just got back from Tennessee and I can't stop talking like a 
> south'ner.  Anyway, while I was down there, I got to jump a Nova 110 for 
> three jumps.  Nova is a new line of zero porosity canopies manufactured by 
> Glide Path International.  The smallest of which is a 99 sq. ft. canopy!

<stuff deleted>

> Landings were trickier than under a Sabre, but easier than an Excal.  
> Trickier because the flaring power of the canopy is not as strong as a 
> Sabre.  To get a really nice landing you had to build some extra speed.  
> There was one landing where I didn't do this and I ran out of flare.  
> However, since the toggle range is longer than an Excal, the flare is not 
> as touchy and thus easier to land than an Excal.  Let there be no confusion,
> though - you can get a really nice turf-surf out of this canopy - especially
> since the front riser turns are faster than on a Sabre.

Mark:

Since you said you didn't get much time to fly & try, this not be something
you can answer but...

How were the landings under a more conservative wing loading (like 1lb/sq ft)?
The phrase "To get a really nice landing you had to build some extra speed"
usually translates as "the canopy is good aerodynamically, but I put too
much weight under it and  needed Xtra lift or I would'a been a ditch witch" :-)

Just wondering.

-- 
Dale Southard Jr.                                 Sr. Rigger
University of Toledo                             AFF/I   SL/I
grx1512@uoft02.utoledo.edu                          D-11216
Department of Chemistry -- "Just another skydiving grad student."
From: karlm@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Karl W Maerz)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: Which handle to pull?  (Was Re: AAD Question)
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:59:54 GMT
Reply-To: karlm@tekig5.pen.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

mtimko@ichips.intel.com writes:
>...
>I agree with the fact that there is some altitude below which I would 
>pull my reserve first, probably 700-500 ft, not 1300 ft.  At that altitude
>your only going to get one chance and your reserve is your best bet.
>I would be interested in hearing what other jumpers think is the cross
>over point between pulling your main or your reserve first.
>

Well, lessee here.  Crossing a thousand feet every 5 and a half seconds
or thereabouts at terminal puts you at roughly 7-8 seconds to impact at
1300 feet -- about as long as its taken you to read my words if you're
an average reader.  If you are just reaching for your pilot chute at
that altitude, you will be well under 1000 feet before you have anything
above you to evaluate for a cut-away/no-cut-away decision.  If deployment
goes smoothly, then you have a very short canopy ride until you get your
ass chewed off by the local S&T; you were lucky.  If you are still traveling 
at speed it will take some amount of very precious time to determine if you 
have 1) something simple to fix by pumping your brakes, shaking the risers, 
etc., 2) a very unfortunate time and place for a major snivel, or 3) a true 
wad of shit.

Personally, none of these sound too good.  If it's case 1, then you can
suck in a giant breath, profusely thank your lucky stars, and go home
and change your underwear; you were lucky.  In the other cases you are
approaching or crossing 500 feet AGL with a non-functioning canopy.
At speed.  Your only choice is to cut away and deploy your reserve and
pray to god that it slows you down before the ground does.

I once went under 2000 feet, due to another jumper in the air above me.
(We were actually trying to avoid each other -- it was one of those
deals where we both kept comming up with the same idea about where to
go for clear air.  At 2000 feet I said "screw it" and waved off and 
pulled.)  I was swinging by ~1300 feet, and that was plenty low!  My
go-for-the-reserve threshhold was 1500 feet or lower.  Another two
or three seconds and I would have dumped my reserve instead of my
main, for all the reasons listed in some of the other postings.

Sorry for being so verbose.

Karl Maerz
karlm@tekig5.pen.tek.com
From: SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: new BBS phone number
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:19:00 GMT

Reply-to: Danny.Brown@p0.f64.n382.z1.fidonet.org (Danny Brown)
Fido-To: skydive

For those of you who call my BBS infrequently, Skydive Over Texas will change
phone numbers on April 17th, 92.

New number will be:  (512)346-5341

Danny

--- QuickBBS 2.75
--- eecp 1.45 LM2 

 * Origin: Skydive Over Texas (512)873-9464 (1:382/64)
--  
SKYDIVE - via FidoNet node 1:233/13    (ehsnet.fidonet.org)
From: yzarn@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Philip Yzarn de Louraille)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: Which handle to pull?  (Was Re: AAD Question)
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:00:03 GMT
Organization: Chevron Oil Field Research, La Habra, CA.

In article <1992Apr9.151357.25803@ichips.intel.com> mtimko@ichips.intel.com writes:
>I agree with the fact that there is some altitude below which I would 
>pull my reserve first, probably 700-500 ft, not 1300 ft.  At that altitude
>your only going to get one chance and your reserve is your best bet.
>I would be interested in hearing what other jumpers think is the cross
>over point between pulling your main or your reserve first.

Depends on the speed! At terminal, it takes 5 sec (more or less) to cover
1000'. If you were to open a main around 1300' and if it malfunctions (you
would know for sure after 3 sec), by then you would be around 700'. Need
to cutaway and open your reserve: 1-2 sec depending on your reaction: that
leaves you at about 400' when your reserve opens, so you might be under an
opened reserve by 250'. Pretty close. And that is assuming that you lost
*no* time, that you reacted fast.

So if I were to find myself at terminal speed around 1200, I would probably
go for my reserve. Below one grand, I would for sure, cause I most likely
would not have the time to open my reserve if my main had a malfunction.

-- 
  Philip Yzarn de Louraille                 Internet: yzarn@chevron.com
  Research Support Division                 Unix & Open Systems
  Chevron Information & Technology Co.      Tel: (310) 694-9232
  P.O. Box 446, La Habra, CA 90633-0446     Fax: (310) 694-7709
From: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: AAD Question
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:56:33 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

In article <608.29E43FF6@ehsnet.fidonet.org> SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE) writes:
>Reply-to: Hector.Mandel@p0.f15.n233.z1.fidonet.org (Hector Mandel)
>Fido-To: chris irwin
>
>In a message of <05 Apr 92  14:18:37>, Chris Irwin (1:110/68) writes:
>
> >I've always said that if everyone had 'em, there would be more accidents. 
>
> > I think it works out well the way it is; those that think they need them 
> >wear them.  I think that a lot of people see them as a potential source 
> >of danger in larger RW formations.
> >
>
>A lot of people are just superstitious.  :):)

I can see the following reasoning evolving:

Person A wears an AAD to a big RW formation.  It fires prematurely
and the canopy strikes person B in freefall, knocking *them* unconsious.
Person B should be the one wearing an AAD. (:-) and so on...


BS 
Jerry



-- 
Domain: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu		    Jerry Sobieski
  UUCP:	uunet!mimsy!jerrys		University of Maryland
 Phone:	(301)405-6735		Institute for Advanced Computer Studies
 					College Park, Md 20742
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
From: dpuchals@caen.engin.umich.edu (Douglas Puchalski)
Subject: Non-fatal Incident
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 20:09:20 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

AAD Incident report:

On April 5, 1992, a student exitted at 3.5k feet from a Cessna 182
on his first static line jump.  He was wearing an SST Racer with
a Manta main and a spring loaded (freefall) pilot chute.

He apparently negative arched on his hanging exit (pushed off?) and
went immediately back to earth.  The static line extracted the pin
and began to pull out the pilot chute, but somehow either the
bridle or the main's lines got wrapped around his arm.

Uh oh.  This seems to be the WORST possible malfunction for a 
student.  He's got lines around his arms, and a bag out that's
not opening.  All those lines flying around would scare the hell
out of me.

I assume this all means that the pilot chute and/or bridle was
caught on his arm.

He attempted to get "it" off his arm, and as we watched from the
ground (in horror:  I forgot **all** about his AAD).  Right before
we would lose sight of him behind the trees, with everyone saying
"pull it man!" (ala Fandango) we saw the round reserve open.

The jumpmaster followed him out.  They landed in between four 
houses with large (thank God) yards.  He was OK!

The cutaway handle was found near him, and neighbors found the
reserve handle some unkown distance away (not too great, the
wind was LV so he probably went almost straight down).  He claims
that he pulled the reserve and thought that he opened it, but
investigation revealed the AAD did fire.  However, I don't think
it would be unusual for the AAD to fire right after the handle
is pulled, if close enough to the firing altitude.  (It was a
sentinel AAD, the one with the green and red light, I forget
the model #).

All of this leads *me* to believe that he pulled his reserve and
*then* cut away.  But whatever he did, he was lucky his reserve
didn't entangle with all of those lines.

Whew.

AAD's:  I'll definately have one.  If another jumper knocks me 
unconscious, I'll want to live.  Or if I just screw up.  It
happens.
From: yzarn@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Philip Yzarn de Louraille)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: Saved by the Sentinel
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:54:01 GMT
Organization: Chevron Oil Field Research, La Habra, CA.

*one* posting would have sufficed!
-- 
  Philip Yzarn de Louraille                 Internet: yzarn@chevron.com
  Research Support Division                 Unix & Open Systems
  Chevron Information & Technology Co.      Tel: (310) 694-9232
  P.O. Box 446, La Habra, CA 90633-0446     Fax: (310) 694-7709
From: mikeg@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Mike Galat)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: Which handle to pull?  (Was Re: AAD Question)
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:41:11 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Apr15.015837.3748@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:
>
>How about those rules at Zepherhills? NO LOW PULLS!!!!  It says so right
>on the side of the manifest building, or at least it used to. That's 
>ridiculous. Rules or not, if I get low I'm going to pull. They can
>get as mad as they want about it.

I haven't been to Z-hills in a while, but I remember the sign on 
the way to the boarding area, right before you cross the bridge
(Phoenix/Z-hills by the way), and I believe rule three states:

              DEPLOY YOUR CANOPY PRIOR TO IMPACT

At least this gives you permission to open, if you get caught low! ;-)

Another good piece of advice from Phoenix/Z-hills was found on the rear 
bulkhead of Southern Cross, that had a picture of the reaper over the
DZ, with people in freefall, with the caption 'Check your gear, before you
jump'.

Mike


-- 
| Mike Galat, Blue skies & 73's       | mike@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com   |
| PP ASEL; C-20353; S/L JM; KB8EOD    |                                     |
| Marine City Airport, Marine City, MI| I want to skydive, feeling alive,   |
| -Skydiving Capital of the World! :-)| hoping it will never end! (Skydive) |
From: grx1512@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Dale Southard Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: AAD Question
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:10:03 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

X-NEWS: uoft02 rec.skydiving: 2603
From: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: AAD Question
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:37:53 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

In article <565.29DC63D2@ehsnet.fidonet.org> SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE) writes:
>Reply-to: Hector.Mandel@p0.f15.n233.z1.fidonet.org (Hector Mandel)
>
>It also, for some reason, reminds me of the time I was riding in a DC-3 and a  
>jumper sitting next to me implied that I was endangering him because I use an  
>AAD.  I'm sure that many people who have their logic mixed up feel this way  
>and I've had several people over the years make unwelcome comments about  
>my AAD.  What made this particular incident especially meaningful to me was  
>the fact that the jumper who was admonishing me had beer on his breath.
>

Sorry about the mis-attribution in my previous posting.  It
was Hector's friend who didn't like AADs, not Dale's.

My apologies.
Jerry


-- 
Domain: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu		    Jerry Sobieski
  UUCP:	uunet!mimsy!jerrys		University of Maryland
 Phone:	(301)405-6735		Institute for Advanced Computer Studies
 					College Park, Md 20742