4 ms·

In the US, perhaps the real market might be for motorcyclists where the surrounding culture attaches negative traits to helmet use -- dislike of freedom, lack o

In the US, perhaps the real market might be for motorcyclists where the surrounding culture attaches negative traits to helmet use -- dislike of freedom, lack of bravery, etc. It is now so common for skydivers to use automatic activation devices (deploys one's reserve canopy if he passes below a certain altitude traveling at least a certain velocity) that many dropzones refuse to allow the use of "rigs" without them installed. I recall being told that, when the Cypres (www.cypres-usa.com) was first introduced, a major marketing feature was that it is not visible to those casually observing the skydiver or his rig. So, a user could avoid the stigma associated with choosing to reduce the risk of death from skydiving. Over time, the culture reversed so that those not using a Cypres were deemed foolhardy. I should note that I stopped jumping a few years ago, so my information is somewhat out-of-date.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Wingman4l7 14y ago
Reminds me of complaints I saw about new table saw tech that aimed to prevent injury[1]. It wasn't that people were opposed to increased safety, but rather were afraid that expensive equipment would become mandatory, and possibly encourage complacency that would undermine existing safe practices. Did you feel that the Cypres encouraged skydivers to become more complacent? [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SawStop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SawStop
- ShabbyDoo 14y ago
  At least as of a few years ago, the rate of death per skydive had remained largely constant for years. What changed drastically was that people died from injuries sustained after a successful canopy deployment. Concurrent with Cypres's adoption was the emergence of high performance canopies. With large, "boring" canopies, it would be hard to kill oneself if already under a good canopy above cornfields. However, small, high-performance canopies provided thrilling swoops toward the ground along with long plane-outs. Half the fun of the skydive now could be had during the landing. With this fun came the risk of a poorly executed turn slamming a person into the ground hard enough to kill him. So, having achieved greater safety in the air, perhaps skydivers adopted add-on risks? The other factor which probably reduced deaths due to low deployments was the widespread adoption of larger aircraft which could quickly take large groups of jumpers to 15K ft. When one's only option for skydiving was to ride for 20+ minutes in a Cesna 182 to 10K, he wanted to maximize his airtime and might deploy somewhat low. However, the extra time in the air isn't so significant if one can exit 5K higher after a mere 10 minute ride. Deploying higher means extra time to cut away a malfunctioning main canopy and deploy a reserve parachute. tl;dr; Skydivers traded increased safety levels for newly-found risks.
  - Wingman4l7 14y ago
    Interesting -- I didn't even know such canopies existed; I've only ever seen the bog-standard rectangular ram-air ones at airshows. Are high-performance canopies restricted to certain levels of licensed proficiency? That's basically how it is with paragliding (although the licenses are basically self-regulated and the restrictions are informal). IIRC, at least one of the skydiving wingsuit manufacturers won't sell to you unless you can prove an advanced level of skydiving experience -- and paragliding in a wing that is above your skill level is highly discouraged. Glancing at Wikipedia, the higher-performance ones sound like paraglider wings -- more cells, elliptical shape. I guess paragliding wing optimization has come full circle back to skydiving parachutes.
    - ShabbyDoo 14y ago
      "more cells, elliptical shape" Yeah, a relatively rigid wing which reacts quickly when deformed by pulling a toggle. "Are high-performance canopies restricted to certain levels of licensed proficiency?" Circa 2004 (when my knowledge ends), rules were informal and largely enforced on a case-by-case basis by dropzone owners who didn't want the bad publicity of an inept person splattering himself into the ground. "No Bob, you're not going to jump with that canopy here!" I do recall the wingsuit manufacturers at least having minimum standards and then asking questions when someone called to purchase one. It also helped that most wingsuits were sold at skydiving conventions where the manufacturer was on-site and could directly assess the buyer's competence. This sort of regulation is quite prevalent in the BASE jumping community where it's even frowned upon for individuals to sell used gear to someone without first assessing competence (or at least the existence of a mentor).
akldfgj 14y ago
> Over time, the culture reversed so that those not using a Cypres were deemed foolhardy. The same happened in motor- and bi-cycle culture. Obviously, if your reason for doing something (cycling, diving, etc), it to intentionally taunt death, you will eschew safety equipment.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Wingman4l7 14y ago

Reminds me of complaints I saw about new table saw tech that aimed to prevent injury[1]. It wasn't that people were opposed to increased safety, but rather were afraid that expensive equipment would become mandatory, and possibly encourage complacency that would undermine existing safe practices. Did you feel that the Cypres encouraged skydivers to become more complacent? [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SawStop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SawStop

ShabbyDoo 14y ago
At least as of a few years ago, the rate of death per skydive had remained largely constant for years. What changed drastically was that people died from injuries sustained after a successful canopy deployment. Concurrent with Cypres's adoption was the emergence of high performance canopies. With large, "boring" canopies, it would be hard to kill oneself if already under a good canopy above cornfields. However, small, high-performance canopies provided thrilling swoops toward the ground along with long plane-outs. Half the fun of the skydive now could be had during the landing. With this fun came the risk of a poorly executed turn slamming a person into the ground hard enough to kill him. So, having achieved greater safety in the air, perhaps skydivers adopted add-on risks? The other factor which probably reduced deaths due to low deployments was the widespread adoption of larger aircraft which could quickly take large groups of jumpers to 15K ft. When one's only option for skydiving was to ride for 20+ minutes in a Cesna 182 to 10K, he wanted to maximize his airtime and might deploy somewhat low. However, the extra time in the air isn't so significant if one can exit 5K higher after a mere 10 minute ride. Deploying higher means extra time to cut away a malfunctioning main canopy and deploy a reserve parachute. tl;dr; Skydivers traded increased safety levels for newly-found risks.
- Wingman4l7 14y ago
  Interesting -- I didn't even know such canopies existed; I've only ever seen the bog-standard rectangular ram-air ones at airshows. Are high-performance canopies restricted to certain levels of licensed proficiency? That's basically how it is with paragliding (although the licenses are basically self-regulated and the restrictions are informal). IIRC, at least one of the skydiving wingsuit manufacturers won't sell to you unless you can prove an advanced level of skydiving experience -- and paragliding in a wing that is above your skill level is highly discouraged. Glancing at Wikipedia, the higher-performance ones sound like paraglider wings -- more cells, elliptical shape. I guess paragliding wing optimization has come full circle back to skydiving parachutes.
  - ShabbyDoo 14y ago
    "more cells, elliptical shape" Yeah, a relatively rigid wing which reacts quickly when deformed by pulling a toggle. "Are high-performance canopies restricted to certain levels of licensed proficiency?" Circa 2004 (when my knowledge ends), rules were informal and largely enforced on a case-by-case basis by dropzone owners who didn't want the bad publicity of an inept person splattering himself into the ground. "No Bob, you're not going to jump with that canopy here!" I do recall the wingsuit manufacturers at least having minimum standards and then asking questions when someone called to purchase one. It also helped that most wingsuits were sold at skydiving conventions where the manufacturer was on-site and could directly assess the buyer's competence. This sort of regulation is quite prevalent in the BASE jumping community where it's even frowned upon for individuals to sell used gear to someone without first assessing competence (or at least the existence of a mentor).

akldfgj 14y ago

> Over time, the culture reversed so that those not using a Cypres were deemed foolhardy. The same happened in motor- and bi-cycle culture. Obviously, if your reason for doing something (cycling, diving, etc), it to intentionally taunt death, you will eschew safety equipment.