3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet AGL.
It's not an enforcable rule, unless you force them to hand over a Protrack or Neptune. The difference between 2,500 and 2,000 isn't easily determined by sight.
It's not an enforcable rule, unless you force them to hand over a Protrack or Neptune. The difference between 2,500 and 2,000 isn't easily determined by sight
No it's not, but they might be after the secondary effect of making such a rule. Once 2500ft becomes the hard deck for everyone's main deployment, it will work it's way in as the new 'standard'. Eventaully, it will become accpeted as the standard, and people will begin planning jumps around it.
It's not that bad of an idea given the changes to the sport since the 2k rule was instituded. Canopies have shifted toward slower openings, and at the same, become more HP and are flown at higher WLs, making malfunctions that much more violent and/or with a higher descent rate. Both situations make more altitude a good thing.
(This post was edited by davelepka on Jan 26, 2012, 9:26 AM)
It's not an enforcable rule, unless you force them to hand over a Protrack or Neptune. The difference between 2,500 and 2,000 isn't easily determined by sight
No it's not, but they might be after the secondary effect of making such a rule. Once 2500ft becomes the hard deck for everyone's main deployment, it will work it's way in as the new 'standard'. Eventaully, it will become accpeted as the standard, and people will begin planning jumps around it.
It's not that bad of an idea given the changes to the sport since the 2k rule was instituded. Canopies have shifted toward slower openings, and at the same, become more HP and are flown at higher WLs, making malfunctions that much more violent and/or with a higher descent rate. Both situations make more altitude a good thing.
My ditter is set for 3,000 ft AGL so I always plan on opening higher then 2,500 ft AGL. So this wouldn't have any effect on me. Over 90 percent of my jumps in the last 5 years have been team training jumps so I might be a little out of touch with what the average skydiver is doing.
Is there really a problem with skydivers taking it down to 2,000 ft?
Just to add, I think it's a good idea to open higher. But I don't think it's necessary to make it a rule.
(This post was edited by beowulf on Jan 26, 2012, 9:36 AM)
If you can't deal with a mal in 5 seconds what makes you think you can in 10? If you raise the minimum hieght will the AAD hieght also be raised? Will there be an increase of two outs? The basement is also sometimes a safe place and by raising the minimum hieghts you are decresing this 'safety' area. Opening high gives people a false sense of security and can creates traffic issues as far as I am concerned/have seen ...
IYO, What would the FAR and BSR conflict look like then?
I think one should Educate themselves about the time needed for their canopy to open and plan accordingly, it is far better than regulating each persons particular canopy/weight/density altitude etc.
If you can't deal with a mal in 5 seconds what makes you think you can in 10?
In reply to:
Umm.....Experience?
You need to get rid of even a 'possible' problem immediately if you're in the cellar...if you have a bit more air you can let things play out and evaluate better.
The basement is also sometimes a safe place and by raising the minimum hieghts you are decresing this 'safety' area. Opening high gives people a false sense of security and can creates traffic issues as far as I am concerned/have seen ...
You lierally took the words right out of my mouth. I was just beginning to post that remark. Good post.
True, but what I am trying to ask is if there really is a problem?
Are we having lots of people pulling too low? Are they pulling at 2k because that's the minimum? And is it causing any major close calls?
Honestly...I don't see a problem currently. The trend seem to be higher deployments generally overall anyway.
IS there a need to raise the mins?
If the USPA is trying to address the current pack open to canopy flying differences (significantly more than when the rules were written) then this is the way to do it...is there a need for that??
I don't think so...but on the other hand, I also don't think it's a good idea to 'encourage' lower deployments than are seemingly the norm by suggesting it's 'better' for whatever reason.
(This post was edited by airtwardo on Jan 26, 2012, 9:54 AM)
If you can't deal with a mal in 5 seconds what makes you think you can in 10? If you raise the minimum hieght will the AAD hieght also be raised? Will there be an increase of two outs? The basement is also sometimes a safe place and by raising the minimum hieghts you are decresing this 'safety' area. Opening high gives people a false sense of security and can creates traffic issues as far as I am concerned/have seen ...
The "basement" is never a safer place. If you intend to go low you are increasing your risk no matter how you look at it. It might be a trade off between going low and avoiding someone else. But it's definitely an increase in the risk factor. Opening high gives you more time to deal with any potential issues. If you can't deal with the traffic then maybe you should learn some CRW or better canopy control or learn to track better.
(This post was edited by beowulf on Jan 26, 2012, 9:55 AM)
True, but what I am trying to ask is if there really is a problem?
Are we having lots of people pulling too low? Are they pulling at 2k because that's the minimum? And is it causing any major close calls?
The USPA has identified a potential problem with low reserve openings. If the problem is more than statistical noise, it may be caused by low reserve deployment initiation.
A low reserve deployment may be the result of a sniveling main canopy, or AAD firing altitudes set too low for softer-opening reserves. (There have been some suggestions that newer reserves open slower than older ones, not because newer ones don't meet TSO certification requirements, but because older ones opened faster than required.)
Raising deployment altitudes would allow a longer time for emergency procedures and also would allow AAD firing altitudes to be raised.
Of course, raising deployment altitudes would penalize those who are jumping faster-opening canopies and those jumping without AADs. I would prefer the BSR be stated in terms of "planned altitude for canopy functionally open" rather than "pack open."
Mark
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 26, 2012, 10:44 AM
Post #18 of 157
(1885 views)
Shortcut
>A low reserve deployment may be the result of a sniveling main canopy, or AAD >firing altitudes set too low for softer-opening reserves.
Although I have seen incidents caused by AAD fires followed by slow reserve extractions, I have not seen any incidents caused by AAD fires, followed by a normal extraction, followed by a slow reserve opening. Have you?
Raising the minimum deployement altitude would not directly affect reserve deployment altitude.
Last year I watched a guy do a hop n pop and have a step through malfunction that he rode down to my guestimate of around a 1,000 ft AGL. He then finally cut it away and ended up having his AAD fire his reserve for him. I thought for sure I was watching a fatality.
You can't legislate away stupid.
I don't see low reserve openings as being a result of having a 2k minimum opening altitude.
(This post was edited by beowulf on Jan 26, 2012, 10:50 AM)
It's not an enforcable rule, unless you force them to hand over a Protrack or Neptune. The difference between 2,500 and 2,000 isn't easily determined by sight.
It's not an enforcable rule, unless you force them to hand over a Protrack or Neptune. The difference between 2,500 and 2,000 isn't easily determined by sight.
3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet AGL.
... and I don't like it. What do others think?
This is what I plan to post on the USPA forum where the BOD agenda was announced....
3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet AGL.
I disagree with this proposal. Container openings of 2,000 feet AGL are no riskier than those at 2,500 feet when performed by appropriately skilled jumpers utilizing appropriate equipment such as faster a opening canopy in a rig not equipped with an AAD. BSR's are supposed to be minimum safe limits, not minimum safe limits for some people under certain conditions. Creating a BSR limiting everyone's practices when only some (even if most) people are effected would blur the lines of BSR's as a concept.
I believe minimum container opening altitudes should be addressed as gear and situation specific, and various scenarios would be better included in the SIM in the "equipment" section as recommendations for various gear configurations and experience levels. A note could be included in the "deployment altitudes" section of the BSR's referencing the more detailed discussion in the equipment recommendations section.
It's not an enforcable rule, unless you force them to hand over a Protrack or Neptune. The difference between 2,500 and 2,000 isn't easily determined by sight.
Generally true but it would be enforceable on low hop-and-pops. Couldn't get out below 2500. I am against it on that basis.
I don't see low reserve openings as being a result of having a 2k minimum opening altitude.
I think it's to do with the fact that at the current AAD firing altitude you're only a pilot chute hesitation away from bouncing if you're at terminal speed when it fires. If you wanted to give your reserve a bit more time to open after an AAD fire, you'd need to raise AAD firing altitudes. This puts you at more risk of a two out, unless you raise minimum main deployment altitudes. Obviously raising main deployment altitudes and getting it to be the norm has to come first before modifying the AAD's parameters. This is probably ground work for raising AAD firing altitudes.
It's a good idea that would save lives but it will be unpopular, mostly because the old school skydivers can't deal with change and secondly because in the heat of battle, no one really gives a flying fuck about AAD activation heights. They're more worried about real stuff they can actually see like decent separation from the other people in their group and how big the planet looks, not by theoretical shit like what some gadget buried deep in their rig thinks.
(This post was edited by JackC1 on Jan 26, 2012, 11:18 AM)
Although I have seen incidents caused by AAD fires followed by slow reserve extractions, I have not seen any incidents caused by AAD fires, followed by a normal extraction, followed by a slow reserve opening. Have you?
I do not have personal knowledge of such a case. The anecdotes USPA has collected do not seem to have a common thread. Low reserve openings might be statistical noise, or might be a result of smaller containers (since some components don't scale), tighter containers (design issue), rigger error (such as a too-long loop resulting in insufficient pilot chute compression), slower reserve opening (design issue resulting from customer demand for softer openings), or maybe something else.
If there is a problem with delayed openings, then regardless of the origin of the problem, raising altitudes is a defensible response.
It's not an enforcable rule, unless you force them to hand over a Protrack or Neptune. The difference between 2,500 and 2,000 isn't easily determined by sight.
That's not the point.
A rule that's not enforcible is a waste of time.
The discussion isn't about whether the rule is enforceable. That's a different conversation. But since you bring it up....
Based on your assessment we shouldn't have any minimum deployment altitude because it would be impossible to ever conclusively prove whether a person broke the "rule", which is both overly simplistic and incorrect.
What if the proposal was to raise the minimum to 2,800 feet. Would that be enough of a change to tell if someone busted? How about 3,000? 3,300? 3,500?
Some busts are obvious to the naked eye, and more to your point a DZO could indeed tell a jumper to hand over an altitude recording device to prove he/she didn't bust or face being grounded instead. That's the DZO's choice and would certainly prove one way or the other whether a bust occurred.
So to say that a change of any given amount would be unenforceable and therefore a waste of time is simply not true.
The question stands.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 26, 2012, 11:10 AM
Post #27 of 157
(1121 views)
Shortcut
3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet AGL.
... and I don't like it. What do others think?
May as well mandate AAD use for A/B license holders and the "no more than one GoPro unless you have 500 jumps".
Micromanaging a sport where one can easily kill themselves will only reduce the participants awareness and learning curve.
Surely if one is a C/D license holder they should be competent enough to make the pull altitude decision.
If you wanted to give your reserve a bit more time to open after an AAD fire, you'd need to raise AAD firing altitudes. This puts you at more risk of a two out, unless you raise minimum main deployment altitudes.
They are not really related. You can raise the AAD firing altitudes without a BSR to say everyone (even those without and AAD) have to pull higher.
For example when people would jump a rig with an FXC AAD we would tell them it was set to fire at 1000 feet and they had better be in the saddle by 2500 feet or they risk it firing.
Those individuals that jumped that rig had to pull higher.... But those with a CYPRESS didn't.
Yes, pulling higher is normally safer.... So why not make min pull altitudes 5,000 feet for every jump?
Fact is that the majority of jumpers consider 2.5k-3k to be 'too low' already. I had a guy with 50 jumps ask me where I was pulling and when I said 2.5-3k. He told me, "That is unsafe! You have to pull higher!!!" I thanked him for his concern and told him that I would be fine. He would not let it go and insisted that we both speak to the S&TA.
He didn't mean any harm, but his fear of 2.5-3k does not make his fear real.
(This post was edited by Ron on Jan 26, 2012, 11:19 AM)
Based on your assessment we shouldn't have any minimum deployment altitude because it would be impossible to ever conclusively prove whether a person broke the "rule", which is both overly simplistic and incorrect.
You are missing my point. Raising the minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 ft to 2,500 ft isn't going to be enforcable because there isn't much of a difference between 2,500 and 2,000. But no where did I say that a minimum deployment altitude was not necessary. I do think that changing it is not necessary.
I don't see how changing it will have any real world effect. If someone decides to pull between 2,000 ft and 2,500 how would anyone even notice?
Also ditters don't show when you threw out your pilot chute. They only show an approximation based on decelaration.
(This post was edited by beowulf on Jan 26, 2012, 11:20 AM)
If you wanted to give your reserve a bit more time to open after an AAD fire, you'd need to raise AAD firing altitudes. This puts you at more risk of a two out, unless you raise minimum main deployment altitudes.
They are not really related.
Yes they are.
In reply to:
For example when people would jump a rig with an FXC AAD we would tell them it was set to fire at 1000 feet and they had better be in the saddle by 2500 feet or they risk it firing.
See? Related.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 26, 2012, 11:22 AM
Post #32 of 157
(1101 views)
Shortcut
>If there is a problem with delayed openings, then regardless of the origin of >the problem, raising altitudes is a defensible response.
Only if the "delay" is covered by the additional altitude. If, for example, PC's aren't extracting freebags from too-tight containers, raising the minimum altitude to 4000 feet wouldn't solve the problem. (And might cause more fatalities if it makes container manufacturers think that the BSR has solved their problem for them.)
I don't see low reserve openings as being a result of having a 2k minimum opening altitude.
I think it's to do with the fact that at the current AAD firing altitude you're only a pilot chute hesitation away from bouncing if you're at terminal speed when it fires. If you wanted to give your reserve a bit more time to open after an AAD fire, you'd need to raise AAD firing altitudes. This puts you at more risk of a two out, unless you raise minimum main deployment altitudes. Obviously raising main deployment altitudes and getting it to be the norm has to come first before modifying the AAD's parameters. This is probably ground work for raising AAD firing altitudes.
I don't think an effort to raise AAD firing altitudes has anything to do with any move to raise main deployment altitudes. I believe it is simple math.
If a container opening occurs at 2,000 feet and a sniveling canopy (like my Velo) that typically take 800 feet to open decides to open a little slower than normal - say 1,000 feet - the jumper is in or is getting into the firing range of the AAD.
That said, I disagree with raising minimum deployment altitudes as a BSR. There are numerous scenarios in which a 2,000 foot opening is perfectly safe under certain gear configurations. If an appropriately skilled jumper has a faster opening canopy and no AAD, 2,000 feet is no different than 2,500 for someone with a sniveler and an AAD. Same applies if a jumper is doing a clear and pull from just above 2,000 feet where they will cover a 1,000 foot drop in nearly twice the time as a jumper at terminal.
BSR's are intended to be minimum safe limits, not minimum safe limits under certain conditions. If it is possible to safely open at 2 grand with a given gear configuration, then 2 grand should be what he BSR's reflect. If certain gear configurations necessitate a jumper pull higher than that, it should be addressed outside the BSR's.
Nope, you missed the whole point. And omitted the rest of the comment.
Here it is again: "You can raise the AAD firing altitudes without a BSR to say everyone (even those without and AAD) have to pull higher. "
See those WITH the FXC had to do it. But that does not mean those with a CYPRES or no AAD at all had to. So making those with a CYPRES or no AAD is not related.
So if you have an AAD, then you have to pull higher than the min.
We learned this lesson almost 20 years ago.
(This post was edited by Ron on Jan 26, 2012, 11:28 AM)
Some busts are obvious to the naked eye, and more to your point a DZO could indeed tell a jumper to hand over an altitude recording device to prove he/she didn't bust or face being grounded instead. That's the DZO's choice and would certainly prove one way or the other whether a bust occurred.
My N3 (as well as my N2) don't accurately record deployment altitude, they record the attitude I'm in the saddle.
I got a little bit of a chewing by a few people claiming I MUST have busted 2k before I activated, I had VIDEO SHOWING MY ALTITUDE (pointed at my altimeter) at deployment, and they didn't accept that. I trust it over their eyeballs on the ground.
It's not an enforcable rule, unless you force them to hand over a Protrack or Neptune. The difference between 2,500 and 2,000 isn't easily determined by sight.
Generally true but it would be enforceable on low hop-and-pops. Couldn't get out below 2500. I am against it on that basis.
Some busts are obvious to the naked eye, and more to your point a DZO could indeed tell a jumper to hand over an altitude recording device to prove he/she didn't bust or face being grounded instead. That's the DZO's choice and would certainly prove one way or the other whether a bust occurred.
My N3 (as well as my N2) don't accurately record deployment altitude, they record the attitude I'm in the saddle.
I got a little bit of a chewing by a few people claiming I MUST have busted 2k before I activated, I had VIDEO SHOWING MY ALTITUDE (pointed at my altimeter) at deployment, and they didn't accept that. I trust it over their eyeballs on the ground.
Understood, but if there is a "trouble child" on the DZ, an altitude recording device would be enough proof for a DZO to take action. It's simple, really.
I ran a DZ and I had no problem saying "well little Johnny, your (name your device here) says you "deployed" at 1,500 feet. Now that may mean you pitched at 2,100 or it may mean you pitched at 1,900. Either way, if I see your "deployment altitude" as 1,500 feet again, you're grounded."
Case closed.
Due process never existed on my DZ where jackwads were concerned.
>Generally true but it would be enforceable on low hop-and-pops.
So it would only be enforceable on those jumps where it was actually safe to open at 2000 feet.
Exactly. I can be fully open less than 200 ft. after exiting the plane on a hop and pop. My regular pull altitide is 3000 ft. I would have no problem getting out of the plan at 2100 ft. on a hop and pop.
(I've ground crewed for at least one demo which exited at less than 2500' due to low clouds--would have hate to see that one cancelled).
This is an interesting string, and I respect the arguments for and against raising the opening altitudes for everyone, including C and D license holders.
I'm inclined to think it's a good thing, mainly because of the reasons already mentioned in the argument -- AAD, higher wing loaded canopies, slower and longer openings, etc.
I might add: one of the main advocates for raising the hard deck by 500 feet is Bill Booth, who knows a thing or two about skydiving safety. If you can find it, he talks about it at last year's equipment manufacturer's enclave in Las Vegas. It's probably on YouTube somewhere. I urge everyone who is against the idea to at least watch the video of Booth's interview. Bill is a smart guy, everyone.
This is an interesting string, and I respect the arguments for and against raising the opening altitudes for everyone, including C and D license holders.
I'm inclined to think it's a good thing, mainly because of the reasons already mentioned in the argument -- AAD, higher wing loaded canopies, slower and longer openings, etc.
I might add: one of the main advocates for raising the hard deck by 500 feet is Bill Booth, who knows a thing or two about skydiving safety. If you can find it, he talks about it at last year's equipment manufacturer's enclave in Las Vegas. It's probably on YouTube somewhere. I urge everyone who is against the idea to at least watch the video of Booth's interview. Bill is a smart guy, everyone.
No argument Bill's a smart guy...
If 'we' can get the USPA to raise the min. opening altitudes by 500', 'we' then can begin to lobby for raising the AAD firing parameters to say maybe 1000'.
IF one were to be enforcing that 'new' altitude and using the 'higher' AAD setting...then we would conceivably have even more 'cushion' between the two than is currently there...not to mention the reserve 'if' automatically activated would have longer to open.
IMHO from an 'old school' grumpy guy perspective...
~the bottom line is, we're seeing a lot more no pull / low pull scenarios that are firing the battery box...with the smaller tighter line of containers these days we're seeing some problems with tight reserves banging out when the main is still in the tray.
For better or worse an extra 300' is gonna keep some people from reaching room temperature layin' next to a reserve at line stretch, because they're not paying attention.
Might just save some lives, and hey...might just lower the possibility of some liability headaches a manufacturer might anticipate if now & then the reserve doesn't open as fast as the TSO requires...
Maybe it's more 'cost effective' to change the culture than it is to retro-fix a boatload of too tight rigs ...
Personally I'd like to see them remain as is, of course MY rig isn't in real tight & I try not to sleep in free-fall so I don't use an AAD. . .even despite all that, over-all I see it making more problems than it 'fixes'.
Then again I might not be thinkin' clear, don't get much sleep with all those Black Helicopters flying around here at night!
(This post was edited by airtwardo on Jan 26, 2012, 1:45 PM)
>Generally true but it would be enforceable on low hop-and-pops.
So it would only be enforceable on those jumps where it was actually safe to open at 2000 feet.
Exactly. I can be fully open less than 200 ft. after exiting the plane on a hop and pop. My regular pull altitide is 3000 ft. I would have no problem getting out of the plan at 2100 ft. on a hop and pop.
I've ground crewed for at least one demo which exited at less than 2500' due to low clouds--would have hate to see that one cancelled
That is the issue I would have with this. Add in the cloud clearance requirement and you might find yourself without the required ceiling to exit legally. Even though it is perfectly safe.
3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raisechange the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet AGL. the appropriate altitude for the skydive as determined by S&TA ,DZO, pilot in command and jumper. This BSR excludes emergency situations.
This is an interesting string, and I respect the arguments for and against raising the opening altitudes for everyone, including C and D license holders.
I'm inclined to think it's a good thing, mainly because of the reasons already mentioned in the argument -- AAD, higher wing loaded canopies, slower and longer openings, etc.
I might add: one of the main advocates for raising the hard deck by 500 feet is Bill Booth, who knows a thing or two about skydiving safety. If you can find it, he talks about it at last year's equipment manufacturer's enclave in Las Vegas. It's probably on YouTube somewhere. I urge everyone who is against the idea to at least watch the video of Booth's interview. Bill is a smart guy, everyone.
I am one of those against the proposal for a BSR raising the minimum deployment altitude, but a distinction needs to made here.
I am not against higher deployments. I am not against prudence dictating higher deployments when circumstances warrant it, and clearly today's equipment combinations require it in most cases including my own (slow-opening Velo and an AAD).
I am vehemently against mandating a higher deployment altitude for everyone on every jump, because there are many circumstances in which a 2,000 foot deployment is safe and even some circumstances in which it is necessary.
BSR's are supposed to be absolutes, so while a deployment higher than 2,000 is usually needed by the average jumper on the average jump, mandating it would exclude doing 2,000 deployments even when they can be done safely. That's why I believe as posted earlier that the BSR should remain the same and a recommendation should be added to address why higher deployments are usually prudent.
Keep in mind that once something gets BSR status it's no longer just a good idea, it's a "rule".
I think one should Educate themselves about the time needed for their canopy to open and plan accordingly, it is far better than regulating each person's particular canopy/weight/density altitude etc.
I agree. If you don’t know the altitude you should be deploying at, based on your gear and other conditions, more education may very well be appropriate.
I'm inclined to think it's a good thing, mainly because of the reasons already mentioned in the argument -- AAD, higher wing loaded canopies, slower and longer openings, etc.
The point is that there is NOTHING from preventing you or anyone else from pulling HIGHER.
AAD: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude. Higher WL: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude. Longer opening: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude.
This is not even about being able to raise the AAD activation altitude... CYPRES or VIGIL can do that whenever they feel like it. In fact, you can do it yourself now.
This is not about Bill Booths (or anyones opinion that higher is safer) I doubt many people would really argue that higher is not safer.
It is about changing a BSR so people with an AAD can feel better about pulling higher.
But the secret is that if you want to pull at 3 or 4k all day everyday.... There is nothing to stop you from doing it. But that does not mean EVERYONE should or that we need a BSR to make that happen.
20 years ago much lower pulls were very common. Modern AAD's changed that.
So, you want an AAD that fires higher? GREAT!!!! But that does not mean the BSR's need to be changed to make that happen.
Airtec can raise the activation altitude whenever they feel like it.... And anyone that knows their gear will know they have to pull higher than BSR says they can.
Again, this is not about AAD activations or anything else.... It is about changing a BSR that really does not have to be changed.
See, if I jump a 69sqft canopy with an FXC on the main.... I had better know my gear enough to know that even turning that canopy under an FXC will fire it... So I better not turn it on at all, or turn if off as soon as my main opens.
in reply to "3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet AGL. " .............................................
Perhaps the emphasis could be on what height you have an open controllable canopy ... rather than trying to set a deployment altitude.
Extra time is often taken doing tidy-ups on the slider, so perhaps there is a case to raise the open canopy altitude. In Oz we gotta have an open canopy under full control of the pilot by 1800' . giving a deployment altitude of usually 2000' to 2500' but more if you like snivelling mains.
I'm inclined to think it's a good thing, mainly because of the reasons already mentioned in the argument -- AAD, higher wing loaded canopies, slower and longer openings, etc.
The point is that there is NOTHING from preventing you or anyone else from pulling HIGHER.
AAD: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude. Higher WL: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude. Longer opening: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude.
This is not even about being able to raise the AAD activation altitude... CYPRES or VIGIL can do that whenever they feel like it. In fact, you can do it yourself now.
This is not about Bill Booths (or anyones opinion that higher is safer) I doubt many people would really argue that higher is not safer.
It is about changing a BSR so people with an AAD can feel better about pulling higher.
But the secret is that if you want to pull at 3 or 4k all day everyday.... There is nothing to stop you from doing it. But that does not mean EVERYONE should or that we need a BSR to make that happen.
20 years ago much lower pulls were very common. Modern AAD's changed that.
So, you want an AAD that fires higher? GREAT!!!! But that does not mean the BSR's need to be changed to make that happen.
Airtec can raise the activation altitude whenever they feel like it.... And anyone that knows their gear will know they have to pull higher than BSR says they can.
Again, this is not about AAD activations or anything else.... It is about changing a BSR that really does not have to be changed.
See, if I jump a 69sqft canopy with an FXC on the main.... I had better know my gear enough to know that even turning that canopy under an FXC will fire it... So I better not turn it on at all, or turn if off as soon as my main opens.
"I wasn't at terminal! I was cupping to slow down my fall rate to stay with the boobie girl!"
You guys read Ron's post above and then write or call your USPA rep of choice and tell them to STFU about wasting time on this silly-ass effort.
If you need a BSR to tell you to be safe for your particular situation, there's places called bowling alleys just waiting for you. They'll even provide cool shoes for you.
Or Put put golf, cool colored balls and clowns with wind mills!
>How about 1 BSR. One that simply says, "Hey asshole! Do what you need to do >to keep yourself and others safe."
That's great in theory but would not work too well in the real world, at least when it comes to preventing fatalities. All those BSR's were written because someone died ignoring the basic safety recommendation preceding it.
Some busts are obvious to the naked eye, and more to your point a DZO could indeed tell a jumper to hand over an altitude recording device to prove he/she didn't bust or face being grounded instead. That's the DZO's choice and would certainly prove one way or the other whether a bust occurred.
My N3 (as well as my N2) don't accurately record deployment altitude, they record the attitude I'm in the saddle.
I got a little bit of a chewing by a few people claiming I MUST have busted 2k before I activated, I had VIDEO SHOWING MY ALTITUDE (pointed at my altimeter) at deployment, and they didn't accept that. I trust it over their eyeballs on the ground.
Understood, but if there is a "trouble child" on the DZ, an altitude recording device would be enough proof for a DZO to take action. It's simple, really.
I ran a DZ and I had no problem saying "well little Johnny, your (name your device here) says you "deployed" at 1,500 feet. Now that may mean you pitched at 2,100 or it may mean you pitched at 1,900. Either way, if I see your "deployment altitude" as 1,500 feet again, you're grounded."
Case closed.
Due process never existed on my DZ where jackwads were concerned.
Guess I would constantly be in trouble because my Altimaster II will be reading 0' by the time the DZO checks it.
Or, with the DZO tracking opening altitudes with "an altitude recording device", does that mandate me buying one so that I can make a jump at this DZO's DZ? Or is the DZO going to provide them thus requiring another jump ticket price increase?
I think it's a good idea to open higher. But I don't think it's necessary to make it a rule
You really do have to make it a rule if you expect anyone to pay attention to it. If 2k the min pull altitude for any jumper, there are always going to be jumpers who consider anything down to that to be 'OK'. Even when there's nothing to stop them from pulling higher, they'll just hum it down to 2k because its 'safe', and the USPA says so.
If make the rule that 2.5k is the bottom line, then it becomes the new 'standard', and even the boneheads who take it to 2k for no reason will start opening at 2.5k.
The thing people are forgetting when they argue against this is how the 2k number was established in the first place. The 'powers that be' took a look at the landscape of skydiving, and came up with 2k as a reasonable number. This was pre-AADs (well, Cypres anyway), F-111, most canopies above 190 sq ft, most canopies opened 'quicker', and larger reserves in looser rigs. All of those factors contributed to coming up with 2k in the first place, and now none of those factors are a part of the current landscape.
I'll save everyone the play-by-play as to why 2k might not be the prudent number with the demise of each factor listed above, but I'll make a comparison.
2k might have been great for skydiving circa 1988, but jumps in those days were a different mission, with different equipment. For me, 2k is very 'tight' in terms of time management. I like to swoop, and typically start my turn about 800/900ft up, which means I need to be directly above my initiation point by that altitude, so right off the top, I can knock 800 ft off my deployment time when figuring my 'working time' under canopy. So if I clear my PC at 2k, and am under an open canopy by 1400ft, once I subtract 800ft, that leaves me 600ft of flying time to stow my slider, unstow my brakes, and fly my pattern. That's tight.
The point is that I have a specific mission, and forgetting about time to react to a mal, or bouncing, or any of that, I simply need more time to make sure that I can take care of my business, and get my swoop on. Of course, you can always skip the swoop, but it's part of my mission, I'll open 1000ft higher than if I wasn't going to swoop, and account for the extra time I need under canopy.
So when today's jumper has a mission that involves jumping a canopy with a 600 to 800ft snivel, at a 1.4 or 1.5 WL (enough to get a good spinner going), and stuff it all into the smallest rig the packer can handle, then 2k might not a good place for them to cleared down to. So many other things in skydiving have changed since the mark was set at 2k, why should that mark be immune to a likewise change?
The thing people are forgetting when they argue against this is how the 2k number was established in the first place. The 'powers that be' took a look at the landscape of skydiving, and came up with 2k as a reasonable number. This was pre-AADs (well, Cypres anyway), F-111, most canopies above 190 sq ft, most canopies opened 'quicker', and larger reserves in looser rigs. All of those factors contributed to coming up with 2k in the first place, and now none of those factors are a part of the current landscape.
In reply to:
Don't forget lower exit altitudes, back when 2K was the norm most DZ's were operating a Cessna or two.
7200' was the 4-way go out & play altitude, 10,500 was a rare two plane 8-way. !2,500 is what ya saved up for and road-tripped to 'do' Z-hills and the like.
In '76 my S/L and C&P jumps were ALL exiting from 2200'...first time above 3 grand was my 5 second delay.
Altitude was more 'precious' back then if you will.
I understand both sides of the argument, I would rather keep it as it is, but I feel a wind blowin'.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 26, 2012, 8:59 PM
Post #58 of 157
(834 views)
Shortcut
>The 'powers that be' took a look at the landscape of skydiving, and came up with 2k as > a reasonable number. This was pre-AADs (well, Cypres anyway), F-111, most >canopies above 190 sq ft, most canopies opened 'quicker', and larger reserves in >looser rigs.
And all of those things are still valid for demo jumpers.
I've done a few demos from 2500 feet or lower, and many demo jumpers count on being able to make such jumps when they plan demos. There is no reason to outlaw what they do.
>The 'powers that be' took a look at the landscape of skydiving, and came up with 2k as > a reasonable number. This was pre-AADs (well, Cypres anyway), F-111, most >canopies above 190 sq ft, most canopies opened 'quicker', and larger reserves in >looser rigs.
And all of those things are still valid for demo jumpers.
I've done a few demos from 2500 feet or lower, and many demo jumpers count on being able to make such jumps when they plan demos. There is no reason to outlaw what they do.
See, if I jump a 69sqft canopy with an FXC on the main.... I had better know my gear enough to know that even turning that canopy under an FXC will fire it... So I better not turn it on at all, or turn if off as soon as my main opens.
I don't need a BSR to tell me that.
Dead on point, Ron. +1if your FXC is on your main, no problem. If you have an FXC connected to your reserve, then the fun will start
I've done a few demos from 2500 feet or lower, and many demo jumpers count on being able to make such jumps when they plan demos. There is no reason to outlaw what they do
Waive the BSR for PRO rating holders in the case that that have to exit lower than 3k. Problem solved.
Let's face it, 2k is pretty low in terms of high speed malfunctions. There's not a ton of time available if you have any type of high speed mal. Pile onto that slow opening main canopies (if you can get it out, or if it clears itself after a second or two), AADs, and smaller reserves, and you can see where some extra time isn't a bad thing. Again, it's not that nobody should ever open at 2k, it is 'do-able' for some jumpers with some rigs, but it's clear that as a written 'rule', it's becoming a little outdated.
I get a sense of some old-school 'machismo' coming into play in some of these arguments, but a large majority of my support stems from the equipment and type of jumps people are doing, and less from the individual jumper. Like I said, if any jumpers wants to swoop a Velo and wants to start their turn at 800ft, I would suggest that 2k is fairly low to be pulling out the PC. I don't care how many jumps you have, how long you have been jumping, or how low you're used to pulling, it just doesn't 'fit' into that type of jump.
I just don't think 2k 'fits' in the majority of jumps that are being made these days. There have been a rash of lwo cutaways and people going in with partially deployed reserves, and there's no way to argue that more altitude wouldn't have been a good thing in those cases. I'm not saying that all of those jumpers would have reacted quicker or implemented their EPs sooner, but at least there would have been a chance. Add to that the problems with collisions and the focus on canopy control and landing patterns, and again, more time for traffic management and sequencing in the the pattern isn't a bad thing.
For me, 2k is very 'tight' in terms of time management. I like to swoop, and typically start my turn about 800/900ft up, which means I need to be directly above my initiation point by that altitude, so right off the top, I can knock 800 ft off my deployment time when figuring my 'working time' under canopy. So if I clear my PC at 2k, and am under an open canopy by 1400ft, once I subtract 800ft, that leaves me 600ft of flying time to stow my slider, unstow my brakes, and fly my pattern. That's tight.
So pull higher. Do you really need a BSR to tell you that?
If you don't get a PC out when you wanted... Maybe you don't get to swoop on this load. Know your gear and make your decisions based on that.
This is about a MINIMUM altitude. Poll 100 jumpers on any given DZ and the majority will tell you they pull higher than 2k (I normally pitch at 3k).
This is a non-issue looking for a BSR. There are MUCH better uses of the USPA's time.
I also agree with davelepka on the need for most skydivers to pull much higher then 2k, but I don't believe raising the 2k minimum is necessary or needed.
So pull higher. Do you really need a BSR to tell you that?
Me? No. You? No. Both of us, and most of the us posting on this thread have been jumping longer and made more jumps than 90% of the jumpers out there. We have proven that we 'get it', and can take care of ourselves.
This isn't about us. It's about the newer jumpers who will push every limit they can, every chance they get. The same thinking that causes a guy with 100 jumps to put on a Gopro when the regs say 200 jumps, is the same thinking that will have him humming it down to 2k, even though he's suppsed to wait until he has 200 jumps (or a C license) for that as well. The thinking, as always, 'I'll be fine, if it's cool for guys with 200 jumps, then it's cool for me too because I'm awesome'.
Notice that nobody pulls at 1500 ft. The reason being that 'rules' stop at 2k. The rules say that 2k is good for some jumpers, and it's the jumpers who think that they have to push every limit to the max are the ones who this is for.
Jumping isn't exactly what it used to be. There used to be more of a 'challenge' to jumping, and it took a special kind of person to 'fit in'. At the risk of offending some, it has in a way, become 'pussy-fied' not in the good way, where there's a large amount of pussy, but in the bad way, where there's a large amount of pussies. People can't even pack their own rigs. I have seen DZs come to a halt after one weekday load when no packers were around. When you combine that with the gear issues mentioned above, none of these people need to rock it down to 2k and learn the hard way how fast you have to be to save your ass if things go wrong. If a guy can't recognize that he should be able to pack his own rig (or gear check his own rig ala the recent incident in Deland), he's the same guy who's not going to understand that 2k isn't always a good idea. if 2k is possible, then 2k it will be.
We both know the USPA could spend it's time doing better things, but they have proven that they won't. The truth is, other unrelated issues they should be focusing on have no relation as to the merits of this issue. If I told you I was having a pork chop for dinner, and asked you the best way to cook it, telling me that a steak is a better choice is not an answer. I'm still having the pork chop, and still need to know the best way to cook it.
I disagree with the mentality that because some people need to pull higher that everyone should have to pull higher. Is pulling at 2.5K safer than 2K? Yes. However, following that logic, pulling at 3K is safer than 2.5K and pulling at 3.5K is safer than 3K ... Skydiving is about understanding risks, understanding how to minimize risks, and then making a choice about the level of risk you're willing to accept.
PS: Making turns over 90's is more dangerous than under 90's (more so in the present than past given most canopies). Should we make a rule against turns over 90's?
Is pulling at 2.5K safer than 2K? Yes. However, following that logic, pulling at 3K is safer than 2.5K and pulling at 3.5K is safer than 3K ... Skydiving is about understanding risks, understanding how to minimize risks, and then making a choice about the level of risk you're willing to accept.
So then why do you think 2k is the min? I've probably pulled under 2k 100 times, and it always worked out. I've dumped out of terminal under 1k a couple times, no problem there. Have you ever had a cutaway, and not had your reserve open by 500ft? If no, you could have been pulling at 1500ft this whole time, and been just fine, including all your cutaways?
The reason you feel that 2k is OK, is becuase it's been 'the rule' since you started jumping. Someone, long before you came into the sport, chose 2k at the min, and that's what you came to know as 'safe'.
If I'm not mistaken, there are some countries that don't allow pulling any lower than 2.5k, regardless of experience or equipment.
The fact is that it's a number someone came up with a couple decades ago. A lot has changed in skydiving since then, from the equipment, to the type of jumps we do, the size and jumprun altitude of the planes, and the sport itself has become far more accessible to a wider cross-section of society. The idea that the same margins that applied back then should apply now is a little off.
Virtually every other facet of the spot has changed. License requirements, training methods, equipment, etc, and now the time has come for this aspect. Just like people were opposed to the BSR when it was created in the frist place, they felt that the current system of the jumper being a able to choose was just fine and the way it should be. Here we are, years later, and people are usnig the exact same argument to defend the BSR. All that does is show the temporary nature of these things, and support my assertion that people will attach themeselves to what they are used to, sometimes to the detriment of logic.
To answer your question of 'escalation' and why not 3k or 4k or 10k, that is where, again, logic comes back into play. I'm not suggesting that having 2k as a min pull altitude was a cluster-fuck from the start, and an embarrasment to the sport, it was a fine solution at the time it was implemented. Over time, all of the factors that would lead you to determine a safe min pull altitude have changed, and thus, so should the min pull altitude. Seeing as 2k was good at the time, and 'sort of' good today, all that's needed is a small 'adjustment', not a radical change.
This isn't about us. It's about the newer jumpers who will push every limit they can,
Fair enough, but that's where I get (unreasonably?) defensive and angry about many new rules about deployment altitudes, AADs, etc. One could frame it as a macho / pussy fight there.
It really sucks to have things "stolen" from you, things you used to be able to do and take for "acceptable" in the sport. Like being able to pull at a certain altitude.
Still there are many ways to "jump smarter" -- an AAD on one's primary rig is nice to have, and altitude alerts sure are handy not just for head down but jumping in general. And we generally tend to accept that seatbelts should be worn, a definite improvement over the old days. There are many rules I think should be followed 90% of the time. But it is tough to write rules that don't say 100%. If something is only "highly recommended", it is tough to use the rule to stop that one person who has shown he really needs to follow that rule.
Edit: Davelepka has already addressed one of the issues since I started writing this reply. There is that feeling that the rules one started with are acceptable (at least in some cases)
And in France, already by the early 2000s, the minimum deployment altitude was 2800 ft.
(This post was edited by pchapman on Jan 27, 2012, 7:30 AM)
The reason you feel that 2k is OK, is becuase it's been 'the rule' since you started jumping.
I stopped reading after this because it's wrong. The reason I deploy at 2K (instead of 1.5K, 1K, etc...) is because it's "the rule". The reason I feel that deploying at 2K is OK is based on my gear choices and level of acceptable risk ...
(This post was edited by Butters on Jan 27, 2012, 8:22 AM)
There are many rules I think should be followed 90% of the time. But it is tough to write rules that don't say 100%. If something is only "highly recommended", it is tough to use the rule to stop that one person who has shown he really needs to follow that rule.
That's the problem with the current system. It says you should pull at 2.5k, unless you have a C or D license. The message that sends is that it's really OK to dump at 2k, just not for the new guys. Of course, too many of the new guys don't consider themselves to be 'new', what good for the goose must be good for the gander. The idea is that if it's out there, people will take it.
The GoPro thing is a prime example, but at least you can see that a guy is wearing a GoPro. Pull altitudes are very personal in that each jumper can make their own, independent decision on each jump, and generally with reprocussion. As earlier stated, who can tell 2.5k from 2k looking up from the LZ?
In terms of 'losing' things, outside of skydiving, we now have to wear seatbelts when we drive, or risk a ticket. You can't smoke on an airliner or in a restaurant anymore. At the risk of going a little too far, black people can now sit anywhere they want on a bus and use any drinking fountain they want. All of these changes were lamented by vast numbers of people at the time they were instituted, but we can clearly see that they were all for the best and that the world is a better place because of them.
I think the idea here is to think ahead. Five or seven years ago I pushed for a WL BSR, and to every person who bitched that it was unfair, I replied that in a few years they would be beyond the BSR, and there would be a whole generation of new jumpers who entered the sport, and only know the sport with the BSR. How many posters on here have been jumping for less than 7 years? How many new jumpers at your DZ have been jumping for less than 7 years? All of them would have been a-OK with a WL BSR, because that would be all they know. It would become a part of 'the deal', and wouldn't be an issue at all.
This is the same thing. Clearly there are reasons why skydiving has changed, and pulling at 2k is less and less applicable. I, for one, don't expect those changes to reverse anytime soon, I expect that things will continue to drift further away from 2k being the right number. Let's recognize the trend, and put the machine in motion to make 2.5k a part of the sport, and what people come to know as 'the standard'.
I stopped reading after this because it's wrong. The reason I deploy at 2K (instead of 1.5K, 1K, etc...) is because it's "the rule". The reason I feel that deploying at 2K is OK is based on the my gear and level of acceptable risk ...
You sure about that? You mean to tell me that with no outside influence, no reference point from which to work from, you think you would have come up with 2k all on your own?
I'm not suggesting it was an active decision on your part, but I am 100% sure that your thinking was influenced by the fact that from the first day you started jumping, all of the 'expert' jumpers you met and were trained by, were permitted via the BSR to pull at 2k. To suggest otherwise is just being naive.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 27, 2012, 7:48 AM
Post #71 of 157
(691 views)
Shortcut
>The fact is that it's a number someone came up with a couple decades ago. A lot has >changed in skydiving since then, from the equipment, to the type of jumps we do, the >size and jumprun altitude of the planes, and the sport itself has become far more >accessible to a wider cross-section of society.
The "cross section" is overall getting more competent, believe it or not. Almost no one uses piece of crap military gear any more, paid for by selling some pot in the parking lot. Nowadays people's average income is higher and their predilection for jumping drunk or stoned lower.
Then, when they start, they're told to pull way higher than they were years ago. When you are a static line student who starts from 2500 or 3000 feet, that's where you pull throughout your student progression. Partly out of necessity; you don't send that Cessna higher than 7500 if you can help it so you use every second of freefall you can get for that 30 second delay.
Nowadays your first jump has an opening altitude of 5000 feet, and it stays there until you're close to being done with AFF, at which point it moves down to 4500 or 4000 feet.
So even without any BSR changes we're 1000 feet higher - because the program works better with that altitude and the planes give us altitude to spare.
>The idea that the same margins that >applied back then should apply now is a little off.
The 2000 foot number was chosen because too many people were getting killed due to low pull contests and people not having enough time to open their reserves. For a long time 2000 feet worked OK, although the primary way to die in the sport was still going in with nothing out.
Then those numbers started to improve drastically due to the Cypres, the first reliable AAD. People had the backup of an AAD to help make sure they got a canopy out in time. More importantly they started to pull higher anyway to make sure they didn't fire their Cypres.
So it's a situation that has gotten better, not worse, with time. We have MORE margin nowadays than we did when most people were actually pulling at 2000 feet.
Good points from all. This is a fun thread because, to start with, it's all just personal opinion. We're not waiting for a rocket scientist to post, and settle the matter with some facts or figures, it's just one set of views against another.
The other reason it's fun is that there's an end. The BOD will settle the matter soon enough, and then we'll have an answer. Of course, the answer we'll have is if the BOD will change the BSR, because the BOD isn't always 'right' in what they do. We can still argue the merits of the rule itself, but at least to the question of if the BOD will change it or not, there is an end in sight.
But who among the new jumpers is likely to open low? Having been trained via AFF, the majority are more likely to pull high than low. Also, freeflying seems to encourage higher opening (at least based on the discussions I've heard), due to the increased speed of the skydive.
Along with multiple groups out on a pass (which also encourages higher deployment altitudes to get back from longer spots), there are very few forces pushing jumpers to open low.
The biggest thing that the 70's did was to make low pull contests far less cool; along with the new sport of BASE (which gives plenty of opportunity for low opening to jumpers who really want to go low), the desire to take it down really doesn't seem to be as generalized as it used to be.
Back when 2000 was established, many more dropzones used 182's, with a lower likely jump altitude. One thing about more DZs using larger planes is that jumps are generally higher than they used to be, and freefall isn't as precious. But that, too, means that individual jumpers' behavior is less likely to push them to try to take advantage of those "last precious few seconds of freefall" as they might have earlier.
Just my thoughts. I think that if we continue to have higher breakoffs (which is definitely true), 2000 will continue to be seen as an undesirable but legal basement, rather than as a likely and desirable opening option.
It's about the newer jumpers who will push every limit they can, every chance they get. The same thinking that causes a guy with 100 jumps to put on a Gopro when the regs say 200 jumps
And since they are ignoring the 200 jump for a camera reg... What makes you think they would suddenly pay attention to this one?
Quote:
is the same thinking that will have him humming it down to 2k, even though he's suppsed to wait until he has 200 jumps (or a C license) for that as well.
And if he is going to ignore that... What makes you think he will suddenly obey this?
Quote:
Notice that nobody pulls at 1500 ft. The reason being that 'rules' stop at 2k.
I know people that still pull at 1500. So your observation is incorrect already. And your conclusion is also false. Most people I know started to pull higher after we saw that a CYPRES might fire if we pulled below 2k. I know I started pulling higher after I got a CYPRES for that reason.
Quote:
At the risk of offending some, it has in a way, become 'pussy-fied' not in the good way
And yet here you are asking for a BSR to make it MORE pussified?????
We both know the USPA could spend it's time doing better things, but they have proven that they won't.
Okay got to jump in, although it has actually been good reading for a change. I have no idea why this was put on the agenda or who put it on for that matter. The bottom line is, it is on the agenda and must be discussed and a decision made to the absolute best ability of the S&T committee. Then the full 22 person board must pass it.
The only person I personally had conversation about this was Bill Booth, who had a genuine concern for AAD deployment altitudes being high enough for a reserve pilot chute to clear a burble. Mr. Booth advised that a 1 second delay could mean the difference between life or death and he has the numbers to back his clams. Of course the AAD firing altitudes would need to be adjusted.
The flip side is we have had these in place for some time now and are they actually statistically the cause of problems. We all know jumpers who are the 2 pullers and will go to their grave argueing they have been doing it for years with no issues. Also AFFI courses routinely put the instructor around the 2k mark. Demos may present a problem.
How about records? Most jumps in a day or 24 hour period every minute counts. If said record holder went out the door at 2100 feet and any attempt from this point forward will have to go out at 2600 feet we have a bit of a problem.
This is a very sticky question because as mentioned above it takes away something we already have, versus making a sport potentially safer.
I am anxious to listen intently to those bringing this forward and all of the pros and cons and making a decision. Either way I personally promise to weigh out the two and make a ssolid fact based decision. I am glad to have read everyones input because it will help tremendously.
Further I will let everyone know how I personally voted and explain my rationale, I know some will agree and some will disagree.
I stopped reading after this because it's wrong. The reason I deploy at 2K (instead of 1.5K, 1K, etc...) is because it's "the rule". The reason I feel that deploying at 2K is OK is based on the my gear and level of acceptable risk ...
You sure about that? You mean to tell me that with no outside influence, no reference point from which to work from, you think you would have come up with 2k all on your own?
I'm not suggesting it was an active decision on your part, but I am 100% sure that your thinking was influenced by the fact that from the first day you started jumping, all of the 'expert' jumpers you met and were trained by, were permitted via the BSR to pull at 2k. To suggest otherwise is just being naive.
Yes, I mean to tell you that my decision was based on the minimum altitude I'm allowed to deploy by "the rule", my gear choices, and my level of acceptable risk. Had "the rule" been different then it would have affected my decision only because it's "the rule" regarding how low I can deploy. Very few 'experts' that have been around me since the day I started jumping deploy at 2K ... in fact, most discourage it.
(This post was edited by Butters on Jan 27, 2012, 8:28 AM)
I know people that still pull at 1500. So your observation is incorrect already
There are people who do all sorts of stupid things. There will always be exceptions to every rule, and just because you happen to a few jumpers that like to hum it down, the vast majority of jumpers respect the 2k min pull altitude simply because that's whats in place, and what was in place when they started jumping.
Quote:
And since they are ignoring the 200 jump for a camera reg... What makes you think they would suddenly pay attention to this one? And if he is going to ignore that... What makes you think he will suddenly obey this?
Maybe I should have included the concept in my reply to you, but it came a few posts later, and the concept is that nobody is going to accept anything 'suddenly'.
I wasn't there, but I'm quite sure that the 2k min pull altitude wasn't accpeted with open arms and followed to a 't' from day one. Eventaully, it did work it's way into the lexicon, and has since become a part of skydiving to the point that people on this thread will defend it vigorously.
Again, that enthusiasm merely supprts my point. What was once the scourge of of experienced jumpers from coast to coast, a 2k min pull altitude, is now being bandied about as the gold standard, and the idea of changing is sacriledge.
The point is that as the landscape of the sport changes, so do the rules that govern it, and this shouldn't be immune.
Just above, Butters asserted that he chose 2k on his own as the result of an analysis of the gear and type of jumps he makes, with no outside influence. I suggested that it was absurd, and that the fact that from his first day on the DZ he heard from the experienced jumpers that they pull at 2k had a lot to do with his feeling that it's an appropriate pull altitude.
If, without outside influence, you were given the choice of pull altitudes, would you really come up with the one that's 10 seconds from impact, and 7 seconds from being too late to have an open canopy before impact? How close would you get to a brick wall if you were driving straing at it, fast enough to kill you, and there was a chance the brakes would fail and would need to enact a multi step process to use the back-up brakes? It's the same idea, and I have to think that without a professional driver suggesting to you what a 'safe' distance would be, you might err on the side of caution, and start braking well before the professional driver.
If, without outside influence, you were given the choice of pull altitudes, would you really come up with the one that's 10 seconds from impact, and 7 seconds from being too late to have an open canopy before impact?
The people who had no outside influences came up with considerably lower altitudes -- they were the ones without the BSR.
The change in gear makes a big difference, and should be taken into account by each jumper in deploying.
Just above, Butters asserted that he chose 2k on his own as the result of an analysis of the gear and type of jumps he makes, with no outside influence. I suggested that it was absurd, and that the fact that from his first day on the DZ he heard from the experienced jumpers that they pull at 2k had a lot to do with his feeling that it's an appropriate pull altitude.
And you were wrong. I am not defending 2K as the gold standard. I am defending my right to choose ... Once again, what if they institute a rule against turns greater than 360's? You'll fight it. What if it passes and later they try to change it to 180's? You'll fight it again. Not because 360's is the gold standard but because you were against the old rule and the new rule will be more prohibitive than the old rule ...
The change in gear makes a big difference, and should be taken into account by each jumper in deploying.
Therein lies the problem. How many young jumpers are aware that gear has chnaged, or what it was like when the 2k line was drawn in the sand?
These are the same jumpers who push WL higher and higher with less and less jumps. They feel great about jumping a 1.4 Wl with 200 jumps, but not realizing that when the rule was made, most people were under 1.0 Wl, and even then the canopies were far lower performance.
We can't make rules based on what we know, you have to make them based more on what the 'average' jumper will know. What I said upthread has remained true, most of the people commenting on this are 10+ years into the sport, and 1000's of jumps in the books.
The thing to consider is the up and coming jumpers, and the up and coming jumpers 5 years from now. What will they 'know', and what will the landscape of skydiving be like then? How about 10 years from now?
Anyone know when the 2k mark was set? I know it's been at least 17 years because it was in place when I started, so consider it's longevity, and think the same number of years ahead of right now.
The up and coming jumpers still know that they want long openings, that they don't want to scare their Cypres, and that a hop and pop is at 5000'. They have 3 biases to overcome to start dumping low. and here I'm talking about "don't run into the brick wall in front of you" thinking, not the subtler thinking of how rigs open slower than they used to.
There will always be exceptions to every rule, and just because you happen to a few jumpers that like to hum it down, the vast majority of jumpers respect the 2k min pull altitude simply because that's whats in place, and what was in place when they started jumping.
Again, if you poll 100 jumpers on the DZ the majority will be pulling higher than 2.5 anyway. This is a regulation looking for a problem, not a problem that needs a regulation.
Quote:
Maybe I should have included the concept in my reply to you, but it came a few posts later, and the concept is that nobody is going to accept anything 'suddenly'.
I have heard this concept from you before..... Fact is that it really does not matter. The FACT is that the BSR is a MINIMUM deployment altitude.
Quote:
If, without outside influence, you were given the choice of pull altitudes, would you really come up with the one that's 10 seconds from impact, and 7 seconds from being too late to have an open canopy before impact? How close would you get to a brick wall if you were driving straing at it, fast enough to kill you, and there was a chance the brakes would fail and would need to enact a multi step process to use the back-up brakes? It's the same idea, and I have to think that without a professional driver suggesting to you what a 'safe' distance would be, you might err on the side of caution, and start braking well before the professional driver.
Any the counter point which you seem to be ignoring is that nothing currently is stopping ANYONE from pulling HIGHER. NOTHING AT ALL.
This whole thing is based off of Bill Booth and maybe others wanting to raise the deployment altitudes of AAD's.... But again, there is NOTHING preventing any maker of AAD's from doing that.
Min pull altitude is 2k. You want to swoop and need to get set up? Pull higher. You have a canopy that takes a long time to open? Pull higher. You want more time to deal with a mal? Pull higher.
Nothing is stopping you from taking the MIN pull altitude and making adjustments based on your equipment and person desires from ADDING to it.
Again, this is a regulation looking for a problem. Time would be MUCH better spent working on the canopy control issue. I'd personally rather see a BSR about no turns over 90 unless on a hop n pop... It would save more lives.
Time would be MUCH better spent working on the canopy control issue. I'd personally rather see a BSR about no turns over 90 unless on a hop n pop... It would save more lives.
Just in case you are not speaking with you tong in cheek, I offer the following info.
At the last PIA meeting Robert Feldman, Attorney for UPT et ux, raised this item and had it put on the agenda to go to USPA as a request.
It is biased upon the USPA directive about low reserve openings, or failure to deploy within 750 feet after AAD confirmed firing.
I did a poll on this form predicting this action. Under Gear & Rigging: "Should the AAD activation altitude be raised to 1250 feet?"
Booth is behind it because his reserves and others, won't always open within the required distance of 300 feet. He has publicly stated on Youtube at the PIA convention http://www.youtube.com/...5#p/u/30/tQuJr5wuvSw that this is his desire, to raise all altitudes.
John
PS; I would support this increase if there was a smattering of proof that it would help. But if a PC won't pull a bag out in 750 feet then I don't see any reason it would do any better from a higher altitude. We don't need more altitude just gear which works.
JS
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Jan 27, 2012, 10:59 AM
Post #86 of 157
(976 views)
Shortcut
Just in case you are not speaking with you tong in cheek, I offer the following info.
At the last PIA meeting Robert Feldman, Attorney for UPT et ux, raised this item and had it put on the agenda to go to USPA as a request.
It is biased upon the USPA directive about low reserve openings, or failure to deploy within 750 feet after AAD confirmed firing.
I did a poll on this form predicting this action. Under Gear & Rigging: "Should the AAD activation altitude be raised to 1250 feet?"
Booth is behind it because his reserves and others, won't always open within the required distance of 300 feet. He has publicly stated on Youtube at the PIA convention http://www.youtube.com/...5#p/u/30/tQuJr5wuvSw that this is his desire, to raise all altitudes.
John
PS; I would support this increase if there was a smattering of proof that it would help. But if a PC won't pull a bag out in 750 feet then I don't see any reason it would do any better from a higher altitude. We don't need more altitude just gear which works.
JS
Given that there are plenty of recent AAD fires and low-reserve deployments coupled with small, high performance canopies, I can see perhaps why this is being brought about.
It would seem to be a stage-one component of a multi-stage effort, to raise AAD firing points too. I don't accept for a second that Bill is "worried about HIS" reserves as he's more concerned with overall incidents.
Did you mean to say the request for this to be heard is BIASED or BASED? I was at PIA, and didn't hear Feldman speak about "failure to open within 750' of confirmed AAD firing." I did hear/record the discussion about low reserve deployments, but I didn't attend every session, either.
...This whole thing is based off of Bill Booth and maybe others wanting to raise the deployment altitudes of AAD's.... But again, there is NOTHING preventing any maker of AAD's from doing that...
I'm going to disagree with that part (and only that part, you make a lot of very good points).
Given the litigious nature of American society, the makers of AADs won't put themselves in a position where a "normal" opening at or near the "legal" minimum pull altitude would reasonably result in a two-out situation.
If they aren't able to say that the AAD wouldn't fire unless the jumper had gone well below a safe pull altitude, and that there's no reasonable way it wouldn't fire unless it was at or near the last possible moment to activate the reserve then the potential for a lawsuit is just too great.
And while I certainly pull higher than 2k, if it is following the BSRs (and therefore "legal") then it must be "safe", right?
I'm not in favor of raising the minimum altitudes, but I also don't believe that AADs will have higher activations altitudes (except for custom/special orders) without it.
Low pulls do not seem to make up the majority of fatality or injury reports anymore. In fact, they are rather small compared to other categories. Nor do they seem to contribute to other incidents. To me, this seems like a solution looking for a problem.
(This post was edited by CMiller on Jan 27, 2012, 11:46 AM)
The reason you feel that 2k is OK, is becuase it's been 'the rule' since you started jumping.
I stopped reading after this because it's wrong. The reason I deploy at 2K (instead of 1.5K, 1K, etc...) is because it's "the rule". The reason I feel that deploying at 2K is OK is based on my gear choices and level of acceptable risk ...
Allow me to back you up with numbers 120 mph= 176 feet/sec 0 ft = ground 750 ft = cypress fire [need to be in the saddle on a good canopy before this altitude]
3 seconds from main deployment to bridle stretch (includes a 1 second hesitation) 3sec X 176ft/sec=528 feet 500 foot snivel (my canopy) 528+500=1028 feet from pitch to "in the saddle" 1028+750=1778 feet 1778 feet= minimum deployment altitude [for a jumper with: fall rate = 120mph, snivel= 500 ft and cypress fire = 750 ft]
Adjusting for different fall rates: 110 mph => 1734 feet 130 mph => 1822 feet Adjusting for different snivels: 300 ft => 1578 feet (1534 ft for 110 mph fall rate) 900 ft => 2178 feet (2222 ft for 130 mph fall rate)
To summarize: Fast faller with long snivel =2200 feet deployment Slow faller with short snivel = 1534 feet deployment Most of us = 1800 feet deployment
Some more math: From 120 mph velocity towards the earth to 30 mph(in the saddle) is a deceleration or negative acceleration. the value of this can be measured in g-forces and depends on how long it take you to go from "fast" to "slow" g=(fast-slow)/time 1 second => 3.8 to 4.2 G 2 seconds => 1.9 to 2.1 G 3 seconds => 1.3 to 1.4 G 4 seconds => 0.9 to 1.1 G Where 1 is regular gravity, 3 is the space shuttle launch, 1.5 is a Bugatti Veyron and 4 is a roller coaster. A 500 ft snivel puts you somewhere in the 2-3 second range.
[opinion,rant] So BSR or no BSR I plan my normal dive around a 3000 foot deployment, hard deck of 2500 and 1800 decision altitude. And I don't need Bill Booth (who is awesome) or the USPA or PIA or anyone to tell me that. Furthermore: if I get some new AAD that has a different altitude or a new main that has different opening times or a different reserve, or a wingsuit or camera or etc..., I do the math. Do you?.[/opinion,rant]
3 seconds from main deployment to bridle stretch (includes a 1 second hesitation) 3sec X 176ft/sec=528 feet 500 foot snivel (my canopy) 528+500=1028 feet from pitch to "in the saddle" 1028+750=1778 feet 1778 feet= minimum deployment altitude [for a jumper with: fall rate = 120mph, snivel= 500 ft and cypress fire = 750 ft]
Where is the cutaway and reserve deployment time and altitude loss?
2000' is high enough. I have cutaway from a bag lock and streamers having pitched at 2k and was open with brakes un-stowed, headed to the dz at 1100'. No RSL, all manual. Do I need to be open higher under my reserve?
A few of the low reserve pulls/ fatalities came from people who decided to spend too much time trying to fix what they eventually cut away. Look at the videos on youtube, too much time wasted.
KNOW your procedures BEFORE you need to call on them.
For me, 2k is very 'tight' in terms of time management. I like to swoop, and typically start my turn about 800/900ft up, which means I need to be directly above my initiation point by that altitude, so right off the top, I can knock 800 ft off my deployment time when figuring my 'working time' under canopy. So if I clear my PC at 2k, and am under an open canopy by 1400ft, once I subtract 800ft, that leaves me 600ft of flying time to stow my slider, unstow my brakes, and fly my pattern. That's tight.
So pull higher. Do you really need a BSR to tell you that?
If you don't get a PC out when you wanted... Maybe you don't get to swoop on this load. Know your gear and make your decisions based on that.
This is about a MINIMUM altitude. Poll 100 jumpers on any given DZ and the majority will tell you they pull higher than 2k (I normally pitch at 3k).
This is a non-issue looking for a BSR. There are MUCH better uses of the USPA's time.
Don't forget the static pressure adjustment that AADs have. They are designed to fire at 750ft for a belly to earth orientation. This means the pressure sensor on the back of a jumper sits in a low pressure burble. The sensor will fire at a lower actual pressure (I think equal to 1100-1200 ft, IIRC) to account for this.
This means that a jumper that is head high (under a sniveling canopy) may have an AAD fire at an altitude higher than 750ft. Also the act of rotating from belly to upright causes a pressure change that to the AAD both lowers the perceived altitude of the jumper as mentioned above and also increases the perceived speed, making it possible to fire an AAD even though the actual speed is less than activation speed.
Just something to keep in mind. I for one would like to be able to increase my AAD activation altitude permanently by 500ft. I like flying my canopy, so I don't pull below 3k. If for some reason I can't pull, whether it is because I am incapacitated physically or mentally (loss of altitude awareness), I want to give my AAD every possible chance of saving my sorry ass. John Sherman can imply that if a reserve won't open in 300 ft it also wont open in 800ft, but can imply that it very well may.
Therein lies the problem. How many young jumpers are aware that gear has chnaged, or what it was like when the 2k line was drawn in the sand?
How many of these young jumpers are pulling at 2k? Very few if any that I have seen... Hell, they will not get out of a plane lower than 4k.
Agree. Can't we all be big boys and girls for once?
I could see 'perhaps' raising the C license minimum, even though I disagree with it, but by the time you have a D license, you should have a pretty good understanding of how your gear works, how long it will take your main to open, etcetera. If you don't, well that's just sad. What did you do all those jumps? Were you a pilot or a passenger? I'd like to think that as a "Master parachutist" we have some kind of credibility.
FWIW, I often pull at 2k, but only on 1 of my rigs, and with a wing suit, and even an AAD. But then again, I have a few hundred wing suit base jumps, and specialized skydiving gear, so I am not the 'norm'
Some busts are obvious to the naked eye, and more to your point a DZO could indeed tell a jumper to hand over an altitude recording device to prove he/she didn't bust or face being grounded instead. That's the DZO's choice and would certainly prove one way or the other whether a bust occurred.
My N3 (as well as my N2) don't accurately record deployment altitude, they record the attitude I'm in the saddle.
I got a little bit of a chewing by a few people claiming I MUST have busted 2k before I activated, I had VIDEO SHOWING MY ALTITUDE (pointed at my altimeter) at deployment, and they didn't accept that. I trust it over their eyeballs on the ground.
Understood, but if there is a "trouble child" on the DZ, an altitude recording device would be enough proof for a DZO to take action. It's simple, really.
I ran a DZ and I had no problem saying "well little Johnny, your (name your device here) says you "deployed" at 1,500 feet. Now that may mean you pitched at 2,100 or it may mean you pitched at 1,900. Either way, if I see your "deployment altitude" as 1,500 feet again, you're grounded."
Case closed.
Due process never existed on my DZ where jackwads were concerned.
Guess I would constantly be in trouble because my Altimaster II will be reading 0' by the time the DZO checks it.
Or, with the DZO tracking opening altitudes with "an altitude recording device", does that mandate me buying one so that I can make a jump at this DZO's DZ? Or is the DZO going to provide them thus requiring another jump ticket price increase?
My reply was purely hypothetical based on another post about a DZO forcing someone to hand over a device if they had one.
The bottom line is easier than that for me. If the problem child is consistently staying in freefall for several seconds after everyone else deploys, it really only requires asking others on the group where they dumped to get a good idea whether a low pull occurred.
Splitting hairs with me didn't work at my DZ. I showed more than one person the door when they repeatedly pushed the limits and then wanted to argue about it.
This isn't about us. It's about the newer jumpers who will push every limit they can, every chance they get. The same thinking that causes a guy with 100 jumps to put on a Gopro when the regs say 200 jumps, is the same thinking that will have him humming it down to 2k, even though he's suppsed to wait until he has 200 jumps (or a C license) for that as well. The thinking, as always, 'I'll be fine, if it's cool for guys with 200 jumps, then it's cool for me too because I'm awesome'.
So you favor further restrictions on the capable because the incapable break the rules?
You're numbers don't work as well for wingsuiters.
Quote:
if I get some new AAD that has a different altitude or a new main that has different opening times or a different reserve, or a wingsuit or camera or etc..., I do the math.
Its the point I was making at the end of my post. Different jump = different numbers. You said previously:
Quote:
Butters: The reason I feel that deploying at 2K is OK is based on my gear choices and level of acceptable risk ...
and I hope you meant that we don't need a BSR to tell us when to deploy. We can figure it out ourselves.
LOL changing a number is not going to change what happens. So we are going to put alt police at every dz to make sure you pull higher.(kidding) I think this is another mistake of uspa regulating instead of educating. Its almost as bad as the US government i said almost My normal pull is at 3500 so change it all you want. I just dont think its going to change anything.
3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet AGL.
... and I don't like it. What do others think?
Hi Butts', I concur. Like an old Flyin' thing where pilots would add 5kts above the designated approach speed of their aircraft to avoid stalling on final and burning in for the wife and kids and another 5 kts for "Grandma!!" thus "Grandma speed!!" Go Figure! Get it!!?????
I find changing a behavior is much tougher than changing a rule. I once thought 3500 was break-off altitude, and pitching above 2500 was a waste of freefall. Hop and pops were from like 2550- so we had canopy at 2500 or 'thereabouts'... times, equipment and attitudes change- maybe the behavior will too.
So you favor further restrictions on the capable because the incapable break the rules?
If you want to look at it that way, you can. Given the turn-over rate for new jumpers (I seem to recall the 'average' length a jumper spends in the sport is 5 years), the majority of jumpers are likely to be newer or 'incapable' as you say.
It's like Ron said above, he knows guys that still pull at 1500ft. It's not prevalant, and it's not popular, but it happens.
So the idea is that we make a change now, and get the idea that 2k might be a little low for more than a few situations out there to the general jumping public, it's a step in the right direction. It will take time for it to work into the sub-conscious of the community, and really become the new 'standard', and in the mean time, those who are 'capable' can continue to pull where ever they want. Like I said, Ron seems to know guys who still dump at 1500ft, so if the BSR is chnaged, some people will still dump at 2000ft.
The idea is that new jumpers coming in will think of 2.5k as 'the rule'. It's all they're going to know, and the idea wil be planted in their heads that anything beyond that is 'low'. Keep in mind that these jumpers lack the knowledge of 'yesteryear' and the gear and jumps that lead to 2k as being established as the minimum. They won't know that 2k is OK if A, B and C are met, but might not apply otherwise, all they know is that the book calls 2k A-OK.
Look at it as a pro-active step with an eye on the future. It takes time for new rules to take hold and become the new 'norm'. What would people have thought if the USPA introduced required canopy training and focus on landing patterns back in 1995? Everyone would have said they were crazy, but a need for those things did indeed arise, and the USPA took action about a decade too late. Anyone happy with that situation? Anyone feel like repeating it? Maybe be 'take a chance' and try to stay out in front of things this time around.
faulknerwn (D 17441)
Moderator
Jan 30, 2012, 7:23 AM
Post #104 of 157
(837 views)
Shortcut
It's odd to me that people actually see newer jumpers pulling that low. The only people that I ever see pull at 2k are the guys who have been jumping 15-20-30 years. The rookies seem terrified to Pull below 3-3500. And they all have modern 'fun' canopies so they enjoy their canopy ride too much to hum it low.
It just seems to me that 2k pulls just aren't an issue with anyone who learned in the past 10 years. Or maybe I'm just in an odd part of the skydiving world.
It just seems to me that 2k pulls just aren't an issue with anyone who learned in the past 10 years. Or maybe I'm just in an odd part of the skydiving world
I don't think it's odd at all, but some considerations remain. Even if newer jumpers aren't pulling low, they're not going to be newer jumpers forever. They will still be jumping slow opening, higher perofmance, higher loaded canopies, and will still have come up in the sport under the impression that 2k isn't 'low'.
The other effect, which I mentioned previously, is that even for people who don't make a habit of pulling low, the idea is still in their heads that anything above 2k isn't all that 'low'. Even if their equipment and experience say otherwise, they may not percieve that they are getting low until they're past 2k, and that's not good.
The idea is to shift the perception of 'low' up a notch to account for the changes in skydiving that have taken place since 2k became the 'bottom line'. If we can get people to feel differently about what being 'low' really is, we can improve the odds in terms of reducing people going in partially inflated reserves, low cutaways, and two outs. All good things.
Again, effecting change in this sport is a long term process. It takes years for ideas to really take a 'set', and become accepted as the new 'standard'. As we can see with the canopy control situation, if you wait until a problem is rampant, and an obvious trouble spot, you've waited far too long. Even if you could change peoples behavior overnight (as-in with canopy control and selection) there have been countless fatalities and injuries up to this point that could have been avoided. If you factor in all the things that will go wrong while we 'work on' the problem, it's that much worse.
faulknerwn (D 17441)
Moderator
Jan 30, 2012, 7:53 AM
Post #106 of 157
(832 views)
Shortcut
Out here all the jumpers seem to view anything below 3k as low Maybe it's different at big dropzones but it seems that they view if they pulled as low as 2500 it scares them. Anything below 3 seems to be the new low for jumpers. You couldn't pay them to pull as low as 2.
Maybe they just don't read USPa doctrine so much but the attitude of the less than 10 years in the sport out here is that below 3k they've gone low
I do suspect that at big dropzones people can develop different attitudes
I know that separation altitudes are consistently 500-1000 feet higher than they would have been for similarly-sized formations 30 years ago. At least up to 20 or so (which is the sizes of most of my experience).
Wendy P.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 30, 2012, 9:36 AM
Post #108 of 157
(795 views)
Shortcut
>It's odd to me that people actually see newer jumpers pulling that low. The only people >that I ever see pull at 2k are the guys who have been jumping 15-20-30 years.
Agreed. Our "hop and pops" are at 4500-5000 feet, and even then newer jumpers don't want to get out that low. It's a rare dive at Perris that has people breaking off below 4000 feet so they can pull at 3000, and 4500-5000 is more common nowadays.
So why change the BSR for deployment altitude? Whats wrong with 2K, especially since it seems "most" jumpers are pulling above that? I am the exception I suppose - I pretty consistantly pull between 2.5 and 2K. I have pulled under 2K a few times but I dont make a habit of it...
I think it's already become the over all accepted standard to pull well higher then 2k or even 2.5k. I am still not convinced there needs to be a change to the BSR. I don't see a lot of people pulling low.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 30, 2012, 12:47 PM
Post #111 of 157
(752 views)
Shortcut
So you favor further restrictions on the capable because the incapable break the rules?
If you want to look at it that way, you can. Given the turn-over rate for new jumpers (I seem to recall the 'average' length a jumper spends in the sport is 5 years), the majority of jumpers are likely to be newer or 'incapable' as you say.
In reply to:
Your argument as framed has a problem from the start. According to the 2010 USPA jumper survey, 38% of jumpers have more than 500 jumps, 45% have 26-500 jumps, and only 17% have 25 or fewer jumps. While certainly not conclusive, those numbers don't seem support "a majority" of jumpers being "newer".
Moreover, the time someone stays in the sport is irrelevant to the issue. Deployment altitude rules are based on license level, which is vastly different than time in sport. Many jumpers these days have 200 jumps - the minimum necessary to obtain a "C" license and begin dumping at 2k - in less than a year, some in even less than 6 months. Are you saying that those people aren't qualified to dump at 2k because they have a "C" license but somehow just haven't been around long enough?
So the idea is that we make a change now, and get the idea that 2k might be a little low for more than a few situations out there to the general jumping public, it's a step in the right direction. It will take time for it to work into the sub-conscious of the community, and really become the new 'standard', and in the mean time, those who are 'capable' can continue to pull where ever they want. Like I said, Ron seems to know guys who still dump at 1500ft, so if the BSR is chnaged, some people will still dump at 2000ft.
In reply to:
There is no need to get anything in to the "sub-conscious of the community, and really become the new 'standard'". Minimum deployment altitudes are BSR's. If the BSR says 2k, then it's 2k. Your comments seem to insinuate that jumpers will always go beyond the rules no matter where we set them, which is not the case for the vast majority of jumpers. Whether the minimum is 2k or 2.5k, the enforcement or lack of wouldn't change. DZ's that allow people to break BSR's won't magically begin enforcement because the minimum is raised. In fact, quite the opposite may end up happening. Slack DZ's might enforce a 2.5k minimum even less using the logic that USPA just jacked the altitude up knowing that 2k was safe for appropriately rated jumpers.
The idea is that new jumpers coming in will think of 2.5k as 'the rule'. It's all they're going to know, and the idea wil be planted in their heads that anything beyond that is 'low'. Keep in mind that these jumpers lack the knowledge of 'yesteryear' and the gear and jumps that lead to 2k as being established as the minimum. They won't know that 2k is OK if A, B and C are met, but might not apply otherwise, all they know is that the book calls 2k A-OK.
In reply to:
2.5k already is "the rule" for "B" license holders and even 3k for "A" license holders. Your comments make it sound like you want to try to fool people into believing certain things without respect to whether it's true. There's no need for trickery. Just make rules that make sense, and then enforce them.
Look at it as a pro-active step with an eye on the future. It takes time for new rules to take hold and become the new 'norm'. What would people have thought if the USPA introduced required canopy training and focus on landing patterns back in 1995? Everyone would have said they were crazy, but a need for those things did indeed arise, and the USPA took action about a decade too late. Anyone happy with that situation? Anyone feel like repeating it? Maybe be 'take a chance' and try to stay out in front of things this time around.
In reply to:
I think you miss the point. 2k openings are perfectly safe when performed by properly qualified jumpers using appropriate equipment, so it would be overkill and not logical to outlaw doing it for those people. USPA obviously thinks it's not safe for "A" and "B" license holders to dump at 2k, so they have a rule against it. I'm not sure how that isn't working in your mind.
There are many many situations where a 2k deployment is perfectly acceptable. A clear and pull from 2,000 feet affords as much reaction time to take emergency procedures as a terminal deployment at 2.5k, so using your logic we would have to raise the minimum even higher than 2.5k if the jumper is at the end of a long skydive vs the beginning of a short one.
If you want to argue that 2k is too low for everyone all the time, you could then argue for a 2.5k minimum for all. But here you argue that we have to slowly convince people to accept change, and there we part ways. Rules and laws change all the time. Break the new rule, get the new punishment.
As I said in my reply to the original BOD meeting agenda survey, 2k is safe under certain conditions, so THAT should be the minimum for properly qualified jumpers. If 2k isn't safe under other conditions - like when a jumper has a long-sniveling canopy and an AAD, that should be addressed somewhere besides the BSR 's, like the "equipment recommendations" or "advanced progression" sections of the SIM.
Are you saying that those people aren't qualified to dump at 2k because they have a "C" license but somehow just haven't been around long enough?
If that what he was saying, I would agree. I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already.
I think you, too probably agree with that given your statement, "2k openings are perfectly safe when performed by properly qualified jumpers using appropriate equipment, "
Given this, "As I said in my reply to the original BOD meeting agenda survey, 2k is safe under certain conditions, so THAT should be the minimum for properly qualified jumpers", we'd now have to set some criteria to determine 'properly qualified' jumpers and, IMO, simple license level doesn't do an adequate job of it.
Are you saying that those people aren't qualified to dump at 2k because they have a "C" license but somehow just haven't been around long enough?
If that what he was saying, I would agree. I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already.
I think you, too probably agree with that given your statement, "2k openings are perfectly safe when performed by properly qualified jumpers using appropriate equipment, "
Given this, "As I said in my reply to the original BOD meeting agenda survey, 2k is safe under certain conditions, so THAT should be the minimum for properly qualified jumpers", we'd now have to set some criteria to determine 'properly qualified' jumpers and, IMO, simple license level doesn't do an adequate job of it.
Pops, I agree with you on all of the above. My problem isn't with re-evaluating our current minimums vs license or experience level, it's with raising the minimums for everyone on every jump.
There are clearly jumps and jumpers that are perfectly safe doing 2k deployments, so it would seem to me that we need to address specifics like sniveling canopies somewhere besides the BSR's, and should evaluate the experience issue on its own.
I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems
Since you've been in the sport for 99 years, you should remember that at one time long, long ago a 'D" was 200 freefalls and they could open at 1800 ft.
I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems
Since you've been in the sport for 99 years, you should remember that at one time long, long ago a 'D" was 200 freefalls and they could open at 1800 ft.
I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already.
Why not? Do you not have faith in the training people receive? As pointed out, 200 jumps used to be a D license. To me its pretty simple - a malfunction where you deployed at 4K you might be able to look at it for a second, maybe try something to fix it (depending on what it is). A malfunction where you deployed at 2K or under needs to go. Your hard deck is your hard deck, regardless of what altitude the malfunction starts at.
(This post was edited by crotalus01 on Jan 30, 2012, 3:22 PM)
I'm not sure if I should be telling a young jumper this if your listed jump numbers are correct. I don't want to give you ideas that it's OK to bust your current limits on anything.
Ah, but you'll learn these things sooner or later, I'm sure...if you keep learning from the book and from others.
Quote:
I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude problems unless they have experience handling EPs already.
In reply to:
Why not? Do you not have faith in the training people receive?
Well, you can train 'til you're blue in the face. It doesn't guarantee that the trainee will actually perform as they are trained. Many do, some don't. You should know that already.
In reply to:
As pointed out, 200 jumps used to be a D license.
Pointless in the big scheme of things.
In reply to:
To me its pretty simple - a malfunction where you deployed at 4K you might be able to look at it for a second, maybe try something to fix it (depending on what it is).
True enough...except that you are now talking in terms of time as opposed to altitude. "Try something" is an indicator that one may not really know what the proper thing to do really is.
In reply to:
A malfunction where you deployed at 2K or under needs to go.
Not true....depending, of course, on the mal. Some of them are no-brainers at any altitude. When you gain some more time in sport and some more experience, you'll understand high-speed and low speed and how much altitude it normally takes the make things right for the mal you're trying to deal with...and you'll know when to recognize it's not working out as you'd like when it's really time to go.
You'll learn to recognize that there are no hard and fast lines drawn in the sand and that there are variables involved in all of it. You'll learn about those variables and how they affect your actions....or better yet, how your actions affect those variables.
In reply to:
Your hard deck is your hard deck, regardless of what altitude the malfunction starts at.
True enough....kind of. On paper, yes. In reality, maybe not. In reality. you'll (hopefully) do whatever it takes to save your butt regardless of hard deck lines in the sand.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm advocating "wait until you are at minimum altitude to act". Not saying that at all. I am saying that in real life it happens that way sometimes and you should know how to act if and when it does.
Again, 200 jumps doesn't guarantee that the trainee will actually perform as they are trained. Many do, some don't.
(This post was edited by popsjumper on Jan 30, 2012, 11:41 PM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 31, 2012, 10:03 AM
Post #122 of 157
(570 views)
Shortcut
>I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude >problems unless they have experience handling EPs already.
I know a few people with 1000 jumps that I'm not sure could handle a low cutaway.
The "experience handling EPs already" comment is an interesting one. I've often thought there was a lot of value in doing an intentional cutaway as part of one's advanced training (say for a D license.) Some tandem manufacturers already require it, and it certainly prepares you for both the feeling of a cutaway, the timing required, how your harness shifts after you go back into freefall, the speed of reserve deployment at low speeds etc.
>I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude >problems unless they have experience handling EPs already.
I know a few people with 1000 jumps that I'm not sure could handle a low cutaway.
The "experience handling EPs already" comment is an interesting one. I've often thought there was a lot of value in doing an intentional cutaway as part of one's advanced training (say for a D license.) Some tandem manufacturers already require it, and it certainly prepares you for both the feeling of a cutaway, the timing required, how your harness shifts after you go back into freefall, the speed of reserve deployment at low speeds etc.
I wouldn't disagree with that. I remember when I started jumping in the mid 80's there were several older guys that always had mals just as their reserve repacks were due. Oddly, they always seemed to happen on their last jump of the day on Sunday afternoon.
The "experience handling EPs already" comment is an interesting one. I've often thought there was a lot of value in doing an intentional cutaway as part of one's advanced training (say for a D license.)
I wish it was required. I'd be willing to bet that it would save a few lives.
They could do a hop-n-pop at say 4, cutaway and deploy the main by say 2-3.
Fair enough Pops. My numbers are close and you are not giving me ideas about busting anything. I have 3 cutaways in 200ish jumps, 2 low speed and one very low high speed. I simply dont think the number of jumps has that much to do with how a person will perform when dealing with a cutaway at any altitude (I know in my case I performed better on my second, and even better on my third but that had to do with familiarity of chopping, NOT my total jump numbers). Hell, one of my friends has over 2K jumps with no cutaways and he told me he didnt know how he would perform if/when he had his first malfunction. Outside of that small point, we are in total agreement
>I don't know that I trust 200 jumps to be able to efficiently handle low-altitude >problems unless they have experience handling EPs already.
I know a few people with 1000 jumps that I'm not sure could handle a low cutaway.
The "experience handling EPs already" comment is an interesting one. I've often thought there was a lot of value in doing an intentional cutaway as part of one's advanced training (say for a D license.) Some tandem manufacturers already require it, and it certainly prepares you for both the feeling of a cutaway, the timing required, how your harness shifts after you go back into freefall, the speed of reserve deployment at low speeds etc.
100% good stuff. I always recommend the intentional cutaway to jumpers who have not yet experienced one...but only when the tertiary system is available. I strongly believe it is a good training tool and I wouldn't argue a second against making it a requirement somewhere in the licensing progression. I'm leaning towards earlier than D but it's a subject for discussion fo' sho'.
I just had to say, "only when the tertiary system is available" because I know of a nut that talked his GF into an intentional cutaway....on her sport rig.
Fair enough Pops. My numbers are close and you are not giving me ideas about busting anything. I have 3 cutaways in 200ish jumps, 2 low speed and one very low high speed.
So you do have some experience with mals. On the one hand that's good...OTOH, WHAT????? Body position! J/K, eh?
In reply to:
I simply dont think the number of jumps has that much to do with how a person will perform when dealing with a cutaway at any altitude
Which is why I said I couldn't really trust even 200 jumps to perform and we agree with that totally (no pun intended).
In reply to:
Hell, one of my friends has over 2K jumps with no cutaways and he told me he didnt know how he would perform if/when he had his first malfunction.
And he's right in the big scheme of things. None of us really do. We can train and we can be confident but, as you indicate, the proof is in the pudding.
In reply to:
Outside of that small point, we are in total agreement
...there were several older guys that always had mals just as their reserve repacks were due. Oddly, they always seemed to happen on their last jump of the day on Sunday afternoon.
Well, hell...if you're going to have to pay for a repack you may as well get your moneys worth, right?
Youngsters: JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 31, 2012, 5:29 PM
Post #129 of 157
(750 views)
Shortcut
>...but only when the tertiary system is available.
Agreed. I think there are a lot of ways to do such a cutaway:
1) Just cutting away from your main. Not recommended unless you have to.
2) Door deployed tertiary canopy, cut away to your regular main. Can be safe if you have two people who know what they're doing, but not very representative of a "real" cutaway.
3) Chest mounted square tertiary, deploy tertiary, cut away to your regular main. A slightly better/safer way to do it but still not a great simulation.
4) Chest mounted round tertiary, deploy your main, cut it away, deploy your reserve. Much more representative of a real cutaway but there are some rigging and legality issues.
5) Dedicated cutaway rig. This is the ideal way to do it, since the handles are in approximately the same position and it is designed and TSOed to do just that. It should be pointed out that the complexity does add some risk - so it's not just another skydive - but I think the benefits of having that experience outweights the risks.
Good points Pops, yes we do agree. As for my cutaways, one was linetwists I couldnt get out of, one was spinning on my back from 9 broken lines and a couple of torn cells and one was a broken brake line that I chopped because it opened hard enough that it rang my bell pretty good and I didnt want to chance landing on my rears with my head fuzzy.
>...but only when the tertiary system is available.
Agreed. I think there are a lot of ways to do such a cutaway: . . 5) Dedicated cutaway rig. This is the ideal way to do it, since the handles are in approximately the same position and it is designed and TSOed to do just that. It should be pointed out that the complexity does add some risk - so it's not just another skydive - but I think the benefits of having that experience outweights the risks.
Thanks for pointing those options out, Bill. It appears to me that line items 1-4 are little more than jury-rigged setups and I cringe at the thought of using them. Item 5 is the only way to go, in my book, too.
For you guys out there who will want to do an intentional cutaway:
As for my cutaways, one was linetwists I couldnt get out of, one was spinning on my back from 9 broken lines and a couple of torn cells and one was a broken brake line that I chopped because it opened hard enough that it rang my bell pretty good
Sounds like you've carefully considered your gear when choosing to pull at 2k. Three cutaways with under 200 jump, and 2 of them due to gear failures. Something isn't right there.
As for my cutaways, one was linetwists I couldnt get out of, one was spinning on my back from 9 broken lines and a couple of torn cells and one was a broken brake line that I chopped because it opened hard enough that it rang my bell pretty good and I didnt want to chance landing on my rears with my head fuzzy. I would suggest you have someone watch you pack and supervise your deployments. Anyone can line twist so bad they can't get out of it, but I gotta question 9 broken lines and torn cells. That sound like a major league packing error or something like dumping in a fast delta-ish track without slowing down. In fact, that's about as much damage as I've ever heard of in an exploding canopy scenario.
As for chopping a canopy because it hammered you and broke a brake line, I don't get that one at all. A typical response to that scenario would be to visually inspect the canopy for damage and perform a simple control check using risers. I would have to question the pack job and deployment technique on that one as well.
Not passing judgment as you were the one in the saddle, but not knowing any other aspects of your progression or skills I would suggest getting together with a rigger for some packing advice and an instructor to review best practices.
As for chopping a canopy because it hammered you and broke a brake line, I don't get that one at all. A typical response to that scenario would be to visually inspect the canopy for damage and perform a simple control check using risers.
Careful there, Chuck. We don't know whether or not he has learned enough about rear riser flight to be able to land rears safely.
For you and me, yes. But NOT for everybody.
IMO, for jumpers not understanding riser flight, cut and deploy IS best practices.
OK...in the big scheme of things... Have first attempts been successful? Yes. Have first attempts been unsuccessful? Yes. I'm in the camp of "you must know about rear riser flight (including, and most particularly, stall point) before attempting rear-riser landings".
And yes, I agree that riser flight should be well-in-hand by 200 jumps....but again, we don't know about this particular jumper.
(This post was edited by popsjumper on Feb 1, 2012, 6:35 AM)
As for chopping a canopy because it hammered you and broke a brake line, I don't get that one at all. A typical response to that scenario would be to visually inspect the canopy for damage and perform a simple control check using risers.
Careful there, Chuck. We don't know whether or not he has learned enough about rear riser flight to be able to land rears safely.
For you and me, yes. But NOT for everybody.
IMO, for jumpers not understanding riser flight, cut and deploy IS best practices.
OK...in the big scheme of things... Have first attempts been successful? Yes. Have first attempts been unsuccessful? Yes. I'm in the camp of "you must know about rear riser flight (including, and most particularly, stall point) before attempting rear-riser landings".
And yes, I agree that riser flight should be well-in-hand by 200 jumps....but again, we don't know about this particular jumper.
I suppose that depends on where he learned. I was taught how to rear riser flare in a broken brake line scenario (combined with a PLF, of course) during my student progression 26 years ago. Maybe things have changed.
If so, that's yet another thing I disagree with in our "modern" training. We want people to have all kinds of "other than normal" flying skills before downsizing or moving to higher performing canopies, yet we don't train for a simple rear-riser flare when needed?
Seems we would put more focus on the simple and sometimes necessary before the fancy and unnecessary, but what do I know?
We want people to have all kinds of "other than normal" flying skills before downsizing or moving to higher performing canopies, yet we don't train for a simple rear-riser flare when needed?
Seems we would put more focus on the simple and sometimes necessary before the fancy and unnecessary, but what do I know?
Whatever, dude. You should see the freefall skills you're trained in before getting an A license. Those guys can float/sink, they can do center point turns, and even swoop down to a formation. They are awesome, and let's face it, if the rigger hooks everything up right and the packer does their job, who would ever need to rear riser flare anyway?
Am I off base here thinking new students, having no riser flight experience, would be good to go trying to flare rear risers on landing...without stalling the thing?
I'm open.
Yes, I agree that it is a skill that everyone needs to know. I just question a student's ability to do that without stalling, without actual practice up high.
I know this is going to generate some discussion on just how much CAN a first-jump student absorb before the jump. Well, we can't possibly teach them everything, right? As far as survivability, I'd put rear-riser flight down low on the list of things to teach at FJC.
Question: How does the reliability of a reserve deployment compare today vs yesteryear? (Assuming squares and comparable rigs.)
I'd put rear-riser flight down low on the list of things to teach at FJC.
I'd wouldn't put it on the list for a 10th jump ground school. There's too much 'detail', too many 'what ifs' involved in letting a broken steering line stand, and just rear risering it.
However, I would certainly put it into the trainng for a 20th or a 24th jump. Note that both of those numbers are within the requitrements for an A licesne, with the idea being that it should be taught before a jumper is licensed, but it would certainly be later in the training.
The idea is that as a student gets closer to an A license, the training should be become more and more serious. They are showing that they are dedicated and moving toward being a 'real' skydiver, and as that day comes closer, they should be trained to be a 'real' skydiver.
Getting the A is a significant shift in that it represents a jumper moving into true 'self supervision', into an area where they can jump, and travel to other DZs to jump, without the involvement of anyone else. Yes, making 10 jumps is a big step for a student, but getting to jump 10 is still less than halfway to a license, and that student still has a good deal of 'supervision' in their future.
There shouldn't be a licensed jumper out there who doesn't know 'in theory' how to do a rear riser landing. They should be familair with both toggle and riser stalls, and have practiced both at altitude on more than one jump.
Am I off base here thinking new students, having no riser flight experience, would be good to go trying to flare rear risers on landing...without stalling the thing?
I'm open.
Yes, I agree that it is a skill that everyone needs to know. I just question a student's ability to do that without stalling, without actual practice up high.
I know this is going to generate some discussion on just how much CAN a first-jump student absorb before the jump. Well, we can't possibly teach them everything, right? As far as survivability, I'd put rear-riser flight down low on the list of things to teach at FJC.
Question: How does the reliability of a reserve deployment compare today vs yesteryear? (Assuming squares and comparable rigs.)
Pops - a couple things here. I did not say anything about teaching rear riser flares on the first jump, nor did I say anything about landing them. Let me clarify to be sure I'm understood.
I - presumably like most people - was taught during the first dozen or so jumps that a cutaway was recommended if I had a broken brake line. It was in my progression that I was taught that a cutaway might not be necessary for a broken brake line if the canopy was controllable with rear risers. I also was never taught to land with rear risers for practice, but rather to practice flaring with risers at altitude to learn where the stall point was so that in the case of needing a rear riser flare a stall would not be reached. I was taught to practice this whenever possible to become comfortable with the technique, and was also trained to "re-practice" the technique with any change in canopies to learn where the new stall point was.
Rear riser flares were NOT taught in the FJC. Not sure what I said that gave you that impression. But I was properly trained on how to recognize and avoid a rear riser stall, and by the time I had a license the accepted procedure for a broken brake line was to land on rear risers if the canopy was controllable and if a partial flare was possible without a stall.
One caveat here. A cutaway was always considered an acceptable option if the jumper did not feel comfortable using rear risers for landing. That remains true today at any experience level and is always what I taught when teaching any level of skydiver.
EDITED TO ADD: at the risk of being too simplistic in the above description, I was also taught to perform a PLF if landing with rear risers as I was for any landing that was or was suspected to be other than ideal.
(This post was edited by chuckakers on Feb 1, 2012, 8:07 AM)
We want people to have all kinds of "other than normal" flying skills before downsizing or moving to higher performing canopies, yet we don't train for a simple rear-riser flare when needed?
Seems we would put more focus on the simple and sometimes necessary before the fancy and unnecessary, but what do I know?
Whatever, dude. You should see the freefall skills you're trained in before getting an A license. Those guys can float/sink, they can do center point turns, and even swoop down to a formation. They are awesome, and let's face it, if the rigger hooks everything up right and the packer does their job, who would ever need to rear riser flare anyway?
I sense a bit of sarcasm there but to answer you question, anyone who snaps a brake line. Of course that's if they know how to.
All my mals were on a Sabre 1 190 that has since been retired. The one with 9 broken lines was witnessed by a friend with a couple thousand jumps and he told me the canopy was coming out of the bag well before I reached linestretch - what caused this I really dont know (and yes I did ask). The broken brake line, well...I already had a couple of small tears at the reinforcing tape on the topskin (rigger was going to repair it later that week), it opened hard as hell, I was seeing stars and also wondering if it had maybe damaged the topskin even more. Checked my altitude, a little below 1800' and decided to not take any chances. Yeah I could have landed it on rears, but I had to make a decision quickly and I elected to go to my reserve. At any rate, no more issues since I got rid of that slamming POS....
However, I would certainly put it into the trainng for a 20th or a 24th jump.
Personally, I get 'em started say, @ 10-15 or so with just doing turns (no flares yet). I tell 'em it's for avoidance maneuvers at opening.
At 15 or so, I explain flares and the stall and I have them find the rear-riser stall point...a few inches at a time on the flaring until the stall becomes apparent.
The next jump I have them do both...some turns and some flares (not to exceed the stall point). That when I tell them it's for the possibility of landing rears and explain the potential gotchyas at landing.
In reply to:
There shouldn't be a licensed jumper out there who doesn't know 'in theory' how to do a rear riser landing. They should be familair with both toggle and riser stalls, and have practiced both at altitude on more than one jump.
Thanks, Chuck. I read, "during my student progression" as being your FJC. My mistake.
Otherwise, we're on the same page.
Thanks again.
I may not have made myself very clear in my original post.
That does raise a question since it's been a while since I've been involved in student instruction. Are rear riser flare landings as an option after broken line no longer taught for noobs during or after student progression?
Rear riser flares are definitely taught at my home DZ. As I tried to explain in the previous post, there were a couple of other factors in play. I stand by my decision to chop it.
Rear riser flares are definitely taught at my home DZ. As I tried to explain in the previous post, there were a couple of other factors in play. I stand by my decision to chop it.
As I said earlier, I'm not passing judgment as you were the one in the saddle. Only you can make that call.
Any additional conversation I have on the subject if of a more general nature.
That does raise a question since it's been a while since I've been involved in student instruction. Are rear riser flare landings as an option after broken line no longer taught for noobs during or after student progression?
Yes, technically.
In Cat A (FJC) the SIM says:
d. In the event of a toggle malfunction, the rear risers may be used for steering and flaring the canopy. (1) Landing by flaring with rear risers should be practiced at sufficient altitude before attempting an actual landing with rear risers. (2) Flaring with rear risers will require more strength than flaring with just the toggles.
In Cat B it says:
e. Evaluate controllability and flare before reaching the decide-and-act altitude of 2,500 feet for: (1) Broken steering line: Use back risers.
That seems to say to teach them rear-riser landings at FJC. Personally I don't agree with that and from the many FJCs I've sat in on at other DZs it appears that few others teach it during FJC.
At my FJC, I tell them that the canopy can be steered and landed on rear risers but there is some important info they need to know before they attempt it. Cut and Deploy is the proper response for broken brake lines.
The SIM says teach rear riser turns( both pre- and post- brake release) at Cat D.
Since that quite often doesn't happen, I pick them up after the AFF jumps when they get released for self-supervision to start them off on rear riser turns and flaring.
I would hope that AFF instructors are including all the canopy work in their student jump level/Cat training but, from what I've seen around the SE, it doesn't happen that way as much as one would like.
(This post was edited by popsjumper on Feb 1, 2012, 6:13 PM)
Rear riser flares are definitely taught at my home DZ. As I tried to explain in the previous post, there were a couple of other factors in play. I stand by my decision to chop it.
And I am glad you did!
When are rear riser flares taught...at what stage of your training? Does your DZ also teach rear-riser landing techniques and, if so, at what stage of your progression?
Actually my home DZ is pretty big on canopy piloting. Rear riser landings were discussed in very general terms during our groundschool when we were going over all the control inputs for the canopy. Nothing in depth at all, just a mention that we could use the rear risers to flare for landing. We were also taught to use rears for turns immediately following inflation if we were too close to another jumper. I believe the first time it was covered with any detail was around jump 5 or 6 during AFF, with an emphasis to learn the stall point for both toggle and rears. Harness steering was also discussed at this time with the caveat that our canopies were too large for us to notice any appreciable turn rate. Edit to add I dont recall anything very specific about landing technique except for PLF and that it would feel faster but not to overdo the flare because the stall happens very abruptly with little or no warning...pretty much flare until you plane out, hold it as long as you can or until your groundspeed bleeds off a bit, and do a PLF.
(This post was edited by crotalus01 on Feb 1, 2012, 7:06 PM)
...around jump 5 or 6 during AFF, with an emphasis to learn the stall point for both toggle and rears.
...but not to overdo the flare because the stall happens very abruptly with little or no warning...
This concerns me. It seems as though you can stall your student canopies with toggles?
We have ours set up so student cannot stall them with a full flare. I feel that is safer for students...particularly when they fully flare at 30ft and hold it. Not uncommon for students....ground rush and all that.
(This post was edited by popsjumper on Feb 1, 2012, 7:41 PM)
I'd put rear-riser flight down low on the list of things to teach at FJC.
I'd wouldn't put it on the list for a 10th jump ground school. There's too much 'detail', too many 'what ifs' involved in letting a broken steering line stand, and just rear risering it.
However, I would certainly put it into the trainng for a 20th or a 24th jump. Note that both of those numbers are within the requitrements for an A licesne, with the idea being that it should be taught before a jumper is licensed, but it would certainly be later in the training.
Rear riser turns and flairs are part of Cat D ground school and canopy training
To answer your question yes and no. I was on a 220 or a 210 the first time I did a full stall and I had to take a couple of wraps to get it there. I also discussed it with my instructors before the jump (which was why I knew to take wraps if it didnt stall from holding down the toggles). Honestly I dont remember exactly when, it was either the last couple of AFF jumps or right afterwards - I know it was in the first 15 jumps.
That is the impression I have been getting reading along. I thought about this topic when I read about Pat Mooreheads rcord in this month's magazine. It said that due to weather they were hoping for the cloud base to rise above 2000 ft. In fact Pat was quoted as saying all he needed was 2000'. This made me think to myself, should we take away the ability for future experienced sydivers to do something similar? or was it unsafe. Given his experience and ability I think he did just fine.
) 
