Forums: Skydiving: Tandem Skydiving:
Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

skydived19006  (D 19006)

Feb 25, 2011, 7:35 AM
Post #1 of 49 (3724 views)
Shortcut
Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules Can't Post

I was not at PIA, the following are notes a friend took at the seminar. I'm surprised that I didn't see it already up here. All tandem manufacturers teaming up to agree on some standards they'd like to see.


From PIA 2011 in Reno, February 15
presenters: Mark Procos UPT, Bill Morrisey of Strong Enterprises, Tom Noonan PD, Nancy LaRiviere Jumpshack, Frank Carreras German TIE
Present in attendance of approximately 150 people including: Bill Booth UPT, Ted Strong, Jay Stokes USPA President, Jim Crouch USPA Director of S&T, Ed Scott USPA Ex Director, almost everyone a TI, 20 or so T I/E’s, represented from the U.S. and all continents internationally as well.

19 commandments of Tandem Parachute Operations
1. No jumpers under the age of legal majority
2. Waivers – A Must
3. Tandem Student harness should be in jumpable configuration before boarding a/c
4. Minimum Exit Altitude 7,500’ (normal tandem operation)
5. Drogue must be deployed within 3 to 5 seconds.
6. Handle Checks in the order you would use them. (before board, in a/c, before exit, after tossing drogue)
7. RW must cease by 6,500’. There will be a briefing, which includes the student.
8. Pull Drogue Release by 5,500’.
9. Under Canopy by 4,000’.
10. Maintain adequate [100’] separation under canopy.
11. No Hook Turns. (No turns over 90 degrees under 500’)
12. Stabilized on final by 100’. There is no reason not to.
13. Report any cutaway … or equipment failure that may or may not have resulted in a cutaway, whether or not there is an injury. Report any injury.
14. Videographer (outside) Minimum experience: a) 500 RW jumps with 100 camera jumps, a currency requirement of 100 jumps in the previous year, or b) 300 jumps, and has passed air skills of a USPA Coach Course.
15. 100 tandem jumps before using a Handcam.
16. Currency requirements - 3 tandems over the last 90 days
a) under 500 tandem jumps – Strong used to say 1 jump every 30 days
b) over 500 tandem jumps – Strong used to say 1 jump every 90 days
--if multiple ratings, “a tandem jump is a tandem jump” according to Strong. Not sure hold the “old” currency will change; more on that later.
17. Adhere to Manufacturer’s maintenance and packing instructions
18. There must be a minimum passenger briefing (before boarding a/c) according to FAR 105.45
19. All TI’s will be required to participate in the Continuing Education Module. The test will be available online. The format will be 3-question multiple choice.


normiss  (D 28356)

Feb 25, 2011, 7:45 AM
Post #2 of 49 (3674 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Excluding #11 and the age requirements, sounds like the way things have been. Or at least should be operating IMO.


skydived19006  (D 19006)

Feb 25, 2011, 7:55 AM
Post #3 of 49 (3664 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

I understand that it may be considered bad forum form to reply to my own pose, but I wanted to leave the OP without a bunch of comment. Some of the ideas I like, some I'm ambivalent, some I'll ignore, the last one I don't quite understand.

The age issue was put in the BSRs. Until any of the other suggestions go into the BSRs, suggestions is all that they are unless your gear manufacturer makes you sign something.

Martin

In reply to:
I was not at PIA, the following are notes a friend took at the seminar. I'm surprised that I didn't see it already up here. All tandem manufacturers teaming up to agree on some standards they'd like to see.


From PIA 2011 in Reno, February 15
presenters: Mark Procos UPT, Bill Morrisey of Strong Enterprises, Tom Noonan PD, Nancy LaRiviere Jumpshack, Frank Carreras German TIE
Present in attendance of approximately 150 people including: Bill Booth UPT, Ted Strong, Jay Stokes USPA President, Jim Crouch USPA Director of S&T, Ed Scott USPA Ex Director, almost everyone a TI, 20 or so T I/E’s, represented from the U.S. and all continents internationally as well.

19 commandments of Tandem Parachute Operations
1. No jumpers under the age of legal majority
2. Waivers – A Must
3. Tandem Student harness should be in jumpable configuration before boarding a/c
4. Minimum Exit Altitude 7,500’ (normal tandem operation)
I've exited a bit lower than 7,500, but I think that it's a good number.
5. Drogue must be deployed within 3 to 5 seconds.
good standard, but on rare occasions I've been slightly over 5 seconds. I'd generally still rather stabilize the thing within reason as opposed to timing the drogue, or using the drogue to get stable.
6. Handle Checks in the order you would use them. (before board, in a/c, before exit, after tossing drogue)
7. RW must cease by 6,500’. There will be a briefing, which includes the student.
8. Pull Drogue Release by 5,500’.
That's been my number for years, but when jumping at boogies I always tend to be the guy open "high".
9. Under Canopy by 4,000’.
10. Maintain adequate [100’] separation under canopy.
Depending on the other canopy pilot I often fly closer than 100', generally with another tandem, and likely will continue to do so.
11. No Hook Turns. (No turns over 90 degrees under 500’)
12. Stabilized on final by 100’. There is no reason not to.
13. Report any cutaway … or equipment failure that may or may not have resulted in a cutaway, whether or not there is an injury. Report any injury.
Report to who?
14. Videographer (outside) Minimum experience: a) 500 RW jumps with 100 camera jumps, a currency requirement of 100 jumps in the previous year, or b) 300 jumps, and has passed air skills of a USPA Coach Course.
The air skills for Coach are pretty darn basic! But yeah, if someone can't pass Coach skills I don't want them anywhere near me in freefall on a tandem!
15. 100 tandem jumps before using a Handcam.
Seems fairly reasonable to me. Some may need more than 100, others may be competent with less, but that's common with all number based requirements.
16. Currency requirements - 3 tandems over the last 90 days
a) under 500 tandem jumps – Strong used to say 1 jump every 30 days
b) over 500 tandem jumps – Strong used to say 1 jump every 90 days
--if multiple ratings, “a tandem jump is a tandem jump” according to Strong. Not sure hold the “old” currency will change; more on that later.
If I lay off for three months over winter (generally not that long) I may or may not do one, darn sure am not going to do three. Call me an irresponsible ass hole if you like.
17. Adhere to Manufacturer’s maintenance and packing instructions
18. There must be a minimum passenger briefing (before boarding a/c) according to FAR 105.45
I've seen this one ignored at boogies especially. I believe that this briefing is reasonable and necessary.
19. All TI’s will be required to participate in the Continuing Education Module. The test will be available online. The format will be 3-question multiple choice.
What "Continuing Education Module", who will produce it, and who's enforces it?


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Feb 25, 2011, 5:53 PM
Post #4 of 49 (3550 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

This Reads like UPT's Rules straight out of the I/E Course.

If this is now the three Manufacturer's Rules then it sounds like every one will be on the same sheet of music. A step in the right direction, being on the same page.

Matt


indyz  (D 28525)

Feb 25, 2011, 6:11 PM
Post #5 of 49 (3545 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

My understanding, having attended the seminar:
5. Nobody is going to loose a rating for blowing an exit and taking 6 seconds to throw the drogue. This is aimed people who consistently blow exits, do 35 front loops out the door, or just go drogueless for laughs.
13. Report to the manufacturer. Not an issue for folks that use Eclipse gear, I guess.
16. I understood this to mean that if you haven't done three tandems in 90 days you aren't current and the normal recurrency procedures apply (you don't have to do three jumps to get current).
19. No further information was offered on this on. It sounded like the manufacturers don't have it figured out yet.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 8, 2011, 11:34 AM
Post #6 of 49 (3304 views)
Shortcut
Re: [indyz] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

"... 19. No further information was offered on this on. It sounded like the manufacturers don't have it figured out yet. ..."

........................................................................

All three manufacturers agree that spring-time refresher training is a good idea. They are just struggling to develop a simple on-line format for written tests.
It is reassuring to see the tandem industry converging on one standard.

Rob Warner
Strong Tandem Examiner


Ron

Mar 8, 2011, 12:44 PM
Post #7 of 49 (3280 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
19 commandments of Tandem Parachute Operations... Snip

The only ones I dislike:

13. Report any cutaway.....
Stupid. Accidents/injuries, sure. But a random and routine chop?

19. All TI’s will be required to participate in the Continuing Education Module. The test will be available online. The format will be 3-question multiple choice....
This one is going to be stupid. I used to work as a corporate instructor and I can tell you any online re-currency test is either going to be stupid easy or irrelevant to the actual job.

Other than that, they are all pretty reasonable and I agree with them.

I REALLY like the idea of any tandem keeping both of my ratings current.


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Mar 8, 2011, 2:06 PM
Post #8 of 49 (3258 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
13. Report any cutaway.....
Stupid. Accidents/injuries, sure. But a random and routine chop?

Right now the only info they get back from the field is "Fatality" and then sometimes "Injury". I can see the desire to be able to present some hard facts when the FAA comes knocking asking for information other than "We had 2 fatalities last year."


peek  (D 8884)

Mar 8, 2011, 2:48 PM
Post #9 of 49 (3247 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
13. Report any cutaway..... Stupid. Accidents/injuries, sure. But a random and routine chop?

Ron, do you recall that the tandem manufacturers don't consider reserve rides as "routine"?

Well maintained and properly packed parachutes malfunction so seldom that when it happens to a tandem, it is significant, and should be reported.

I have read in past newsletters from UPT and SE articles referring to tandem rig owners that have thousands of jumps on their rigs without a reserve ride.


Ron

Mar 8, 2011, 2:56 PM
Post #10 of 49 (3245 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Ron, do you recall that the tandem manufacturers don't consider reserve rides as "routine"?

How many tandem reserve rides do you personally have? I have (I think) 4.


peek  (D 8884)

Mar 8, 2011, 3:12 PM
Post #11 of 49 (3238 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Zero reserve rides in about 1000 tandem jumps. Not my rigs though, so perhaps I have been lucky. I have landing damaged canopies twice because they were not too bad and easy to evaluate.


Ron

Mar 8, 2011, 3:43 PM
Post #12 of 49 (3233 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Zero reserve rides in about 1000 tandem jumps.

Impressive. My point is that a reserve ride is not really a gigantic deal. If it is more than that, I could understand... Like a drogue in tow. But (for me and to me), a tension knot that resulted in a perfect cutaway is not really a big deal.

But you are an evaluator and if you say it is a big deal, I guess it is. And the manufacturer has the right to ask for anything.... I *personally* think it is stupid and a bit much.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Mar 8, 2011, 7:19 PM
Post #13 of 49 (3195 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah, it may be over kill. But If they ask for it all and only get the most serious, at least it will be more than just the fatalities.

I have over 2000 Tandem Instruction jumps, and about 300 of those are on the front, only one reserve ride. I mentioned it on the phone, but never did fill out a report, it was a tension knot. So I see your point, but I see theirs too.

Matt


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 9, 2011, 6:19 AM
Post #14 of 49 (3166 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Where I see a major problem is when the manufacturer requires that only his components be used to jump. For example the main must be a sigma for a UPT manufactured tandem. That will be a huge issue IMO. There are many many TI's using Icarus tandem canopies. I know for a fact this is on the horizon. The problem will be if something happens and you do not have their main, you and the DZ will be on the hook.
I spoke to an Icarus rep at PIA about this and the non chalant answer was, "they have been threatening that for years." Well that doesnt help much does it.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Mar 9, 2011, 7:02 AM
Post #15 of 49 (3155 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Where I see a major problem is when the manufacturer requires that only his components be used to jump. For example the main must be a sigma for a UPT manufactured tandem. That will be a huge issue IMO. There are many many TI's using Icarus tandem canopies. I know for a fact this is on the horizon. The problem will be if something happens and you do not have their main, you and the DZ will be on the hook.
I spoke to an Icarus rep at PIA about this and the non chalant answer was, "they have been threatening that for years." Well that doesnt help much does it.

Bill's reasoning is he gets sued, but not the canopy company till later in the process (maybe), he spends more money than them.

He has no control over Production or Design of the components he does not make. But he gets hit with the responsibility for them.

Not defending him, but I understand him and I will try and support him till things change in all of Our favor.

Matt


stratostar  (Student)

Mar 9, 2011, 7:17 AM
Post #16 of 49 (3152 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed. The other problem is the threat of pulling your MFG rating for using any other main then a strong or UPT. There are a lot of "test jumps" that have been done already in the field by non approved "test jumpers", I think is been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no compatibility issues by using the correct size main for the container, just like a sport rig.

Then there is there the politics side of the coin where some asshole will drop a dime on you for jumping non approved canopy to try to get your rating pulled.

IMHO this more about those companies sales numbers of there own products then is is about safety. After all now we see FCI, P.Aero, Jumpshack, Icarus in the market place, we know people are using them... Last time I checked, FCI & P.Aero or Icarus didn't make or sell their own line of tandem rigs.... must be all sold over seas or to the military.

I asked Strong why they had not done any test jumps on the P.aero mains instead of a blanket statement that their not approved, their answer was that George Galloway hadn't sent them any canopies for testing. Then I called George and asked him why he had not taken the time to send Strong any canopies to test....

George busted up laughing and said that is BS and that he personally handed Ted a canopy @ PIA almost five years ago or so for them to test, he also said it's all BS that they are trying to keep other mains out of systems that are proven safe.

I called back to Strong and called them on the not been sent mains for testing, then the reply was well we want the MFG to do their own testing and produce a manual on how to use their product in our system, it has to be detailed, like packing, line trim etc. and then we'll do the testing to make sure we feel it meets our standards.

The whole thing is bull shit! It's dose not help matters that we see a tandem death such as the one in the eastern block country where the gear was jumped by a non rated TI, the gear was not maintained and it had a HOP 330 in it. Had the rig been maintained the ripcord housing would not have caused a total, had the TI had his head out of his ass and done a gear check he would have seen the problem.

Strong likes to claim the use of the HOP 330 was to small for the container because it was yanked out the side of the open side flaps because it was too small. I won't dispute that as fact, I believe the company would have enough research to know if a canopy is too small for a container or not. However with that said, I don't believe this type of accident is justified to say no other MFG's properly sized mains can't be safety used in our system.

There are a number of reasons I can think of why a TI might like to have what ever canopy of choice, such as maybe a guy who owns his own gear needs to replace a main and money is tight, he finds a nice used P. aero 365 for 1500 bucks, and a new strong set 366 is 3600.00, their both the same size for the most part and miles apart in price.

I've known a lot of people who use other canopies in vector tandems over the years and no one seemed to make much of a stink about it @ UPT, then again I'm not rated for UPT, maybe they have made a big stink about it? The only one I see making a big stink about it is Strong, maybe that will change now with the new strong system, but I highly doubt it will.


(This post was edited by stratostar on Mar 9, 2011, 12:27 PM)


stratostar  (Student)

Mar 9, 2011, 7:26 AM
Post #17 of 49 (3149 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
He has no control over Production or Design of the components he does not make. But he gets hit with the responsibility for them.

Ted says the same thing and it all sounds good, however how is that any different then a vector sport rig I buy and place a xyz main in it and then bounce. These same companies sell rigs without mains of there own product lines all the damn time, there is no real reason the same couldn't done in the tandem world IMHO.

Maybe they all need to stop selling sport rigs with out their approved product line of mains, if you buy a system from them it's a complete system 100% or no sale.

It's like having Cessna say your only allowed to use firestone tires and hartzell props on our airplanes... no one can use goodyear tires or McCauley props on our airplanes because we didn't make or test them so we have no control over the MFG process.


(This post was edited by stratostar on Mar 9, 2011, 7:30 AM)


skydived19006  (D 19006)

Mar 9, 2011, 7:42 AM
Post #18 of 49 (3134 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Maybe they all need to stop selling sport rigs with out their approved product line of mains, if you buy a system from them it's a complete system 100% or no sale.

If any one manufacturer did what you suggest in regard to sport rigs, they would sell zero rigs. Apparently, they consider that they can make this policy with tandem gear and "get away with it." Conversely, I would think that if say for instance UPT came out with a list of approved main canopies, it would prove to be one more selling point for them, and another reason to avoid Strong gear.

Maybe somebody should put Eclipse gear back in production and allow multiple mains? Might make it viable again? My Eclipse rigs continue to serve well, and for the most part no manufacturer giving me shit about anything!


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 9, 2011, 7:51 AM
Post #19 of 49 (3134 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's like having Cessna say your only allowed to use firestone tires and hartzell props on our airplanes...

Or if your car is a Ford, you were prohibited from ever putting any non-Ford parts on it, whether as direct replacements or upgrades. Will all those parts be of equal quality to original Ford parts? Maybe not.

(Mind you, with the Cessna / Hartzell issue, only certain props are certified with certain aircraft & engine combinations. Still, the overall point is valid.)


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 9, 2011, 8:06 AM
Post #20 of 49 (3127 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Similar to the new age BSR, stating we must abide by manufacturere requirements for age.

There is a tandem rig (Basic) from over seas that has no age requirement. So if you order one of those you can jump with 16,17 year olds without violating the BSR. Scary, but if Eclipse removed their age requirement their rig might see an increase in sales. Is that insider trading?lol


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Mar 9, 2011, 8:22 AM
Post #21 of 49 (3125 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

But does the Basic hold a TSO in North America? I know it holds a JTSO but I am not sure about the TSO. The lack of a TSO is what is holding several VectorII clodes from being legal in the States.

It all comes down to who is on the line in a lawsuit. When sport jumpers die there is just a fraction of those incidents that end up in a lawsuit but most tandem fatalities end up in a lawsuit of some type. When any incident on the rig is going to result in a lawsuit the companies have to cover their own backsides since its been proven time after time that DZO's fold and leave the manufactor holding the bag and the bill.

It would be nice to see some of the canopy makers working more directly with the tandem systems to build an "approved" list for each container size to eliminate the test jumping that is done in the field now.

I do know that one company used to just kick out prototype canopies for DZ's to use and send feedback up after they jumped them with unknowning students. I think this is what the companies are trying to prevent. If you want to put your Icarus 330 into a MicroSigma (sweet combo BTW!) then Icarus should work with UPT to develop testing criteria sating here is the line trim and if it gets X out then it needs to be relined. I know now most of that is not published but UPT will help guide you on those numbers if you call them and talk to them. Icarus refuses to publish line trim info so I doubt they will do this but I think its a fair thing to put into an "Approved canopy" list.


normiss  (D 28356)

Mar 9, 2011, 8:34 AM
Post #22 of 49 (3124 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

I think it's a step farther than the USPA requirement currently in place.
At least there is proof you at least thought about some sort of technical aspect of tandem gear and/or jumps.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Mar 9, 2011, 8:44 AM
Post #23 of 49 (3118 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It would be nice to see some of the canopy makers working more directly with the tandem systems to build an "approved" list for each container size to eliminate the test jumping that is done in the field now.

I agree.


skydived19006  (D 19006)

Mar 9, 2011, 9:42 AM
Post #24 of 49 (3104 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
It would be nice to see some of the canopy makers working more directly with the tandem systems to build an "approved" list for each container size to eliminate the test jumping that is done in the field now.

I agree.

From our end it seems to be something that would be very easy to do. My guess is that there is more than a little politics involved as well. UPT has a fairly tight relationship with PD, and well then there's Ted.

Another thought on Strong systems. Since Strong doesn't collapse the drogue until the canopy is extracting form the bag, don't the Strong canopies have more reinforcement through the drogue attachment point? No doubt George Galloway, and others could add structure to his canopies if necessary for the Strong system.

Again, being cool with multiple main manufacturers would be a selling point. I will never purchase a new Para-Phernalia rig with the 20 year and out bull shit, they just cut off their nose to spite their own damn face on that one IMO.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 9, 2011, 11:41 AM
Post #25 of 49 (3089 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Tandem Manufacturers Suggested Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

Tension knots are not "routine," because we learned hot prevent tension konts a long time ago.
Most tension knots are caused by sloppy packing.
Sloppy packers need to be reminded of the proper way to pack.

Sometimes tension knots are caused by lines that have stretched or shrunk out of trim. Worn-out lines - still in service - means that either the rigger is lazy or the DZO is too cheap to buy new lines.


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Tandem Skydiving

 


Search for (options)