Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Hard Deck for C's and D's

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Douggarr  (D 2791)

Jul 28, 2013, 2:13 PM
Post #1 of 117 (12354 views)
Shortcut
Hard Deck for C's and D's Can't Post

Just heard that the USPA raised the hard deck to 2,500 feet for C and D license holders at the summer board meeting. I'm waiting for the wave of protesters to weigh in. But I'm in favor of it, even though those who are against it will certainly ignore it. The ST&A can waive the requirement at a given DZ, I think.


sundevil777  (D License)

Jul 28, 2013, 2:35 PM
Post #2 of 117 (12167 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Douggarr] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

I think you mean the main opening altitude requirement.

There are differences in what people consider the term "hard deck" to mean, but I am quite sure it is not this.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Jul 28, 2013, 2:38 PM
Post #3 of 117 (12144 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

sundevil777 wrote:
I think you mean the main opening altitude requirement.

There are differences in what people consider the term "hard deck" to mean, but I am quite sure it is not this.

We will have to wait to see the language used. 2,500 for what? Pack opening? Deployment initiation? Saddled up?


djmarvin  (D 22292)

Jul 28, 2013, 2:44 PM
Post #4 of 117 (12123 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

Chuck - It is container opening altitude. Same reference as in the past. At least that's my understanding from folks on the Board. The end result and wording may change


hofstar  (D 31822)

Jul 28, 2013, 3:03 PM
Post #5 of 117 (12073 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

My expectation is it will be the existing language but with the number increased. I believe it is container opening. I wonder why they didn't raise all the hard decks...

This is pretty lame in my opinion, making a mandatory altitude change for everyone based on the performance of an optional piece of equipment.

While I'm philosophically opposed to this, it won't affect my behavior as I always pull by 3,000' unless I have good reason to do otherwise. But when AAD firing altitudes are forced up (which I'm guessing is where this is headed), that's a different story.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Jul 28, 2013, 3:33 PM
Post #6 of 117 (12022 views)
Shortcut
Re: [djmarvin] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

djmarvin wrote:
Chuck - It is container opening altitude. Same reference as in the past. At least that's my understanding from folks on the Board. The end result and wording may change

Thanks, DJ.

I jump with several guys who jump older, faster opening canopies and don't jump AAD's. They are quite comfortable and competent pitching at 2K. That said, the bulk of jumpers today are gonna pitch well above that so the old dudes would just be burnin' lonely altitude anyway.

Gotta draw a line somewhere, and I don't think "up" is a bad direction.


djmarvin  (D 22292)

Jul 28, 2013, 4:15 PM
Post #7 of 117 (11951 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
Thanks, DJ.

I jump with several guys who jump older, faster opening canopies and don't jump AAD's. They are quite comfortable and competent pitching at 2K. That said, the bulk of jumpers today are gonna pitch well above that so the old dudes would just be burnin' lonely altitude anyway.

Gotta draw a line somewhere, and I don't think "up" is a bad direction.

I agree, I am not 100% for this new BSR change. But if we are going to change at least it is on a side of caution.

I think this change affects 10 years from now more than it does today. Once most jumpers will have never known the difference. If anything we are dressing the future for better success. I do like how it has sparked up debate and in turn jumpers becoming more aware of the dangers of pulling lower and better educated on what to do if they find themselves there on accident.


grue  (D License)

Jul 28, 2013, 4:23 PM
Post #8 of 117 (11932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hofstar] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

hofstar wrote:
But when AAD firing altitudes are forced up (which I'm guessing is where this is headed), that's a different story.

Won't be long before turbine DZs have the freefall time of Cessna DZs now, and Cessna DZs only do hop and pops


Ron

Jul 28, 2013, 4:49 PM
Post #9 of 117 (11888 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Douggarr] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

Once again the USPA BOD proves it is nothing more than a mouth piece doing several gear manufacturers bidding.

The USPA BOD just raised the min pull altitude for 'C' and 'D' license holders from 2,000 feet to 2,500. This was not on any agenda list that I read, and no input from regular skydivers was solicited....

What was done was to bow down to Bill Booth. This action has zero reason unless the next step is to mandate AAD's. And last I recall (it has been a while) Booth had a pretty large stake in the US distribution rights of Vigil.

This new rule is worthless and stupid on its own. Simplest reason? There is NOTHING in any rule that makes it impossible to pull at 2500 feet right NOW. Nothing. In fact, if you are a 'D' or 'C' license holder there is nothing to prevent you from pulling at 3,500 feet right now.

So this rule makes zero sense because it can be done voluntarily right now with zero impact on anyone. Further, a person who has lost altitude awareness from 2,000 feet is unlikely to suddenly become more aware with an extra 3 seconds.

Fact is that if the USPA actually cared about safety, they would do something that kills more skydivers than loss of altitude awareness.... And that is canopy control. This act is nothing but setting the stage to mandate AAD's.

Now, do I think pulling at 2500 feet is a good idea? Yes, and most times I pull around 3,000 feet. But this rule is unneeded since most people are already pulling above 2,000 feet and people can decide at any time to raise their own pull altitudes.

What this does is limit demo's when there are low clouds. Worse, it shows that the BOD is nothing but a mouth piece for the companies in skydiving. The BOD serves PD, UPT and DZO's not regular jumpers.


normiss  (D 28356)

Jul 28, 2013, 6:54 PM
Post #10 of 117 (11716 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

Be sure to document altitudes on the 7711-2.
Use it as the authorization AND waiver now.
Wink


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Jul 28, 2013, 7:21 PM
Post #11 of 117 (11676 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Douggarr] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

in my opinion this was USPA getting aad companies out of its ear. This change can be waived by a S&TA. If their was/is real data to support this why is uspa exposing itself with a waiver by a person that is most likely not a expert in AADs or air pressure?

If a jumper does not have a AAd. How is this a problem affect him?
How is it less safer now then last week or last month or even 10 year ago? Nothing has changes for a person without a aad.

A person without a aad and is knocked out will not have any delay issues..

I ask why the change then?

Simple fix would of been uspa turn to aad company's and have them simply add in their instructions that if use our product you must deploy by said alt or product could fail or work improperly.

now with this way uspa will not be tied to a skydiving products issue....

THIS IS A SKYDIVING PRODUCT ISSUE. NOT A SKYDIVING ISSUE...

Last thing it was in front of the board to raise Tandem deployment in past with same reason. That one was turned down.

Best part is non uspa dzs will do business as usual. so guy up above thinking booth has hand in it. This will not help at all in this area.

Was this uspa giving in ? maybe


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Jul 28, 2013, 7:34 PM)


Deisel  (D 31661)

Jul 28, 2013, 7:56 PM
Post #12 of 117 (11596 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok guys, I was there when this came up in the S&T committee meeting but not for the full board discussion. Jay Stokes put this on the table. His argument, which was supported by PIA, was that AAD manufacturers would not raise their minimum opening altitude to 1000 feet until USPA raised the hard deck. This was to avoid possible two-out scenarios and the manufacturer liability if the AAD activation altitude was raised without the corresponding BSR change.

So the real debate here is how much does having the additional time, during an emergency, do for the USPA general membership? Lets have a conversation about the true issue and leave the conspiracy theories for beers around the bonfire. Jay is a good man that is dedicated to this sport. Nothing sinister about his motives that I'm aware of.

D


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 28, 2013, 8:04 PM
Post #13 of 117 (11570 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

Seems kind of silly on the AAD Co's part, put a higher opening altitude in the owners manual, problem solved.

So this will be a BSR, until Jumpers (only Jumpers) run for the BOD I suppose.

And to the other posters comment about placing the opening altitudes on a 7711-2, well this isn't an FAR, but may not be a bad idea in the end.

Matt


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Jul 28, 2013, 8:20 PM
Post #14 of 117 (11547 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

so what is to be said about far part 105.23 (c) that stats 2k they are the feds guess that will change soon as well. I think it use to read 1800 a few years back if i remember correctly

105.23 Parachute operations over or onto airports.

No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft, over or onto any airport unless

(a) For airports with an operating control tower:

(1) Prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.

(2) Approval has been obtained from the control tower to conduct parachute operations over or onto that airport.

(3) Two-way radio communications are maintained between the pilot of the aircraft involved in the parachute operation and the control tower of the airport over or onto which the parachute operation is being conducted.

(b) For airports without an operating control tower, prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.

(c) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground.


stratostar  (Student)

Jul 28, 2013, 8:57 PM
Post #15 of 117 (11483 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
(c) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern

Psssst............... what is the traffic pattern altitude?


airtwardo  (D License)

Jul 28, 2013, 10:02 PM
Post #16 of 117 (11402 views)
Shortcut
Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

Even the blind could see this coming...Sly

Ya want tight little rigs that taper up and have 27 flaps covering everything, that table total & don't meet 'real world' TSO reserve opening requirements...expect the 'power$ that be' to raise the AAD firing level to give another 3 seconds.

Form over function - progress has it's price.


Who is it that said~
"The last thing you need at 2000 feet is pretty gear"

CoolWink


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Jul 28, 2013, 11:42 PM)


grue  (D License)

Jul 28, 2013, 10:14 PM
Post #17 of 117 (11390 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

airtwardo wrote:
Even the blind could see this coming...Sly

Ya want tight little rigs that taper up and have 27 flaps covering everything, that table total & don't meet 'real world' TSO reserve opening requirements...expect the 'power$ that be' to raise the AAD to give another 3 seconds.

Form over function - progress has it's price.


Who is that said~
"The last thing you need at 2000 feet is pretty gear"

CoolWink

Hopin' for the sake of y'all that the US doesn't go mandatory-AAD. It's a pain in the dick if you're jumping on a budget.


bob.dino  (E 2185)

Jul 29, 2013, 1:44 AM
Post #18 of 117 (11198 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Douggarr] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

Out of curiosity, anyone know why the rule isn't phrased as 'must be fully open by'?

Pitching a Sabre1 with a big PC at 2500ft will have you open (and sore?) well before 2000ft, but pitching a Crossfire2 with a worn PC will have you around 1500ft before you're ready to collapse the slider. Seems like the rule as written will add more safety margin* for those jumpers on faster-opening canopies.


* if you've been jumping over 20 years, feel free to change that to "goddamn pencil dick bureaucrats taking away my right to pitch down and dirty" Tongue


hillson  (D 33134)

Jul 29, 2013, 6:00 AM
Post #19 of 117 (11037 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Douggarr] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

This was also hinted at, somewhat, at the 2013 AFF Standardization mtg (I believe).

http://parachutistonline.com/...ndardization-meeting

The group also discussed in detail the bottom-end-sequence altitudes for evaluation jumps. In the past, candidates have experienced very low main-canopy inflations after simulating the evaluator deployment at 3,500 feet and then tracking to 2,000 feet to create adequate horizontal separation before initiating their own main deployments. Recognizing the changes in main-canopy inflation times due to todays canopy designs, the majority of the group felt that it was time to raise the bottom-end-sequence minimum deployment altitude for evaluators from 3,500 feet to 4,000 feet to help prevent dangerously low main-canopy deployments by candidates whose canopies take a lot of time to fully inflate. This change will need the approval of the USPA Board at its July meeting before it can take effect.

I'm sure they could have just changed the sequence with the BSR change but I'm guessing this just makes it a bit easier. Though entirely possible that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Just glad they kept the night jump requirement for the D, though that would have been a much more entertaining thread.

Kinda lonely down at 2K anyway, at least for me...just burning extra altitude that, for me, could be put to better use.


Douggarr  (D 2791)

Jul 29, 2013, 6:11 AM
Post #20 of 117 (11014 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grue] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

I just want to respond to those who are worried that the next in line is the AAD requirement. I don't think this is going to happen. A few years ago, I did. But now I don't. The only DZ I came upon that "required" them was Pepperell. I jumped there for the first time in 30 years a few weeks ago, and I'll tell you. Nobody even inspected my gear. Just my packing card. So much for that. Jumpers have been pencil packing reserves for eons, and that will continue. Compliance probably increased when we went to 180 days from way back when it was 60. I didn't see the riggers' lobby go ballistic because they would have fewer I/Rs. If they pass an AAD requirement at some point, jumpers who don't believe in them will just have the picture window part of the unit for DZ check-in procedures and not bother with a working one. My point of this post is that those who are paranoid about rules changes designed for better safety do not have to worry. Just don't follow the rules. It's not that much harder in 2013 than it was back when I started in 1969 (when the BSRs were just "rough guidelines" anyway).


Douggarr  (D 2791)

Jul 29, 2013, 6:49 AM
Post #21 of 117 (10925 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Douggarr] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

The rules are written for voluntary compliance. And when they're not that sensible, people will stretch them. Think about the speed limit. Cops allow the traffic to flow 5-10 mph over the limit, generally, because they know the roads are designed to be safely exceeded by a small amount. They go after extreme violators -- 85 mph in a 55-mph zone. When the national speed limit went from 65 to 55 many years ago -- ostensibly to save fuel -- the fatality rate immediately went from 50,000 annually to about 35,000. Think about that for a second. And yeah, who's going to know where you're actually deploying? The ones who were grounded for low pulls in the old days were egregious rules flaunters -- 1,000 feet on almost every jump -- and those jumpers everyone knew about. Just like the guys doing 80-90 mph on the highway. This whole thing may make a difference for the better. It may save the lives of 5 skydivers a year. Nobody knows. But for those staunch libertarian skydivers out there -- just think of it as lowering the speed limit 5 or 10 mph. And do what you damn please because nobody really cares.


mark  (D 6108)

Jul 29, 2013, 7:11 AM
Post #22 of 117 (10874 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Douggarr] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

Douggarr wrote:
When the national speed limit went from 65 to 55 many years ago -- ostensibly to save fuel -- the fatality rate immediately went from 50,000 annually to about 35,000.

Source?

Mark


Bluhdow  (B 37052)

Jul 29, 2013, 7:14 AM
Post #23 of 117 (10863 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Douggarr] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

So every time the USPA creates any new rules it's always done with a wink and a nod to say, "This is all for show, do whatever you want."?

The real issue is H/Cs are too tight and it's messing with the reserve deployment sequence. The AADs are fine, the reserves are fine. How about you go after the problem (the H/C extraction forces) rather than the symptom.

This is just another reason for people to pass on an AAD and may cost more lives than it saves. There are always unintended consequences.


Douggarr  (D 2791)

Jul 29, 2013, 7:57 AM
Post #24 of 117 (10806 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bluhdow] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

No, I'm not saying the rules are written with a "wink and a nod." The key to my last two posts was "voluntary compliance," which is how the rule of law generally works in the free world. Skydivers are always going to find a new way to kill themselves. Prudent rules are usually welcome. If they're not any good (like Prohibition), then the public will howl. That said, most skydivers I know jump with AADs and RSLs because they save more skydivers than create problems that kill them. Many people wore seat belts in cars before they were mandated. And yeah, there was always someone who said, I was in an accident and some guy couldn't get out because he couldn't unhook his belt. And he died. This guy is never going to wear a seat belt and there's nothing you or I could say that will make him. Same goes with the pull altitude.


Deisel  (D 31661)

Jul 29, 2013, 8:53 AM
Post #25 of 117 (10702 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bluhdow] Hard Deck for C's and D's [In reply to] Can't Post

This is exactly correct. As stated by the PIA reps, the industry (skydivers) has demanded slower/softer opening and smaller canopies. This can be a deadly combination during a malfunction close to the ground. And in this instance, seconds do matter. Would you rather deal with a ball of shit over your head at 700 or 1000ft? Easy answer here.

My take here is that preservation of the sport from negligence lawsuits is a bigger concern than the percieved rights of those that want to pull low. Just my 2 cents.

D


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)