Re: [PapaSmurf] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I don't see a benefit, and only added liability to the USPA and thus general membership by waiving the opening altitude BSR. There is no USPA rule stopping individuals from conducting demos how they see fit.
Re: [diablopilot] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote
I don't see a benefit, and only added liability to the USPA and thus general membership by waiving the opening altitude BSR.
One of the biggest problems with have, isn't the waiving of the BSRs in this regard. Its having such a proposal signed off by the USPA and then presented to the local FSIDO for approval. We (the USPA) are already fighting a major battle with the FAA in terms of keeping our ability to "self regulate." Either that or the TSA, NTSB and FAA proposals we've seen popping up over the past couple of years again and again are all just smoke and mirrors. Personally, I see it as a serious problem and threat to something that is very important in my life.
Re: [AggieDave] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
And considering that our FAA rep, Randy Ottinger, mentioned that FAA officials in Washington D.C. already said they wouldn't sign of on any such demo requests, USPA approval or not, it's a road we shouldn't be headed down IMO. Not something to buck the authority over, when there are much bigger issues at bat.
Re: [PapaSmurf] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In Reply To
Howdy Candidates,
Are you for or against 400' openings at demo's ?
_________________________________________________
Playing the devil's advocate here, I believe some of the Red Devils once told me that in UK they can get out lower on demos than on sport jumps. Keep in mind these are hop'n'pops, not freefall jumps, and possibly because of the weather in the UK.
I heard that if Royalty was witnessing the jump, exit altitudes could be VERY much lower than normal.
Not sure if this is still true or not. Also, not sure if this was just for the military jumpers, or also included civilians. But I know I have seen military teams getting out really low on rounds at air shows.
So, what's the percentage on lowering exit altitudes on demos to, say, 1500 feet instead of the usual 2000?
Re: [PapaSmurf] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hi Josh!
I'm running as a Write In candidate for the open South East Regional Director position. Here's my thoughts on 400' openings.
My personal thoughts are that it's not a good idea. Beyond the obvious safety concerns, I would ask the question, who does the 400 ft opening really serve, the USPA membership as a whole or the demo jumper(s) opening at 400 ft? I lean towards the jumper. If the purpose of demos is to promote our sport in a positive light, I think it would be hard to prove that a 400 ft opening was so much more impressive to the general public than a 2000 ft opening that the sport of skydiving actually benefitted from the practice.
Ultimately though, in the unlikely event that the resounding majority of the SE region members were adamant that 400 ft openings should be allowed, as I mentioned in my other thread, I would vote the collective conscience of the region and support it. Directors are supposed to represent the region, not the other way around, right? That's how I interpret the role.
Look forward to seeing you this winter Josh!
Best regards.
Tom
(This post was edited by DualHawk on Nov 4, 2008, 11:57 AM)
Re: [DualHawk] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In Reply To
I would vote the collective conscience of the region and support it. Directors are supposed to represent the region, not the other way around, right? That's how I interpret the role.
Look forward to seeing you this winter Josh!
Best regards.
Tom
As I understand in a Representative Republic, the electorate chooses someone to represent them. That person then uses his best judgment to do what he thinks (not feels) is right, and does not run contrary to the "constitution" of the organization. Generally it's not a good idea to wet his finder and see what way the wind is blowing for every decision. That said, he should listen to his constituents, and consider their thoughts and opinions.
An analogy I like of a true and direct democracy is; two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Re: [skydived19006] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Well, that may be right, but generally I vote for someone to vote the way I want to vote in any decisions -- it they don't vote the way I want on a decision, I don't vote for them again....
Re: [PapaSmurf] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I wasn't at the board meeting in July to hear arguments *for* 800 foot openings (which is what was actually proposed), but I can't imagine an argument strong enough to outweigh the negatives.
Re: [airtwardo] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
OK, I'll bite. But only a little. I voted yes both in committee and in front of the full Board. Although I was pretty sure it was going to get slaughtered in plenary session (yup), I thought the full Board should get to hear it.
The waiver request came to S&T from a few guys who have a proven track record of executing some fairly extreme stunts, including legal BASE demos with very low pulls. I personally know a couple of them and they are solid guys. They wanted to explore some stunts on the air show circuit from aircraft which would require dual parachute systems per the FAR's but still be able to pull lower than 2000' for crowd appeal. This would have only been done at an air show, behind a crowd line, and without any danger to spectators. All kinds of other hairy stuff happens at these air shows, including a stunt where a motorcycle rider transfers to an airplane via a ladder - no waiver, no rule-breaking, just a great show.
They were and are in a catch-22 regarding the FAA and USPA. USPA was saying "Get the FAA to approve the certificate, then we can talk" while the FAA was saying "Get USPA to waive the BSR before we even discuss it." I think Ottinger's comments to the Board were one-sided and overly opinionated. It is Headquarters staff's job to inform the BOD, not to persuade.
Are these guys adults who can assess the risk, mitigate it as best as possible, and put on a good show for the public? Yes.
Would I ever think of trying something like this myself? Hell no.
Should they be given the chance to try it out on a couple of occasions and report back to the Board? Maybe. Enough such that I voted yes to give them that chance. Clearly, the majority of the BOD did not agree.
Re: [ccq] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
The waiver request came to S&T from a few guys who have a proven track record of executing some fairly extreme stunts, including legal BASE demos with very low pulls. I personally know a couple of them and they are solid guys. They wanted to explore some stunts on the air show circuit from aircraft which would require dual parachute systems per the FAR's but still be able to pull lower than 2000' for crowd appeal.
1st~ My complements for posting, I thank you and respectfully disagree with your opinion for the following reason~
I have a fair amount of airshow experience and question the value of the 'crowd appeal' angle ~ it's a dangerous stunt that goes well above the level of appreciation the average airshow audience would likely understand or care about.
That being said, lets say it was okayed by the powers that be and was an unmitigated hit on the circuit...as a 30 year airshow performer myself, lets say I then too wanted incorporate a low pull stunt into MY program~ would the BOD then also okay it for ME?
How about 'Snot Nose Sammy' that's just getting into the business...he sees the trend and wants to get the GO for low openings as well, unfortunately Sammy ain't as good as he thinks and quickly changes his nickname to Sammy Splatter.
Besides the mess on the runway, we as skydivers then have the 'press mess' to deal with.
If our governing body says it's OK for 'certain' individuals to break the 'rules' then how can they say others can not, especially when monetary gain is in question...
You're saying that it's okay for team XYZ to break the rules and sell Such & Such act, but only THEM?
Ya think the Slyride suit was a debacle...wait until you involve yourself in legislating stunts.
Again, I've been doing this for a while and I truly believe we're way past the 'Gypsy Moth' mentality in regard to professional parachute demonstrations...the very reason for the USPA being involved in parachute demonstration regulation at all is because it believes it to be a way to positively portray oursport to the masses.
...stunts have nobusiness even being considered...period.
Re: [airtwardo] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In Reply To
I have a fair amount of airshow experience and question the value of the 'crowd appeal' angle ~ it's a dangerous stunt that goes well above the level of appreciation the average airshow audience would likely understand or care about.
While not safe,I have bet my life on opening at 400' plenty of times. With the right equipment (square canopy, open nose, nose-down trim, mesh slider, cutaway toggles) and careful (60 minute pack job with extra re-dressing and clamps) packing it's not that unreasonable if you're not near an object where opening heading matters.
Experienced BASE jumpers arguably have a lower fatality rate than airshow pilots with altitude waivers.
In Reply To
...stunts have nobusiness even being considered...period.
Except when done with fixed wing aircraft flying a few feet off the ground doing things like cutting ribbons in knife-edge flight? Or aerobatic manuevers with non-aerobatic aircraft (Bob Hoover in his Aero Comander, the Younkin Beech 18 (dad died in an airshow but his son now flies the plane), etc)?
Either the performers having a higher than average risk of death at airshows than elsehwere is acceptable (with measures to limit the crowd's risk exposure) and the same consideration should be extended to skydivers, or it isn't and they should use the sports' governing bodies' minimum altitudes and movethe fixed wing lower altitude limit up to the 100 meters AGL applied by IAC.
In this case, the USPA has its political relationship with the FAA to consider first. While I don't see anything wrong with an 800' opening at the right demo that's more important. I don't know what the situation here was really like to pass judgement.
(This post was edited by DrewEckhardt on Nov 6, 2008, 9:47 PM)
Re: [airtwardo] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In Reply To
1st~ My complements for posting, I thank you and respectfully disagree with your opinion for the following reason~ <snip> If our governing body says it's OK for 'certain' individuals to break the 'rules' then how can they say others can not, especially when monetary gain is in question...
You're saying that it's okay for team XYZ to break the rules and sell Such & Such act, but only THEM?
I think there are plenty of legitimate points on both sides of this waiver request. However, I do not buy the "slippery slope" argument. Granting a waiver for specific members in specific cases does not imply that the same will be granted for anyone else.
From the SIM: "1. Also included in this section, waivers to the BSRs describe procedures for approving and documenting exceptions to the BSRs. a. Waivers also provide for the responsible development of new techniques and methods. b. The BSRs are designed to establish safety standards for common situations; however, local circumstances may allow for greater tolerance in some cases. c. The purpose for filing a waiver is to document that the particular BSR has been evaluated in the individual case and that the prescribed deviation and conditions do not represent an unacceptable compromise of safety. "
The waiver process is, by definition, to be used on a case-by-case basis. So, if you or "Snot Nosed Sammy" applied for this waiver, you would have to show the same level of preparedness, experience, and track record in order to be considered.
The BOD has the responsibility and the privilege to grant exceptions to the rules for specific individuals to explore the boundaries of our sport. See, for example, Roger Nelson's waivers to allow his AFF students to use throw-out BOC deployment. At the time, many thought it was downright dangerous and stupid to move students off of spring loaded pilot chutes. Now, throw-out has become industry standard.
Clearly, this request was only for one demo and not trying to blaze a trail in student training. While I happen to think the positives outweighed the negatives, most others on the BOD did not. Fair enough; I'll save my energy for more important battles.
Re: [DrewEckhardt] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>>>Experienced BASE jumpers arguably have a lower fatality rate than airshow pilots with altitude waivers.<<<
Comparing Nick's Base List with the ICAS stats I would argue that you're wrong at about a 20:1 ratio.
>>>Either the performers having a higher than average risk of death at airshows than elsewhere is acceptable (with measures to limit the crowd's risk exposure) and the same consideration should be extended to skydivers, or it isn't and they should use the sports' governing bodies' minimum altitudes and move the fixed wing lower altitude limit up to the 100 meters AGL applied by IAC. <<<
Apple to oranges...
Though many performers do belong to IAC some do not, most do however belong to ICAS which does have a proficiency rating system (originally modeled after our PRO Rating) in which performers are limited or allowed to perform certain 'stunts'...if you want to do inverted ribbon cuts you need to jump through those required hoops first. The IAC has nothing to do with it...the difference is~unlike the USPA, ICAS does not have in it's mission statement anything about utilizing aircraft demonstrations as a means to promote the sport of airshow stunt piloting, nor do they facilitate the procurement of airshow pilot insurance as a benefit of membership.
If team XYZ want to do 800 or 400 foot openings at airshows, and is willing to self insure the act then they don't NEED anything from the USPA other than to go to bat for them with the FAA, which as I've made the case against for above... would not be in the best interest of the general membership.
There are actually two arguments here, one is regarding the portrayal of low level B.A.S.E type jumping at airshows...which I don't think is a good idea simply because I've seen too many 'safe' demos involving 'solid' skydiving performers go south.
The cost to benefit is too high... we don't need the bad press, as skydivers or professional skydiving airshow performers.
And the other, which is should the USPA be asked to slight the rules for certain teams or individuals to the point of addressing the request to the Federal Aviation Administration and all that that would involve...which I believe to be a VERY bad idea, if for no other reason than the precedent it would set.
As I've said before, I can't believe this was ever even brought before the board and have to wonder about those that would believe this to be in the best interest of the general membership in any way, shape or form.
If this is any indication of the deregulation certian canditates are calling for, I have to question their miopic view of the direction they want to take our organization in...and have voted accordingly.
(This post was edited by airtwardo on Nov 7, 2008, 12:37 AM)
Re: [ccq] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
The waiver process is, by definition, to be used on a case-by-case basis. So, if you or "Snot Nosed Sammy" applied for this waiver, you would have to show the same level of preparedness, experience, and track record in order to be considered.
Which I understand, and it would come down to a judgement call...much the way it does with tandems into stadiums, until someone feels that they are being denied, despite 'like' qualifications. And then the sharks might want to get involved which IS a slippery slope because the board has then exposed the organization to a possible negative involvement regarding costly litigation, and for what?
It's NOT like Rogers training ideas...which were in regard to something that WOULD effect a large percentage of the membership in one way or another, this is a 'special' waiver for a small 'select' group that would exclusively benefit from it.
If team XYZ wants to jump with a single gas soaked parachute & a flare gun then so be it...why ask our organization to make it right with the feds?
I could be wrong but I don't see how something of this nature falls into the 'development of new techniques and methods' that might make the sport safer or better for the weekend jumper on a grass strip with a 182.
My belief is that the BOD should be concerned with setting a solid foundation for the entire membership to perch upon, not going out on a limb for a few folks that wanna make a couple bucks wowing the wuffos.
And since you brought it up, I am curious... ~exactly how did the Red Bull team show their "level of preparedness, experience, and track record" of 400 foot airshow demos in order to be considered??
I agree there are bigger battles, why this one was even begun has a lot of us in the general membership scratching our heads.
~~Edited to add, for those wondering what we're talking about~~
U.S.P.A. Board of Directors Meeting, Alexandria, VA, July 18-20, 2008
7. Two-thousand-foot deployment limit for demo jumps—
the Red Bull team has requested a waiver to deploy at 400 feet on demo jumps using specialized equipment.
Special Instructions from the FAA attached to each approved 7711 authorization require all jumpers to deploy at 2,000 feet or higher.
This was discussed at length.
This motion passed Committee 4-3.
Ed Scott presented input from the FAA on these types of jumps.
The following motion was presented:
Motion 33: Failed,4/17/0 (Mr. Spillers)
“Move to waive BSR, 2,000’ opening altitude, for Red Bull team members named below.
This waiver applies to jumps where an air show line is in place and TSO rigs will be used.
Opening altitude shall not be lower than 800 feet.
To include up to 5 practice jumps at a consenting DZ.
Jumpers include: Charles Bryan, Miles Daisher, and Mike Swanson.
Waiver shall expire in 120 days.”
(This post was edited by airtwardo on Nov 7, 2008, 1:02 AM)
Re: [airtwardo] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote
And since you brought it up, I am curious... ~exactly how did the Red Bull team show their "level of preparedness, experience, and track record" of 400 foot airshow demos in order to be considered??
Because they said so...(sure we can do it, my mom will make the costumes)
The number thrown out was 400ft. When that was balked at it went to 800ft. We finally settled on 2000ft.
See! We can make smart decisions from time to time.
Re: [airtwardo] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote
~exactly how did the Red Bull team show their "level of preparedness, experience, and track record" of 400 foot airshow demos in order to be considered??
Re: [wmw999] What candidates are for 400' openings at demo's ?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In Reply To
Quote
~exactly how did the Red Bull team show their "level of preparedness, experience, and track record" of 400 foot airshow demos in order to be considered??
Wendy, I believe the claim in that post is unsubstantiated.
As posted by Twardo, the Red Bull folks told the bod that they had not tried these stunts previously and they asked for the waiver to be applicable to a consenting DZ for 'practice' of these stunts.
The stunts that they proposed were old-school barnstorming stunts that have a history of killing the jumpers. There is nothing new or innovative in their stunt(s).
USPA should not endorse and has not endorsed these stunts to protect the ~32,000 USPA members and the organization.
The risk associated with these proposed stunts is in the 'unacceptable' range. The severity of occurrence would almost certainly fall in the a catastrophic category. The probability of occurrence could range from Occasional to frequent. Since the Summer 2008 meeting there has been a fatality of someone doing something very similar to one of the proposed Red Bull stunts. It is not in the best interest of the ~32,000 USPA members to subject them to the fallout, potential lawsuits and very bad PR on the sport that a Red Bull stunt gone bad would accrue.
There were only 4 people on the current BOD that voted for this waiver. Everyone else was against it.
Special Provisions-Parachuting.doc
1
