UK...BPA propose manditory AADs on all jumpers below B licence

[gerrcoin 0]

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere. I had a look and couldn't see anything. Also I feel that this is more of a Gear and Rigging type of post than Safety and Training or General. Moderators please feel free to move it if you disagree.
Found this posted on uk.rec.skydiving.
From the minutes of the Safety and Training Committee meeting held on the 5th of February 2004

http://www.bpa.org.uk/forms/council/STC%20Minutes%205-2-04.doc

Quote

Item 6. The Mandatory Fittings of AADs
A great deal of discussion ensued, after which it was proposed by Karen Farr and seconded by Dave Hickling, that from the 1st July 2004, all parachutists below FAI 'B' Certificate, excluding parachutists jumping Traditional (front & back) static line equipment, must use equipment fitted with an operational AAD which must be switched on prior to any descent.

Now I'm not starting a cypres debate (I for one am a fan, I've personally witnessed two cypress saves in my short time in the sport) but it seems that in the UK anyway it may become a moot point. Even a 5,000 jump A licence jumper will be required to have an AAD to jump.

[DJL 232]

Was there a problem with UK A/B jumpers not using AAD's or with them having AAD's fire frequently?

How about in comparison to other causes of death and injury?

Where there policies put in place for these other categories?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[MarkM 0]

In the US last year no/low pulls accounted for only 4% of the fatalities and they're not mandated here, people just tend to use them on their own. Is it really any different in the UK?

Edit: oh, and comparison to other causes of death, landings were 44%.

[CornishChris 5]

At what % does it become a useful mandate? What would the % you quoted have been without AADs?

Did you know that 63% of statistics are made up on the spot?

I think this is a good thing - I am currently in Australia where AADs are compulsary to D license.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[damion75 0]

At Netheravon it has been mandatory to have an AAD for anyone with less than 200 jumps (or is it a C licence? more or less same difference) for some time.

Since the only reason I can see to not have an AAD fitted (whether switched on or off) is financial, this ruling forces new jumpers who are more likely to make a bad decision about whether or not to get an AAD based on money rather than safety to make the right choice.

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[USPA 0]

He makes a valid point. In the Netherlands they are mandatory untill C license. I am neutral about the exact limit, but I hate change in rules without reason.

In the netherlands for example we have only 1 fatality in the last 10 year, where a proper funtioning AAD would have made a difference. And you know what? She had an AAD! But it didn't function correctly.

When you don't have people dying from no pull/low pull and most install an AAD in their rig by themselves. It is not nescacary to make it a rule, in fact you create new problems with it.

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[MarkM 0]

Quote

At what % does it become a useful mandate? What would the % you quoted have been without AADs?

It doesn't matter what the % would be without AADs, we're not talking about taking away AADs just mandating their use. That 4% figure is in a country where their use is not mandated. People are using them on their own, you don't have to require them.

And if your goal is to save lives then why not mandate canopy training or WL instead?

Quote

Did you know that 63% of statistics are made up on the spot?

[gerrcoin 0]

Quote

Was there a problem with UK A/B jumpers not using AAD's or with them having AAD's fire frequently?

Not really. Our incidents are mainly due to low turns. In the UK AADs are mandatory on all student rigs with the exception of S/L (and maybe IAD - I'm not sure), but most DZs have a standing policy on their use for low license (A and B with low jumps). The unwritten rule was that if you were experienced enough to do CReW or birdman jumps then your safety was your own responsibility, but in that case you were probably already above B license anyway so it really makes no immediate difference. I think that the policy was aimed at enforcing the use of AADs at roaming DZs, which are beginning to increase in number. The only problem is telling a very experienced jumper who only has the A. Personally I don't any major issue with it but I'm just wondering if the USPA aren't watching how this works out.

Quote

How about in comparison to other causes of death and injury?

Where there policies put in place for these other categories?

There is also a Low Turns Committee talking about a way to reduce injuries from these. I believe that low turns cause the majority of actual injuries. Overloading may be a cause or contributing factor of some injuries but it's a hard thing to pin down. As yet they have no definite proposals regarding this.

[Dave1216 0]

Quote

In the UK AADs are mandatory on all student rigs with the exception of S/L

I believe that piggyback static line require AAD's but 'traditional' (belly-mount reserve) don't.

I may be wrong, i invariably am!

[gerrcoin 0]

Quote

I believe that piggyback static line require AAD's but 'traditional' (belly-mount reserve) don't.

Not so. I've seen some back-mounted reserve S/Ls with no AAD and my rigger told me that it's not manditory here. In the US it is however. That is not to say that individual DZs don't have a rule on this for their own gear.
Note from original post

Quote

excluding parachutists jumping Traditional (front & back) static line equipment

[Dave1216 0]

I sit corrected!

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

I believe that piggyback static line require AAD's but 'traditional' (belly-mount reserve) don't.

Not so. I've seen some back-mounted reserve S/Ls with no AAD and my rigger told me that it's not mandatory here.

Note from original post

Quote

excluding parachutists jumping Traditional (front & back) static line equipment

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That baffles me!
But then many British practices baffle me!
For example why are they still using fore and aft gear when the rest of the civilized world converted to piggy backs two decades ago?
AADs were fashionable on front-mounted reserves when I started jumping in Canada in 1977.
CSPA made AADs mandatory for everyone below A Certificate 20-some-odd years ago.
I have always believed that first-timers were the highest risk.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

In the US last year no/low pulls accounted for only 4% of the fatalities and they're not mandated here, people just tend to use them on their own. Is it really any different in the UK?

Edit: oh, and comparison to other causes of death, landings were 44%.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember that before AADs became fashionable for experienced jumpers, low pull/no pull consistently represented 30% of fatalities in the USA. That was back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
This whole concept of requiring AADs below a certain license level is just administrators catching up with fashion.
90% of the reserves I repack these days contain AADs.
As for the A license jumper with 5,000 jumps .... tell him to hurry up and write the next exam!

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

But then many British practices baffle me!
For example why are they still using fore and aft gear when the rest of the civilized world converted to piggy backs two decades ago?

Which DZ is that?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[riddler 0]

Quote

In the US last year no/low pulls accounted for only 4% of the fatalities and they're not mandated here, people just tend to use them on their own.

USPA cites the reason as the drop from a ten-year average of 17% to the 4% last year as primarily due to the use of AADs and RSLs. AADs are required for students.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[meatbomb 0]

Quote

Which DZ is that?

Skydive Strathallan for one!

We do about 1200 first timers a year, about 400 of which are rounds on front and back kit.
Rounds Rock!

---
Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii!
Piccies

[696GrocuttT 0]

Quote

Not so. I've seen some back-mounted reserve S/Ls with no AAD and my rigger told me that it's not manditory here. In the US it is however. That is not to say that individual DZs don't have a rule on this for their own gear.

This sounds a bit strange. The BPA opps manual states that student piggyback equipment must have an AAD and an RSL.

Quote

2.2 Piggyback

2.2.1. The following Wing Loading criteria should be applied to main ram-air canopies:

a. Ab-initio Solo Student Parachutists - not to exceed 0.8 lbs/sq.ft.

b. Solo Student Parachutists not including Ab-initio. - not to exceed 0.85 lbs/sq.ft.




SEC 6/PAGE 1/AUG 2001

N.B. The following exceptions to apply to the above:

Where the Canopy’s Manufacturer has published advice that a higher wing loading is suitable (when the manufacturer’s higher limit will apply).

or

Where the person has logged previous relevant parachuting experience.

or

Where the Student Parachutist is above average fitness, his/her CCI believes a higher wing loading is appropriate for him/her and the CCI has recorded clearance for a higher specified wing loading on the Record of Training.

2.2.2. The static line must be continuous from the deployment bag to the point of attachment in the aircraft.

2.2.3. The equipment must be fitted with an automatic activation device (AAD) and a reserve static line (RSL).