Minimum Opening Altitudes

[riggerrob 558]

2 hours ago, Baksteen said:

Given the nature of your continued questions in light of the excellent responses you got made me wonder what answer you were shopping for. Thanks for clearing that up.

What, in your opinion, would be the added value of allowing "people jumping BASE canopies in dual harness rigs to open at whatever altitude they want?"

The problem is that the average BASE jumper does not understand the difference in risks between a sub-terminal deployment at 800 feet and a terminal deployment at 800 feet.

[dudeman17 267]

8 hours ago, riggerrob said:

The problem is that the average BASE jumper does not understand the difference in risks between a sub-terminal deployment at 800 feet and a terminal deployment at 800 feet.

Oh, I think they know. But I think a lot of them just don't seem to care about the risk that their behavior may pose to other people.

[Baksteen 84]

6 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

Oh, I think they know. But I think a lot of them just don't seem to care about the risk that their behavior may pose to other people.

In all fairness, that is also true of many skydivers.

[BMAC615 205]

16 hours ago, grimmie said:

 

A very long discussion with many points of view from 2013

After reading all the responses to my original question and reading all 484 posts in the thread above, my understanding of why the minimums were raised is that it was in response to nine fatalities over the previous ten years involving AAD activations and insufficient time for reserve deployment or two out situations. 

1. It was known back in 2013 that PD had a TSO waiver for their Optimum reserves as in some cases they took more than the required time to deploy.

2. Iterative changes to reserve containers operating under TSOs that may no longer pass TSO requirements may have contributed to the reserve time to deployment.

3. AAD altitude sensors have varying accuracy due to pressure variance depending on jumper orientation.

USPA BOD recognized their inability to force manufacturers to fix the problem while giving the equipment more time to deploy the reserve would have potentially solved the problem in the nine cases and in future cases. It was the simplest and quickest way to save lives.

If anyone has any other take or if I’m misunderstanding, please chime in.

Edited September 30, 2022 by BMAC615

[Divalent 89]

On 9/29/2022 at 12:14 AM, BMAC615 said:

I remember the ‘90s :)Now, I’m pretty consistently open by 3,500 ft in my wing suit. In terminal BASE, opening at 750’ is “In the stratosphere.” Why wouldn’t USPA consider allowing people jumping BASE canopies in dual harness rigs to open at whatever altitude they want?

Well, one factor is that base containers don't have a reserve that the jumper might deploy after a main mal and cutaway. So for BASE, no need to have an altitude buffer in the main deployment altitude to allow a reserve to subsequently be used. Whereas for skydiving, you do.

[BMAC615 205]

I’m familiar with the differences in gear. The issue is USPA requires all members abide by all BSRs regardless of jump location. Someone doing a WS heli jump over the Eiger would be required to fly a dual parachute system and have their main container open at 2.5k. Further, anyone doing a WS heli flight with a BASE rig is technically in violation of USPA BSRs.

[grimmie 173]

28 minutes ago, BMAC615 said:

I’m familiar with the differences in gear. The issue is USPA requires all members abide by all BSRs regardless of jump location. Someone doing a WS heli jump over the Eiger would be required to fly a dual parachute system and have their main container open at 2.5k. Further, anyone doing a WS heli flight with a BASE rig is technically in violation of USPA BSRs.

And that happens every single summer in Europe.

[BMAC615 205]

I’m just trying to understand how USPA chooses to enact a BSR vs recommendation. @billvon had some great input during the minimum opening altitude discussion.

BSR for minimum opening altitude? Yep.

BSR for minimum number of jumps to fly a wingsuit? Yep

BSR for maximum WL? Nope, skydivers are adults who can make their own decisions.

Just seems inconsistent to me.

[kleggo 138]

On 9/28/2022 at 4:14 PM, dudeman17 said:

The book is too thick to look it up right now, but I think it's a Skratch Garrison quote form Pat Works' United We Fall...

"Ground rush is a gas, but it sure ain't practical."

 

Nor is it a long time survivability plan.

Bk and I were just discussing unintentional down n dirty 3 days ago.

INtentional is another thing altogether

Be well.

 

[chuckakers 369]

18 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

I’m familiar with the differences in gear. The issue is USPA requires all members abide by all BSRs regardless of jump location. Someone doing a WS heli jump over the Eiger would be required to fly a dual parachute system and have their main container open at 2.5k. Further, anyone doing a WS heli flight with a BASE rig is technically in violation of USPA BSRs.

The use of dual parachute systems is an FAR (not a BSR) and thus not applicable outside the U.S.

[BMAC615 205]

2 hours ago, chuckakers said:

The use of dual parachute systems is an FAR (not a BSR) and thus not applicable outside the U.S.

Thank you for this clarity!

[chuckakers 369]

On 9/30/2022 at 12:27 PM, Divalent said:

Well, one factor is that base containers don't have a reserve that the jumper might deploy after a main mal and cutaway. So for BASE, no need to have an altitude buffer in the main deployment altitude to allow a reserve to subsequently be used. Whereas for skydiving, you do.

There are now BASE rigs with reserves. At least one that I am aware of is also TSO'd.

The Red Bull guys have some that they use for low altitude wingsuit exhibition jumps at specified airshows. They have a waiver (by jumper name and venue) from USPA that allows them to deploy at 1,000 feet. The rigs are outfitted with MARDS for rapid reserve deployment.

[Baksteen 84]

Unpopular opnion: I've stopped watching their content long agao, but I'm not sure that the Red Bull guys are doing our sport a favour.

[alfonso904 4]

Mirage makes a pretty good wingsuit container that is specifically designed for low altitude deployments using BASE mains + reserves.. The W-series. With a MARD and packing a slider down reserve I guess you could chop extremely low in the event of a malfunction. Doesn't UPT have a video of a cutaway into a slider down reserve from 100 feet? 

[nwt 131]

On 9/30/2022 at 6:33 PM, BMAC615 said:

I’m just trying to understand how USPA chooses to enact a BSR vs recommendation. @billvon had some great input during the minimum opening altitude discussion.

BSR for minimum opening altitude? Yep.

BSR for minimum number of jumps to fly a wingsuit? Yep

BSR for maximum WL? Nope, skydivers are adults who can make their own decisions.

Just seems inconsistent to me.

Setting a minimum opening altitude is easy. Setting a minimum number of jumps to fly a wingsuit is easy. Coming up with wingloading rules that will work for everyone is hard.

[sfzombie13 307]

5 hours ago, nwt said:

Setting a minimum opening altitude is easy. Setting a minimum number of jumps to fly a wingsuit is easy. Coming up with wingloading rules that will work for everyone is hard.

so?  do they care about safety or the appearance of safety?  from some of the shit i've read about lately, including the 40k foot tandem disaster i will refrain from voicing my opinion.  i know what it sounds like though.

[nwt 131]

8 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

so?  do they care about safety or the appearance of safety?  from some of the shit i've read about lately, including the 40k foot tandem disaster i will refrain from voicing my opinion.  i know what it sounds like though.

The question was "why does USPA do [these things that are easy] and not do [this thing that's hard]". All I did was point out the obvious answer.

[BMAC615 205]

14 hours ago, nwt said:

Setting a minimum opening altitude is easy. Setting a minimum number of jumps to fly a wingsuit is easy. Coming up with wingloading rules that will work for everyone is hard.

What’s so hard about it?

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

34 minutes ago, BMAC615 said:

What’s so hard about it?

Hi 615,

I agree.  I think the French Federation does it.

Jerry Baumchen

[tbrown 26]

On 9/28/2022 at 8:58 AM, wmw999 said:

I would bet the qualifying reason for the waiver would be demos; not sure about what else.

Wendy P.

Bigways, like BIG Bigways usually get a waiver. Also days with low cloud ceilings to allow hop & pop loads, as the freefall is short and sub-terminal. As I recall from Parachutist Magazine, the waivers can even just be verbal, but are only good for a day at a time.

 

[pchapman 261]

Quote

18 hours ago, nwt said:

Setting a minimum opening altitude is easy. Setting a minimum number of jumps to fly a wingsuit is easy. Coming up with wingloading rules that will work for everyone is hard.

What’s so hard about it?

I don't want to get too far into this argument, but I think the idea is that it is hard to deal with different human performance abilities, that affect landing a parachute, more than it does getting your reserve out in time.   The argument isn't that it is any way hard to write some numbers down on paper.

For minimum opening altitude, even if I'm a shit hot jumper, my reserve opening distance is like anyone else's, my main will snivel as much as anyone else's, and even if I'm skilled, my reflexes aren't going to be that much different than anyone else skilled. So it is easier to set a hard limit, with a few mods for jump numbers or license levels.

(Though one can of course quibble about some situations, eg, "What about if I'm not doing 120 mph but am just doing a hop and pop, and I have a big F-111 canopy that doesn't snivel forever -- aren't slightly lower limits reasonable?")

For landing parachutes at different wing loadings, there it is harder to decide what is appropriate and not just arbitrary, as it is more an issue of experience and skill.

E.g, I and others with significant airplane piloting experience have successfully downsized faster than typical in skydiving -- because high approach speeds and a fine touch on the controls aren't something new to us.      

(Having waivers would  of course allow more flexibility if there otherwise were hard limits on wing loading vs. jumps.)

 

 

[gowlerk 1,901]

6 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

What’s so hard about it?

Because it would piss off so many people that it would be ignored or even drive some DZs away from USPA affiliation. Only in the nanny states where the local association wields real power can such rules be enforced. Skydiving is an adult sport and people make adult decisions for themselves without consulting you or anyone else.

[BMAC615 205]

20 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Because it would piss off so many people that it would be ignored or even drive some DZs away from USPA affiliation. Only in the nanny states where the local association wields real power can such rules be enforced. Skydiving is an adult sport and people make adult decisions for themselves without consulting you or anyone else.

If skydiving is such an adult sport and people can make adult decisions for themselves, then why is a minimum opening altitude BSR necessary?

Edited October 5, 2022 by BMAC615

[BMAC615 205]

1 hour ago, pchapman said:

I don't want to get too far into this argument, but I think the idea is that it is hard to deal with different human performance abilities, that affect landing a parachute, more than it does getting your reserve out in time.   The argument isn't that it is any way hard to write some numbers down on paper.

For minimum opening altitude, even if I'm a shit hot jumper, my reserve opening distance is like anyone else's, my main will snivel as much as anyone else's, and even if I'm skilled, my reflexes aren't going to be that much different than anyone else skilled. So it is easier to set a hard limit, with a few mods for jump numbers or license levels.

(Though one can of course quibble about some situations, eg, "What about if I'm not doing 120 mph but am just doing a hop and pop, and I have a big F-111 canopy that doesn't snivel forever -- aren't slightly lower limits reasonable?")

For landing parachutes at different wing loadings, there it is harder to decide what is appropriate and not just arbitrary, as it is more an issue of experience and skill.

E.g, I and others with significant airplane piloting experience have successfully downsized faster than typical in skydiving -- because high approach speeds and a fine touch on the controls aren't something new to us.      

(Having waivers would  of course allow more flexibility if there otherwise were hard limits on wing loading vs. jumps.)

 

 

I have experience in terminal BASE and getting my main out at 400’. Opening at that altitude isn’t new to me. Using your logic, I should be able to jump a BASE canopy and open at 400’.

[gowlerk 1,901]

1 minute ago, BMAC615 said:

If skydiving is such an adult sport and people can make adult decisions for themselves, then why is a minimum opening BSR altitude necessary?

Because it is a reasonable limit that most participants are willing to accept. That's how it works, just that simple.