Minimum Opening Altitudes

[BMAC615 205]

Just now, gowlerk said:

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

Why do you accept that as a reasonable limit? Most participants were willing to accept 2k as reasonable when it was 2k. Then it was raised because nine people died over a ten year period and now anything under 2.5k is unreasonable.

[wmw999 2,114]

It's a rule, like the rules to games, or the rules for governments (i.e. consitutions and treaties). They're arbitrary sometimes, but they are the rule within that realm. Many people aren't good at chaos, and rules help to manage that.

If you don't want to follow the rule, then either find someplace where that rule doesn't apply, or work with whoever makes and/or enforces the rule to change it. It got changed to up, maybe you can make it change back to down. But come equipped with data, not just "it's dumb."

Given that canopies do, in fact, take longer to open than they used to (a 1000' opening was a malfunction when I started jumping), it's not unreasonable.

[gowlerk 1,901]

12 minutes ago, BMAC615 said:

Why do you accept that as a reasonable limit? Most participants were willing to accept 2k as reasonable when it was 2k. Then it was raised because nine people died over a ten year period and now anything under 2.5k is unreasonable.

Also easy and simple. The days of 2K were already pretty much over. Changing to 2.5 did not impact anyone. No one cared because we all had long since stopped opening that low. It merely formalized what had become standard practice. We did the same thing in Canada.

[BMAC615 205]

36 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

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

So the USPA Safety & Training Committee isn’t willing to implement BSRs that are best for the population as whole, but only those that the majority of the population are willing to accept without protest?

[wmw999 2,114]

Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough. If people won't comply and the budget for enforcement is small, what good are rules? It would be far safer if the national speed limit were 55, 20 in towns. Would you comply with that?

Wendy P.

[BMAC615 205]

20 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough. If people won't comply and the budget for enforcement is small, what good are rules? It would be far safer if the national speed limit were 55, 20 in towns. Would you comply with that?

Wendy P.

It is not my intention to be combative or to persuade anyone to take the position that the minimum opening altitude of 2.5k isn’t reasonable. I’m trying to solve a problem, not create one.

I’m honestly trying to understand why the USPA Safety & Training Committee finds it reasonable to implement a BSR for minimum opening altitudes and a wingsuit first flight course, but finds implementing a maximum WL for A, B & C License holders unreasonable.

If what @gowlerk says is true, that the reason is because there would be widespread backlash from A, B & C license holders and none of the S&TAs would enforce a maximum WL limit, well then that’s a data point.

Edited October 5, 2022 by BMAC615

[wmw999 2,114]

The difficulty of enforcement might be part of it. The fact that it's not quite as black-and-white as altitude, because without a detailed chart taking into account different canopy sizes vs. line length, as well as canopy planform. And it has to be updated a lot more frequently as new technology comes up.

In a perfect world that might happen. But this isn't that. They could have taken the specific canopy for each altitude ("you're jumping a Sabre 1? Go for 2000"), but they used a blunt tool, because it would probably do the job of improving low pull-related fatalities.

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 1,901]

37 minutes ago, BMAC615 said:

So the USPA Safety & Training Committee isn’t willing to implement BSRs that are best for the population as whole,

The safest thing for the population as a whole would be to outlaw skydiving.

[BMAC615 205]

7 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

The difficulty of enforcement might be part of it. The fact that it's not quite as black-and-white as altitude, because without a detailed chart taking into account different canopy sizes vs. line length, as well as canopy planform. And it has to be updated a lot more frequently as new technology comes up.

In a perfect world that might happen. But this isn't that. They could have taken the specific canopy for each altitude ("you're jumping a Sabre 1? Go for 2000"), but they used a blunt tool, because it would probably do the job of improving low pull-related fatalities.

Wendy P.

The current recommended WL chart is confusing and encourages people to sacrifice safety for financial considerations. (You’re gonna downsize a lot in your first 200 jumps - Why is this the culture?) It seems to me a blunt tool for WL could have a similar resulting improvement in safety as minimum opening altitudes. Maximum WL of 1.01 for A & B, 1.21 for C and unlimited for D. No waivers, no exceptions. If you want faster landings, learn how to land faster with what you have. 

OR, if that’s too difficult to implement, maybe a rule in the IRM that no AFF or TI are to recommend anything beyond 1.01 for A & B or 1.21 for C. Licensed revoked if found to give contrary recommendations.

@gowlerk, if this really is an activity of personal responsibility, BSRs for minimum opening altitudes and minimum number of jumps for flying a wingsuit wouldn’t be necessary. We could just say we’re all adults and can choose when to open or when we’re ready to fly a wingsuit. But that’s not the case. The USPA Safety & Training Committee has a responsibility to respond to trends. When nine people died over a ten year period, that was enough to push for a creation of a new BSR. When ONE person died from drowning, that was enough for USPA to implement water training and floatation devices.

How many people need to die before everyone recognizes that the attitude of “we’re all adults and can make adult decisions and accept the consequences for our decisions” is a convenient narrative to dismiss the elephant in the room.

[sfzombie13 307]

6 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

The current recommended WL chart is confusing and encourages people to sacrifice safety for financial considerations. (You’re gonna downsize a lot in your first 200 jumps - Why is this the culture?) It seems to me a blunt tool for WL could have a similar resulting improvement in safety as minimum opening altitudes. Maximum WL of 1.01 for A & B, 1.21 for C and unlimited for D. No waivers, no exceptions. If you want faster landings, learn how to land faster with what you have. 

OR, if that’s too difficult to implement, maybe a rule in the IRM that no AFF or TI are to recommend anything beyond 1.01 for A & B or 1.21 for C. Licensed revoked if found to give contrary recommendations.

@gowlerk, if this really is an activity of personal responsibility, BSRs for minimum opening altitudes and minimum number of jumps for flying a wingsuit wouldn’t be necessary. We could just say we’re all adults and can choose when to open or when we’re ready to fly a wingsuit. But that’s not the case. The USPA Safety & Training Committee has a responsibility to respond to trends. When nine people died over a ten year period, that was enough to push for a creation of a new BSR. When ONE person died from drowning, that was enough for USPA to implement water training and floatation devices.

How many people need to die before everyone recognizes that the attitude of “we’re all adults and can make adult decisions and accept the consequences for our decisions” is a convenient narrative to dismiss the elephant in the room.

sure have been a lot of tandem fatalities lately, and from what i recall, most are due to low turns.  it isn't hard to implement an endorsement to licenses, and this would include wing loading limits, as well as allow high performance canopies.  it wouldn't be hard to enforce since we already have to show our paperwork when jumping, it would be just one more item to check.  this would be the best solution for the issue with the least amount of disruption. 

as for your last sentence, it's more than just a way to dismiss it, it is arguably irresponsible and borderline negligent to just do nothing about the increasing death toll from low turns. 

[skybytch 259]

9 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

I’m honestly trying to understand why the USPA Safety & Training Committee finds it reasonable to implement a BSR for minimum opening altitudes and a wingsuit first flight course, but finds implementing a maximum WL for A, B & C License holders unreasonable.

Good luck understanding why the USPA BOD does anything. A WL BSR was requested repeatedly by USPA members 20 years ago after far too many people died under perfectly good parachutes they shouldn't have been under. But "education is better than regulation". 

"Sure, Joe, you're my buddy, I'll sign that off for you, you don't really need that canopy control course."

You must pull by 3k and have a current USPA membership but you can fly whatever canopy you'd like at 25 jumps, because you have been educated - you have a piece of paper that says so.

 

[riggerrob 558]

13 hours ago, wmw999 said:

The difficulty of enforcement might be part of it. The fact that it's not quite as black-and-white as altitude, because without a detailed chart taking into account different canopy sizes vs. line length, as well as canopy planform. And it has to be updated a lot more frequently as new technology comes up.... "

.

Wendy P.

Back around 1983 or 1984, I introduced the concept of wing-loading to simplify canopy choices. Back then we only had to select between 5-cell or 7-cell. Configuration was limited to precision landing competition or all-purpose. Reserves, canopy formation and BASE were all done with popular 7-cells. But new materials, planforms, etc. complicated the decision process.

We really need a 3D or 4D chart to include all the variables related to canopy selection.

Last time I checked, no one was publishing 3D charts.

BSRs help to keep decisions simple for junior jumpers. Junior jumpers only need-to-know that "in that corner, death lurks." Few of them have the patience or depth of knowledge of many posters on dz.com.

[sundevil777 93]

3 hours ago, riggerrob said:

no one was publishing 3D charts.

Extra "axis" in effect can be put on a chart similar to the attached.  A graph could show speed on x-axis, altitude on the y axis, and still have curves on the graph representing different manifold pressures which are the other "axis".

Edited October 5, 2022 by sundevil777

[fcajump 153]

On 10/4/2022 at 10:17 PM, BMAC615 said:

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’.

(partially in response to BMAC615, but then expanding from there...)

But, for the sake of this discussion, the USPA is not concerned with BASE and (as it is based in the US, therefore subject to FARs) a BASE rig (generally) is not part of the USPA consideration.

No, not everyone is going to be happy.  But this rule was implemented in face of facts being observed at the time that supersede emotion, TSOs, and theory.  There were several incidents that were hard to pin down the cause. 
    - AAD says it fired on time, jumper died under a partially open reserve.
    - Jumper reported he deployed on time, AAD says it fired due to meeting parameters, 2 out.
    - Industry sees many newer mains taking longer to open
    - Industry sees some newer/smaller mains loosing altitude MUCH faster than before when not deploying correctly... leading to low/no reserve pulls.

Senior industry leaders (USPA and PIA), provided with these situations, using their best judgement concluded:
   - the best way to give more of a buffer at the bottom end to get reserves open suggest higher hard decks
   - in concert with that, many suggest raising the firing altitude for AADs by a few hundred feet*
   - with a higher firing altitude, higher hard deck, more time needed to deal with radical openings, longer main openings: raising the minimum altitudes is the logical next step.

(Not that I'm in position to do so...) If I were asked to waive the 2,500' minimum, I would want to know:
   1. Why?  (low cloud cover, OK)
   2. What main are you using (and maybe the loading)?  (Good condition canopy/PC with a model reputation for reliable on-heading openings that don't take 800', OK)
   3. Hard Deck for this jump and AAD firing altitude (w/ adjustment)?  (i.e. does the math work, especially in light of the answers to #2, if so... OK)
   4. Is this an old-school jumper, or one used to working in the basement.  (and if they ARE old-school, are they still sharp?)

Many objected at the time this change was made, as they were used to working low, but the trend of things needed to be recognized so it pushed through (likely also influenced by liability concerns by Mfgs in light of the above).

For myself: 
2500'min, 800ft normal opening loss on the Spectre, 1050'-A3 Cypres fire alt setting*, and when you consider that AirTek recommends having a 1000' "in the saddle"-to-firing-altitude buffer... I'm already pinching those numbers.

*A3 adjustment chosen both to increase reserve opening buffer/reserve working time, and in consideration of the 300' hill nearby that we occasionally exit over.

Obviously your numbers will vary... but have you LOOKED at your numbers or is your opinion more emotional based?

Just my $.03,
JW

 

PS - I remember when entire loads would plan to open at 2'k.  And you could almost feel the shockwaves from the ground as that old F111 opened... but these were jumpers who were thinking it was much nicer than the days of openings under C9's and 26' LoPos...

 

 

[fcajump 153]

On 10/4/2022 at 11:36 PM, gowlerk said:

The safest thing for the population as a whole would be to outlaw skydiving.

True... but don't suggest it too loud...  Wing-walking was outlawed for this reason... it took 40+ years for our airshow (and a couple others) to convince the FAA that it could be done safely.  Its still a very dangerous activity; I know of 3 that have died since it came back, though ironically not due to their own failure as a walker.

And there are already too many people/communities that would like to see skydivers go away altogether...  And this is the key item why the old "I can do what I want, and if I die then its only my problem" needs to go away.

Remember - you're dealing with an industry trying to find balance - we took an emergency egress safety device and use it to intentionally play chicken with Mother Earth.  We know swoops kill, but we have swoop competitions.  We argue that driving a car is more dangerous, then we show pictures of us skydiving in a car.  As a group, we are unable to send a consistent message (nor do I think we ever will...)  Cheers my friends. 

[BMAC615 205]

Appreciate the comprehensive summary @fcajump. Regarding the low openings w/ a BASE canopy, TSO’d dual parachute systems exist that would allow a BASE canopy to be used. I made the statement because there are some who have equipment, training and experience of doing so who are also willing to accept the risk of opening <2.5k feet but USPA won’t allow it except on a case by case basis. 

What I’ve gathered is this and other BSRs have been put in place when a fatality causing safety problem is identified and there is a simple solution that most everyone is willing to go along with. Do I have that about right?

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

19 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

...What I’ve gathered is this and other BSRs have been put in place when a fatality causing safety problem is identified and there is a simple solution that most everyone is willing to go along with. Do I have that about right?

Can also come from a series of close calls. Not just stuff that kills people, but stuff that hurts them or 'almost kills' them.

This one was a bit more controversial than many, in large part because it seemed to be driven more by the AAD manufacturers than by actual events.

The manufacturers wanted the higher minimum container opening altitudes to reduce the chance of a jumper getting a two-out with higher AAD activation altitudes. 

That's a reasonable thing for them to want.

The reality is that the 750' CYPRES activation altitude is as low as it can be, and that leaves very little room for any sort of opening delay.

 

Reserve pilot chute hesitation?

Freebag hangup for a second?

Thud.

The videos I've seen of AAD fires usually have a reserve ride measured in seconds. And not a lot of them.

I'm good with the higher minimums. 
I have my AAD set higher.

I pull around 3k and always have. 

As I've gone my merry way through the sport, I've seen other people's pull altitudes go up. Most pull at 3500 or higher. So now I feel like the 'crusty old guy' pulling 'dirty low' like I saw the old guys do when I started (but they were pulling 2k or lower).

[fcajump 153]

13 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The reality is that the 750' CYPRES activation altitude is as low as it can be, and that leaves very little room for any sort of opening delay.

My recollection from when the Cypres first came out, Helmut intended it to be as low a possible but still save... he was fighting experienced jumpers who were (with good reason) scared to even be on a load with one, let alone have one on their own rig...  he wanted it to SAVE you, when you WOULD have died, and he needed to minimize (in reality and in his sales pitch) the chance of a two-out.

We did have to possibility of pilot chute hesitation, but I don't think (wasn't a rigger then) that we had quite so many layers/complexity/tight corners/curves to the reserve container with such tight packjobs.  (Councilman / Jerry?)

Of course, this was also when his advertisements pointed out that the only visible part was the control unit, and it was so small and tucked away that only your rigger would know you had one.  Shhhhhh.....

VERY different world now, and mostly due to his efforts to make a new generation of AAD, not simple another AAD.  (yes, I'm a fan.  bought my first one in 1991, bought my 6th (7th?) one last week.)

JW

 

Edited October 7, 2022 by fcajump

[Bokdrol 40]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I have my AAD set higher.

Got my Cypres 2 set at 1050 (shows 3 on the display next to the 0). Extra 300' might just help one day....

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

1 hour ago, fcajump said:

My recollection from when the Cypres first came out, Helmut intended it to be as low a possible but still save... he was fighting experienced jumpers who were (with good reason) scared to even be on a load with one, let alone have one on their own rig...  he wanted it to SAVE you, when you WOULD have died, and he needed to minimize (in reality and in his sales pitch) the chance of a two-out.

We did have to possibility of pilot chute hesitation, but I don't think (wasn't a rigger then) that we had quite so many layers/complexity/tight corners/curves to the reserve container with such tight packjobs.  (Councilman / Jerry?)

Of course, this was also when his advertisements pointed out that the only visible part was the control unit, and it was so small and tucked away that only your rigger would know you had one.  Shhhhhh.....

VERY different world now, and mostly due to his efforts to make a new generation of AAD, not simple another AAD.  (yes, I'm a fan.  bought my first one in 1991, bought my 6th (7th?) one last week.)

JW

 

Hi Jim,

Re:  (Councilman / Jerry?)

Well, since you asked.

I sat in on Helmut's very first presentation at the Symposium, where he introduced his new CYPRES.  I seem to remember it being the '93 Symposium; but you say you [ bought my first one in 1991 ], so I might be wrong & it was the '91 Symposium.

His English was somewhat poor, but he was able to get his presentation across & completed adequately.

Later, during that Symposium, I ran into him in the hallway & we got to discussing his AAD.  We ended up back in his room where he showed me some stuff that he was working on; i.e., a student version was one thing.

I 'think' that when he developed his AAD, most people were still jumping round reserves.  I also 'think' this is why he used the 750 ft firing altitude.  I also 'think' that he was the first AAD mfr to suggest the higher firing altitude; I could easily be wrong on this.

The very last conversation that I had with Ted Strong, he asked me what I thought about discussions on the various firing altitudes.  Since Ted & I both went back to the days of the Sentinel AAD, we were in agreement that the firing altitude should go up.

Since jumpers today have the opportunity to choose [ somewhat ] what firing altitude they want their AAD to fire at, it is probably a mood point now.  Most of the guys I know, have gone to the higher firing altitude.

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 558]

38 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

" ... I 'think' that when he developed his AAD, most people were still jumping round reserves.  I also 'think' this is why he used the 750 ft firing altitude.  ... "

1991 saw huge changes in skydiving gear: electronic AADs, square reserves, zero-porosity fabric, zero-stretch suspension lines, hip rings, tuck tabs, BOC, etc.

1991 was during the transition period from round reserves to square reserves. The acid-mesh problem hit around 1986 so skydivers rushed to replace their round reserves with square reserves. Acid-mesh deteriorated round reserves and pilot-chutes, but not square canopies. Also consider that most schools had converted from military-surplus rounds to new-made square mains, so some students had never seen a round in the air. Both USPA and CSPA changed their BSRs to include "large, docile, square mains" by 1991. Schools hung onto their old, round reserves until around 2000.

By 1991, major dealers (e.g. Square One in Perris Valley, California) quit selling new round reserves and only grudgingly accepted old round reserves on consignment ... because they knew that were selling slowly.

[fcajump 153]

On 10/7/2022 at 3:23 PM, riggerrob said:

1991 saw huge changes in skydiving gear:

My first jump was 1990, Strong Student Hawk, Goliath (330^' spanwise square) with a 26' lopo reserve.  Someone at the DZ was talking after the 1991 Symp about this new Cypres AAD and the demo that Helmut did to show its accuracy, so I was impressed with that.  Then, as I'm spec'ing my first rig later that year I had a reserve ride at a different DZ and it cemented a couple things...  

I learned about the Sentinal's firing range (jokingly it was set for 1500' +/- 1500') when it fired higher than expected (though I beat it, it seemed very early).  And at this DZ they used ramair reserves which is the ONLY reason I was able to make a ball field rather than "hanging" out in the woods.

While my shiny new Vector II had the line stow anchor points in the reserve backpad, it never had a round packed in it.  But it did have that new fangled AAD.
 

I benefited both by the revolution in gear, but also by being instructed by old-school.  Saw them spot a load where a student ended up under their 26' lopo.  The bag-locked main D-bag landed 50 yards in front of the hanger and the first jump student (on radio) dead-centered the peas.  Spotting was a skill not ignored.  (Recently held up a WDI and asked a new instructor if he knew what "this" is... and he had never seen one before, much less used one.)

JW

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

5 hours ago, fcajump said:

My first jump was 1990, Strong Student Hawk, Goliath (330^' spanwise square) with a 26' lopo reserve.  Someone at the DZ was talking after the 1991 Symp about this new Cypres AAD and the demo that Helmut did to show its accuracy, so I was impressed with that.  Then, as I'm spec'ing my first rig later that year I had a reserve ride at a different DZ and it cemented a couple things...  

I learned about the Sentinal's firing range (jokingly it was set for 1500' +/- 1500') when it fired higher than expected (though I beat it, it seemed very early).  And at this DZ they used ramair reserves which is the ONLY reason I was able to make a ball field rather than "hanging" out in the woods.

While my shiny new Vector II had the line stow anchor points in the reserve backpad, it never had a round packed in it.  But it did have that new fangled AAD.
 

I benefited both by the revolution in gear, but also by being instructed by old-school.  Saw them spot a load where a student ended up under their 26' lopo.  The bag-locked main D-bag landed 50 yards in front of the hanger and the first jump student (on radio) dead-centered the peas.  Spotting was a skill not ignored.  (Recently held up a WDI and asked a new instructor if he knew what "this" is... and he had never seen one before, much less used one.)

JW

 

Hi Jim,

'Back in the day,' at different times, I owned two Sentinels.  One was built into an altimeter & the other, later version, had just an On/Off switch.  Back then a few other guys had Sentinels also.  Every one of them was set at the factory to fire at 1,000 ft AGL when zeroed out.

Now, that is not to say that, upon request, Snyder might set one at a higher firing altitude.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,294]

On 9/29/2022 at 4:52 PM, 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.

Bingo. You get an extra cookie tonight.

[davenuk 7]

On 10/7/2022 at 6:53 PM, Bokdrol said:

Got my Cypres 2 set at 1050 (shows 3 on the display next to the 0). Extra 300' might just help one day....

i forgot my rigger had done this as I hadnt asked him to. (i think it's a general advisory now).

he did tell me he had but i forgot and returned it to him because it was flashing "E".

*facepalm*

on the subject of WL - BS in the uk have implemented a new minimum canopy size chart by jump numbers a la francaise.