Decision Alt vs Hard Deck

[fcajump 153]

(continuing from thoughts in https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/279585-fatality-24-sept-2022-skydive-carolina/)

Really thinking about what you've said, my point of clarity in what we say, and how that leads to how we think... and what actions come from the words/thoughts...

Maybe (open for discussion), we need two _different_ altitudes in mind:

Decision Altitude - I don't have a landable main, I am going to stop trying to fix it and get rid of it in favor of my reserve.

Hard Deck - I don't have a landable main NOR the altitude to cutaway.  I am going to take whatever action I have to (by the book or not) to get my decent rate down as much as I can.  (mid-air rigging, cutting the line over, cutting the jammed brakeline that is knotted, adding the reserve to the mess, etc...)

We tend to use the terms interchangeably, but maybe we shouldn't.  (that I've heard expressed that way)
While I am NOT wanting to add more complexity to the FJC, but there are many things we pass on to jumpers later in their career... maybe this is one of them.

Does anyone teach these as two different concepts/terms/altitudes?

Obviously, if you don't have a landable main, and its not going to get better (or... if its getting worse), even if you are above "decision altitude", I would agree with the adage "Don't Delay, Cutaway!!"

JW

 

 

[sfzombie13 307]

to me, and the way i was trained, it ain't rocket science.  decision altitude is the lowest altitude you can get to and make a decision.  hard deck has nothing to do with decisions, no more decisions can be made and you do not cut away below the hard deck.  notice that decision is not in the equation, or if it is, it is only to be made completely clear that a decision is not to be made.  you can pull your reserve, and maybe should in some cases, but you cannot under any circumstances cut away.  i thought everyone taught this.  it should be taught this way.  all credit to the instructors at wv skydivers for that if it's unique. 

Edited October 27, 2022 by sfzombie13
typo

[pchapman 261]

I seem to recall we had this big discussion about unclear terminology for hard decks & decision altitudes & cutaways a few years back on dropzone too.

That was in 2018 and back then I referenced the previous big discussion about it in 2014. Stay tuned I guess for a 2026 discussion.

2018 discussion: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/262736-malfunctions-below-your-hard-deck

[Edit *2 : Looks like the 2018 discussion only touches on the unclear terminology. The 2014 also only has limited discussion on this particular subject, so it isn't like it is a good reference.  So I've crossed both links off but left them in here.]

2014 discussion: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/227-hard-deck/

I haven't yet gone back to read all that yet!

I had written: "At least when I checked and posted in 2014, the USPA doesn't define either term." [Edit: See chuckakers below -- there seems to be a definition now]

If we still don't have a good definition from say the USPA that we can start to try following, then we'll just have to be more specific about whatever hard deck or decision altitude we are talking about at any given time.

It sounds like one option that some people like is the "decision altitude" for the higher level, and "hard deck" for the lower level.  Or we need to additionally add more info --  "malfunction decision height" and "cutaway hard deck".  With the obvious caveat that if one is below the decision altitude, one still needs to make a decision. And indeed make a decision if below the hard deck, but a different kind of decision not involving a cut-away.

It takes a little work to explain clearly and unambiguously for the newbies without sounding like the Fandango instructor....

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by pchapman

[chuckakers 370]

From the USPA Skydiver's Information Manual:

DECISION ALTITUDE: A predetermined
altitude at which you must decide and act
during an emergency.

HARD DECK: A predetermined altitude
above which an action must occur or below
which an action must not occur. In rating
courses, it indicates a minimum altitude by
which a certain maneuver must be performed
in order to get credit for the action.

No need to guess or invent definitions when there are accepted ones already in use.

[pchapman 261]

Good stuff to see the USPA definitions.

They are still very general and need instructors to fill in what they really mean in practice.

The Decision Altitude needs the added discussion about how we're usually talking about whether to cut away (rather than than taking some other action), and the ability to make a decision both before that altitude, and after it, if you unfortunately get to that point.

The Hard Deck according to the USPA can be used for various types of minimum altitudes, so if being specific one would need to talk about someones cut away hard deck for example, rather than hard deck in general.

Edit: Using the USPA definitions,  one's decision altitude for finishing deciding whether to chop a malfunction can also be one's hard deck for fighting a malfunction!    I think we just have to be a little more specific if talking about these things to an audience where something may be misinterpreted.

Edited October 27, 2022 by pchapman

[sfzombie13 307]

18 minutes ago, chuckakers said:

From the USPA Skydiver's Information Manual:

DECISION ALTITUDE: A predetermined
altitude at which you must decide and act
during an emergency.

HARD DECK: A predetermined altitude
above which an action must occur or below
which an action must not occur. In rating
courses, it indicates a minimum altitude by
which a certain maneuver must be performed
in order to get credit for the action.

No need to guess or invent definitions when there are accepted ones already in use.

yeah, that's as clear as mud.  does it apply to cut away? 

[nwt 131]

I have an altitude below which I won't cut away. Having another one for "decision" doesn't make much sense to me, it seems redundant, more complex, and without benefit.

[riggerrob 558]

We teach a simplified definition to first jump students, especially S/L or IAD students. "Count to 5 and look up. Is it there? Is it square? Is it flying straight? Can you turn it? Can you flare it?"

If the answer to any of those question is no, then look at the right side of your chest and grab the red handle .... The sooner and higher you make this decision, the better. Any delay in releasing a malfunctioning main just reduces your chances of survival."

I do not waste time telling them to look at their altimeters. If they do, I remind them that USPA (used to) recommend deciding to cutaway about 1,800 feet.

 

[riggerrob 558]

I disagree with the notion of only deploying a reserve if you find yourself below altitude "X."

That tactic may have been relevant when round reserves were fashionable, but when was the last time you saw a round reserve in opened in the air?

[sundevil777 93]

9 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

yeah, that's as clear as mud.  does it apply to cut away? 

The use of the terminology hard deck and decision altitude should be avoided. So many convinced of what it obviously should mean but it isn't so obvious.

[nwt 131]

1 minute ago, sundevil777 said:

The use of the terminology hard deck and decision altitude should be avoided. So many convinced of what it obviously should mean but it isn't so obvious.

I strongly agree. "I won't cut away below XXXX" is easy enough to say.

[sfzombie13 307]

15 hours ago, riggerrob said:

I disagree with the notion of only deploying a reserve if you find yourself below altitude "X."

That tactic may have been relevant when round reserves were fashionable, but when was the last time you saw a round reserve in opened in the air?

i had one four years ago, 24 foot conical actually, not really round but it was pretty and worked great.  may have been a bit longer than that, covid time messed me up. 

i think they are talking about not cutting away below altitude x, not waiting that long to deploy the reserve or waiting to cutaway.  honestly, i never once found it confusing and i screwed up almost everything as a student at one time or another.  decision altitude was 2500 ft, when you get there, make a decision.  hard deck is 1500 ft.  when you get there you don't make a decision, you ride in what you've got out.  some cases you want more fabric out, some cases you don't. 

technically that's a decision, but not the decision we are talking about, so i can see the confusion.  either way, my definition is way more clear than the one uspa has.  i couldn't even tell what they were talking about in the definition. 

[chuckakers 370]

18 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

yeah, that's as clear as mud.  does it apply to cut away? 

Not sure what you find unclear.

DECISION ALTITUDE: A predetermined
altitude at which you must decide and act
during an emergency.

Meaning the altitude at which a jumper should make the decision that action must be taken and take it. Example - the (minimum) altitude at which a jumper would decide to cut away and deploy a reserve.

HARD DECK: A predetermined altitude
above which an action must occur or below
which an action must not occur.

Meaning the altitude at which it is no longer safe to take an action one would normally take at or above the decision altitude. Example - a jumper rides a malfunction to an altitude so low that it is no longer safe to cut away (hard deck) and a different action would be appropriate, like deploying a reserve without cutting away, attempting a canopy transfer, etc.

 

[pchapman 261]

Except on their own the definitions ARE unclear. But the definitions are still useful ...  if given sufficient explanation and put in the right context.

"Which decision altitude? For aircraft emergency bailout or what?    No, we're talking about your malfunction decision altitude."

"What hard deck?  For last CRW dock? For last novice freefall maneuver initiation?  For dealing with a malfunction (i.e., same as the malfunction decision altitude, as long as one isn't already below it)?      No, we're talking about your cutaway hard deck. "

And if you have a 2000' decision altitude, you don't HAVE to ride a mal down to the 2000' decision altitude. And if you are at 1800', you can still make that decision to cutaway. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by pchapman

[chuckakers 370]

2 hours ago, pchapman said:

Except on their own the definitions ARE unclear. But the definitions are still useful ...  if given sufficient explanation and put in the right context.

"Which decision altitude? For aircraft emergency bailout or what?    No, we're talking about your malfunction decision altitude."

"What hard deck?  For last CRW dock? For last novice freefall maneuver initiation?  For dealing with a malfunction (i.e., same as the malfunction decision altitude, as long as one isn't already below it)?      No, we're talking about your cutaway hard deck. "

And if you have a 2000' decision altitude, you don't HAVE to ride a mal down to the 2000' decision altitude. And if you are at 1800', you can still make that decision to cutaway. 

Good points. The decision altitude definition does reference emergencies and since it says "must" it can be implied that above that altitude a jumper still has other options like continuing to work on a mal, get out of a wrap, etc.

As for the hard deck definition, I think that can be applied to any altitude-specific scenario like bailing out of an aircraft, chopping a mal, etc.

This could be better stated. I will pass this along to S&T for a possible rewrite.

Thanks for the input. Much appreciated.

[sfzombie13 307]

that's what i'm talking about here, it doesn't even say cutaway.  it could be a lot more clear.  decision altitude - last chance to make a decision, if you have not cutaway, do it now or don't do it at all.  hard deck - do not cut away below this altitude.  if you need to deploy your reserve, do not cutaway, just deploy it.  why can it really not be this simple and clear?  it could at least mention cutaway in both of them.

 

edit:  i posted this just a tad after the other one above. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by sfzombie13

[sundevil777 93]

36 minutes ago, chuckakers said:

Good points. The decision altitude definition does reference emergencies and since it says "must" it can be implied that above that altitude a jumper still has other options like continuing to work on a mal, get out of a wrap, etc.

As for the hard deck definition, I think that can be applied to any altitude-specific scenario like bailing out of an aircraft, chopping a mal, etc.

This could be better stated. I will pass this along to S&T for a possible rewrite.

Thanks for the input. Much appreciated.

The definitions should be dropped, new terms used, not revised.  The OP showed us very clearly how the confusion has defied efforts at clarification.  Let us learn the lesson and stop trying.  

[riggerrob 558]

Perhaps we should define it as "make your decision above/before altitude "X"."

When teaching S/L or IAD first-jump-students, I keep things as simple as possible and just tell them that the higher they decide, the better.

Perhaps the block of instruction needs to be re-visited multiple times during a jumpers' career. Is an emergency procedures review required before every new USPA license? The decision-making tree can get more complicated as jumpers acquire more hundreds of jumps.

Edited October 28, 2022 by riggerrob

[nwt 131]

4 hours ago, pchapman said:

And if you have a 2000' decision altitude, you don't HAVE to ride a mal down to the 2000' decision altitude. And if you are at 1800', you can still make that decision to cutaway. 

Exactly. "Do it at this altitude. Or higher. Or lower". Useless.

1 hour ago, sfzombie13 said:

decision altitude - last chance to make a decision, if you have not cutaway, do it now or don't do it at all.  hard deck - do not cut away below this altitude.

Those two definitions sound exactly the same to me

[chuckakers 370]

1 hour ago, sundevil777 said:

The definitions should be dropped, new terms used, not revised.  The OP showed us very clearly how the confusion has defied efforts at clarification.  Let us learn the lesson and stop trying.  

If you have sincere suggestions, I recommend you (and everyone else) put your thoughts into an email and send it to Ron Bell, director of safety and training. I would also cc Michael Watkins, chair of the safety and training committee on the board.

The vast majority of everything in the SIM, the governance manual, and the other documents published by USPA come from the field. We rely on this input and ideas from the membership to hone our documentation. It's a group effort.

Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts here. It makes all the difference in the world to know our membership and rating holders are engaged.

[nwt 131]

1 hour ago, sundevil777 said:

The definitions should be dropped, new terms used, not revised.

How about "cutaway floor"

[sfzombie13 307]

4 hours ago, nwt said:

 

Those two definitions sound exactly the same to me

but do they both convey the message clearly?

[nwt 131]

17 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

but do they both convey the message clearly?

Yes

[sfzombie13 307]

16 hours ago, nwt said:

Yes

send them both in as suggestions then.  this is one place where legalese is not a good idea.  regular, plain, english is preferred in a case like this.  they can use whatever language they want in waivers, but people can die from a misunderstanding of this.  perhaps it was a link in this chain, but we will never know for sure.

[grimmie 173]

Decision altitudes should be adjusted to circumstances.

 

Am I having a malfunction over the Ranch or Perris? Am I over water or trees?

 

An aircraft emergency bail out  at Eloy or Lost Prairie?

 

Pull altitudes and decision altitudes vary.

 

Hard deck also varies if I’m over hills like at Lost Prairie. Nothing like having a 1,000 ft hard deck over an 800 foot hill.

 

We can’t rely on our electronic devices to save us. We need to train for the circumstances and handle malfunctions quickly.