USPA BOD... Nothing more than a mouth piece for manufacturers

[Ron 7]

Quote

How many jumpers do you know who are comfortable in freefall at 1600 or 1500ft? I don't know many, but those I do are old timers who came up back when pulling at 1500ft (or lower) was no big deal. The reason being that they were told in the beginning that 1500ft was 'ok' as a pull altitude, and thus have based their thinking off that number. If they had a mal at 2k, they be cool as a cucumber. If they had a mal at 1500ft, it would be business as usual, while a mal at 1k would put them in 'panic mode'.

So what you want to do is raise the altitude that the new generation of jumpers will 'panic'??? That seems like a bad idea. I mean we have jumpers now that think pulling at 2.5 is 'death'. So we want to make the next generation afraid to pull below 3?

Quote

This change is not about you or me, it's about future jumpers. This change might also be about manufacturers interest, but I still don't see how jumpers and manufacturers are necessarily on opposite sides of the aisle.

It is bad when the BOD is siding with the manufacturers against the membership... Time after time after time.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Bignugget 0]

Southern_Man

***>The manufacturers are not required to test new rig designs for TSO compliance before
>putting them to market as being in compliance with the TSO's?

>They are just using the TSO on some rig that passed in the 90s?

>How/Why is this allowed?

They can make minor alterations without retesting. (And of course they get to define what "minor" means.)

I believe (but am open for correction) that Vector 3s are being manufactured under a wonderhog TSO.

Mirage, (again I also believe but am open to correction) is using a TSO from the 1980s which shares little to nothing with the modern Mirage container.


I must be missing why you guys are all ok with this...


because the containers are so cheap now?? you don't want the price to increase from actual safety testing? (lol)...

I can't really understand how they even get away with that. You can't NOT test the 2014 Mustang for safety standards just because the 1980 Mustang passed....and after all its still a Mustang!

Scary shit. You literally have no idea if it will actually deploy within the guidelines.....fuckin scary.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

It's a paper rule, one that AAD manufacturers can dismiss some liability with, and I get that.

It is not just the AAD manufacturers.

PD has a the OPT reserve which takes longer to open which PD self admitted in their first ads.

Wings has issues with reserve pilot chutes not getting the freebag out... several videos out there of this.

The list goes on....

PIA needs to address these issues, but hey, it's "the fox guarding the hen house" scenario.



MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[ChrisD 0]

Divalent

***... if the sensor, software, or whatever in the AAD system 'glitches' and then fires at a true altitude of ( let's say ) 400 ft because of this 'glitch', then I would expect that the data that gets downloaded would say that the unit fired at 750 ft +- some tolerance because of this glitch still being in the system; not at the true altitude of 400 ft. ...

But in that case, the data should also show them coming to an abrupt stop at 350 AGL; so at least the data would show the error. (One wonders if AirTec will ever release the data from those units.)

What is and what isn't recorded is a question that a lot of us have been asking of late. This really deserves its own post.

Thanks for the question / comment. It is something that I forgot about...the sudden stop.

I was referencing my observations again that many people want to believe in the utter un-failability of these devices. We really do....

Jerry, I love that man,... even points out above, the improbability of two units failing at the same time! But in the real world statistically /probability wize this unfourtunate outcome is actually very probable!

It's us humans that attribute reliability to a machine. And it's this same mechanism that's driving this argument that Ron is pointing out.

But your point is an excellent one...I too would like to see some plain English explanations of what is recorded and what isn't and as well I would like some reliability numbers on these sensors. I just don't trust the fact that one day we can jump in water and the next day find out that the unit needs to go back to the factory. I also, cause I'm paranoid, don't like the idea that a sensor can supposedly function for 14 years, like it did from day one....And I use one of the blasted things....


All in all this discussion takes away in terms of time, the amount of time we could spend practicing our EP's and not just on Safety day.

Do ya see, in a sense what is going on?? We are trading personal responsibility, in the form of practicing and learning and rehersing, for reliance on a device. This isn't an elevator that we trust is going to work each and every time. Although many devices have an excellent safety record. I recall the early Apollo near disaster, caused by one programmers thoughts that two radar systems wouldn't be left on at the same time....

Lots to think about....

Too much stuff is hidden in my opinion before we start mandating rule changes. If these companies want to be more transparent, by releasing their software, I'm sure a few of us would dive into the theory of operation , which is probably why they arnt doin it....
C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[Southern_Man 0]

Bignugget

I must be missing why you guys are all ok with this...


because the containers are so cheap now?? you don't want the price to increase from actual safety testing? (lol)...

I can't really understand how they even get away with that. You can't NOT test the 2014 Mustang for safety standards just because the 1980 Mustang passed....and after all its still a Mustang!

Scary shit. You literally have no idea if it will actually deploy within the guidelines.....fuckin scary.

Who says we are OK with it?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

masterrigger1

Quote

It's a paper rule, one that AAD manufacturers can dismiss some liability with, and I get that.

It is not just the AAD manufacturers.

PD has a the OPT reserve which takes longer to open which PD self admitted in their first ads.

Wings has issues with reserve pilot chutes not getting the freebag out... several videos out there of this.

The list goes on....

PIA needs to address these issues, but hey, it's "the fox guarding the hen house" scenario.



MEL

Honestly MEL, I see it as more of an FAA issue than PIA. They are the ones who TSO the rigs.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Ron,

Quote

The time between ripcord pull and the loop being cut should be the same.

I agree. But that is not the issue that I was posting about.

Quote

1. When were these rigs TSO'd?
a) Javelin
b) Vector
c) Mirage

Just a WAG:

Javelin - ~ 1990 or so
Vector - 1974
Mirage - ~ 1978 or so

One other thing to give some thought to: When Helmut developed his CYPRES with a firing altitude of 750 ft, most rigs had round reserves in them, not the square reserves that are nearly 100% today.

JerryBaumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Ron,

Sorry, I missed this with my previous response:

Quote

Because for the life of me, I can't recall a single AAD fire that resulted in a bounce that was not easily explained (battery issue, set wrong.... Etc).

The two Icelanders at Z-Hills back in March come to mind for me.

JerryBaumchen

[Remster 24]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Ron,

Sorry, I missed this with my previous response:

Quote

Because for the life of me, I can't recall a single AAD fire that resulted in a bounce that was not easily explained (battery issue, set wrong.... Etc).

The two Icelanders at Z-Hills back in March come to mind for me.

JerryBaumchen

Ron's point was "way back then at the start of the Cypres years"

Remster

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Ken,

Quote

They are the ones who TSO the rigs.

Please do not think I am trying to be negative towards you. I am only trying put forth some information.

The FAA does not "TSO the rigs.' The mfr does; heck, the FAA does not even come out to watch any of the testing.

One of my very first posts on this site was about Minor Changes and the Wonderhog/Vector III. If I knew how to use the Search function better I might be able to find that post.

The FAA allows Minor Changes to certificated equipment, not just parachute equipment. It is a 'sort of' self-certifying system. When submitting a Minor Change the mfr has to state something like this:

"I certify that this Minor Change to the Model X Parachute Container complies with all of the requirements the original TSO-authorization."

At that point it would be up to the FAA to refute what the mfr says. And IMO this will never happen.

Back when I was still a working engineer we called them 'creeping design changes' and they take place all over the world with just about every device invented/developed by mankind.

It is how it is. Ever wonder about the changes that have been made to that air bag you sit behind? Ever wonder about when it was first certificated?

It ain't just parachutes, fella.



JerryBaumchen

PS) For those that would like to learn a fair amount about the whole TSO system without reading 11,253 pages of FAA gobbledegook, I have attached the first page of a TSO Guide. At one time you could buy a copy of this from Dan Poynter; drop him a email and see if he still sells it.

[faulknerwn 36]

I believe it was 2 years ago when USPA sent out a mass email about the subject because they had 19 ish cases at the time where the AAD fired but the reserve did not come out in time..

[Bolas 5]

So what you're saying is that the government agency that's in charge of regulation is not enforcing the regulations and the companies are doing as they please.

Sure sounds familiar, more false security from our government.

[yoink 321]

***
It ain't just parachutes, fella.




Too right Jerry. Most big medical machines now bear little or no resemblance to the one the original license was granted for!

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Bolas,

Quote

So what you're saying is that the government agency that's in charge of regulation is not enforcing the regulations and the companies are doing as they please.

That is not what I said.

On a personal basis, I do not believe that the FAA regulates parachute. I am very sure that the FAA Administrator would disagree with me.

JerryBaumchen

PS) It is my understanding that Bill Booth, for one, would prefer that the FAA get completely out of 'regulating' parachutes. Give him a call and see what he says.

[Bolas 5]

That'd be fine by me if they let us truly self regulate. Our various orgs, USPA, PIA, etc. could decide on standards and methods of enforcing them. They'd also be able to change them if they felt updates were necessary. Or choose to have none. Caveat Emptor.

The problem comes when a government agency is supposed to regulate something but doesn't enforce/update those regulations. This leads to them being ignored and gives people a false sense of security.

[billvon 2,396]

>So what you're saying is that the government agency that's in charge of regulation
>is not enforcing the regulations . . ..

No, they are enforcing the regulations. And the regulations say that if you make a minor change you don't have to retest. (Note that rig designers are testing their rigs constantly, although they don't generally re-do the TSO testing for new generations of their rigs.)

Keep in mind that when the FAA needs to figure out rigging issues they don't go to their FAA government rigging director. They go to Bill Booth, Sandy Reid, Allen Silver etc.

[diablopilot 2]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Chris,

Quote

What a AAD reports as history...May, OR NOT, reflect reality...

In other words the AAD reports, records, what its' sensor and clock calculate to be the firing altitude. This may not be the actual altitude.

My point being that too many just accept the recorded data as the actual altitude that the unit fired at. All you can say is:

"That the unit recorded this or that altitude..."

You cannot say that the unit recorded the actual, physical altitude, in the real world.

Just two weeks ago some of us were discussing the dual fatalities in Z-Hills/the Icelanders. As I said then, that if the sensor, software, or whatever in the AAD system 'glitches' and then fires at a true altitude of ( let's say ) 400 ft because of this 'glitch', then I would expect that the data that gets downloaded would say that the unit fired at 750 ft +- some tolerance because of this glitch still being in the system; not at the true altitude of 400 ft.

IMO it is very possible ( but mostly not probable ) that this 'could' have happened at Z-Hills. I say 'mostly not probable' because two AAD units doing the exact same thing at the same time is very, very improbable; but not impossible.

Just a thought or two; looks like we think alike on at least one issue.

Just before I retired, I remember some of newer engineers ( who had never seen a slide rule ) had absolute faith in the results that the computer programs they were using were giving them. That was until one of the 'older' fellas stopped and showed them their mistakes.

JerryBaumchen

That entire diatribe is mute when you remember the ultimate cause of the fatality.

"The failure of the jumper(s) in question to deploy a parachute in a timely fashion."

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diablopilot 2]

SStewart

***

Not a bad idea. I don't want to be taken out by a drunk skydiver any more than I do a drunk driver.

Agreed! What if I jump in Colorado? or maybe Washington?

b. any drug that affects that person’s faculties in any way contrary to safety.

Why do we open cans of worms? what benefit is this to the MEMBERSHIP of USPA?

The point you're leading to is the one that is being missed by most.

The more regulation over a "self supervising" sport that negates personal responsibility the larger the legal exposure becomes. The BOD which has an apparent lack of legal experience or council continues to write verbiage and policy that WILL be read in court rooms at some point.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[ChrisD 0]

I know we hijacked this a bit, and your absoulutly correct about the real root cause of this fatality being the fact they jumped out of an aircraft...

We kind of jumped to some of the issues behind the scenes, that have Ron so fired up, and rightly so....

Maybe some of the BOD are tired, judging by some of the attendance figures and the lack of quorum on various occasions...

They are quick to point out the costs of attendance though...


Anyways I support anything that can foster more participation in this process considering the apathy that exisists.

I'll point out that much of what our founding fathers in the early stages of our government were designed to foster citizen participation over politico bullshite. In order to oppose tyranny!

I do wish someone would come up with some specific stuff to rally against,...but I think this is at the heart of the OP's point, not much specifics are coming out as compared with the resignation to just go with the flow and follow the dinosaurs.

C

I like your views on the self supervising aspect of this sport and I agree whole heartedly, I disagree on your definitions of individual responsibility, but I get your point. Apples and oranges I think. But we are already on that slippery slope. With the lawer's and such,... we lost. On the other hand some of those dinosaurs do what they can to protect their investment and employees. Same outcome, different methods, different reasons....what's good for Mirage is generally good for skydiving....our ultimate end goal is the same. Perhaps it's time for the Cain Mutiny scene:

"Below is a link to one of my favorite scenes from one of my favorite movies. It’s the scene at the end of “The Caine Mutiny,” where LT Barney Greenwald (played by Jose Ferrer) lectures the officers of the Caine about how they let down the commanding officer they mutinied against. When I watch it now, kind of makes me think about the Republicans in the Congress FROM THE DAY OBAMA TOOK OFFICE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKeISsYKROI "

Don't bother with the link, They actually did take it away at the request of some political organization...


Sink or swim, do somthin,...cause if we don't our link is going to go away...


In the BOD's defense I do recall this coming up at some dz's safety day when the local came to visit. I didn't think they were referencing c and d holders.

At this point since a reminder that...

Point out the waiver'ability of this by the local dz rats....

and it dosen't take effect until the USPA pays the printer...

I will be counting the days to see if Vigil actually comes out with firing height changes at this point?

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[Deisel 35]

The argument was that until someone actually exits an aircraft in flight while intoxicated, they have not broken any rules. This would include getting on the manifest, gearing up, and riding to altitude. All now against the rules.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[Ron 7]

Deisel

The argument was that until someone actually exits an aircraft in flight while intoxicated, they have not broken any rules. This would include getting on the manifest, gearing up, and riding to altitude. All now against the rules.

FAR 121.575 does not allow a pilot to take up a drunk pax.
FAR 91.17 does not allow a pilot to take up a drunk or drugged pax.
FAR 91.15 does not allow dropping of objects that creates a hazard to persons or property.

We don't need a BSR to cover this, since it is clearly covered by FAR's

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Feeblemind 1]

USPA Raises Minimum Deployment Altitude
by Ed Scott

One of the actions arising from last week’s meeting of the USPA Board will raise the minimum deployment altitude for C- and D-license holders in the Basic Safety Requirements from the current 2,000 feet to 2,500 feet. The board had discussed this idea at previous meetings, and it has now come to the conclusion that the change will save lives.

Since 2001, there have been nine fatalities—two of them this year—associated with low reserve deployments after automatic activation device activations, most of them at line-stretch. In each case, the AAD activated at the proper altitude. There are a variety of factors that can interfere with a timely reserve deployment, among them a jumper’s body position, a weak pilot chute spring, a low-drag pilot chute, a pilot chute caught in the jumper’s burble, a bridle that briefly snags on something or a tight reserve container that slows extraction. And while it is often impossible to determine whether any of these factors were present in these accidents, what is known is that if there had been only another second or two, we could have asked the jumper what happened. Clearly, an AAD-activation altitude higher than the current 840 feet for one product and 750 feet for another may have provided those precious extra seconds.

But the AAD manufacturers had a dilemma: They couldn’t increase their activation altitudes if the BSR allows a 2,000-foot altitude for initiating deployment. If jumpers deployed at 2,000 feet and waited on main canopy inflation or fought a malfunction while going through 1,000 feet, then low-altitude two-canopy-out scenarios or worse, main-reserve entanglements, would become more likely. Raising the minimum altitude for C- and D-licensees to 2,500 feet provides more time for the main to open or for a jumper to enact emergency procedures before the AAD activates and, hopefully, now at an altitude that helps ensure a fully-inflated reserve canopy.

Yes, most jumpers already deploy higher than 2,500 feet; you almost have to if you are complying with the long-standing Skydiver’s Information Manual recommendation for B through D licensees to enact emergency procedures by 1,800 feet, especially with today’s slow-opening main canopies that are quick to go into a hell-bent spin. But some jumpers still deploy below 2,500 feet, sometimes for good reason. To allow those good reasons, the board motion allows Safety and Training Advisors to waive the BSR on a jump-specific basis. If there is a low ceiling and the airplane can’t get above 2,500 feet for low exits or accuracy jumps or if the same low ceiling threatens a demo or if the big-way attempts need a little more room at the bottom to ensure adequate separation, then the S&TA simply waives those specific jumps from the BSR. There is no required paperwork or time spent waiting on someone else’s approval. However, DZ-wide or season-long waivers are not the intent. Otherwise why enact a rule that could be universally waived?

Finally, USPA isn’t ignoring the tight-rig issue. Back in 2010, USPA formally asked the Parachute Industry Association to research the accidents in which the container design may have infringed on reserve deployment. The PIA committee tasked to do so is also setting up testing protocols to try to identify rig designs and components that have the potential to inhibit reserve deployment. We continue to monitor PIA’s progress and look forward to seeing continued improvement in rig design.

Ed Scott
Executive Director

So if my math is correct and assuming a conservative 2 million jumps per year since 2001 (22,000,000/9 fatalities) your chance of this occurring is .00000041%!! Seems pretty silly to make this BSR.

Fire Safety Tip: Don't fry bacon while naked

[yoink 321]

Feeblemind

USPA Raises Minimum Deployment Altitude
by Ed Scott



Finally, USPA isn’t ignoring the tight-rig issue. Back in 2010, USPA formally asked the Parachute Industry Association to research the accidents in which the container design may have infringed on reserve deployment. The PIA committee tasked to do so is also setting up testing protocols to try to identify rig designs and components that have the potential to inhibit reserve deployment. We continue to monitor PIA’s progress and look forward to seeing continued improvement in rig design.

Ed Scott
Executive Director

Are there progress milestones and timescales for this process? 3 years seems like a fairly long time for a limited piece of research...

Have any interim results been published?

[Deisel 35]

Just passing along the 'for' argument as it was presented to the BOD. BTW - This all came from Mike Mullins.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Finally, USPA isn’t ignoring the tight-rig issue. Back in 2010, USPA formally asked the Parachute Industry Association to research the accidents in which the container design may have infringed on reserve deployment.

"Formally *asked*"

Three years later..... Nothing.

Once again, the USPA does nothing that the PIA or manufacturers do not want.

How about the USPA list the rigs that have had problems and then tell the manufacturer that those rigs are GROUNDED till the manufacturer shows they have done all the testing and the righ has still met the TSO standard? That will never happen, but would also fix the problem.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334