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

[billvon 2,396]

>Opening times can be determined using a pressure altimeter and video to corroborate.

That's a lot to ask from a pressure altimeter. They are not notably accurate on rapidly moving skydivers. A digital altimeter will regularly see a 300 foot error when moved around a skydiver's body in freefall, for example.

[excaza 1]

billvon

That's a lot to ask from a pressure altimeter. They are not notably accurate on rapidly moving skydivers. A digital altimeter will regularly see a 300 foot error when moved around a skydiver's body in freefall, for example.

Not really. The reason you see errors as you shift it around the body is because you're shifting it between different pressure regions in the wake. If you keep the location of the sensor consistent (like a belly or equipment pouch), you won't see these errors.

It's not going to be the perfect results you'd get from video telemetry or LIDAR systems (both expensive to get time with), but in my experience there is reasonable agreement in the data. Though I wouldn't use it as a primary source, GPS altitude can also be used as a sanity check, the altitudes may not be consistent due to the sensor calibration, but the deltas should be.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi excaza,

Quote

The reason you see errors as you shift it around the body is because you're shifting it between different pressure regions in the wake.

Kick a droptest dummy out of the door a few times. You will quickly learn that they do all kinds of things that you did not expect. Sometimes they stay stable; some times they flip around, a$$ over teakettles. YMMV.

JerryBaumchen

[normiss 622]

Jerry,

Why do you refer to us as "dummies"?



Mark

[excaza 1]

JerryBaumchen

Kick a droptest dummy out of the door a few times. You will quickly learn that they do all kinds of things that you did not expect. Sometimes they stay stable; some times they flip around, a$$ over teakettles. YMMV.

Yes, I'm aware.

[billvon 2,396]

>Not really. The reason you see errors as you shift it around the body is
>because you're shifting it between different pressure regions in the wake. If
>you keep the location of the sensor consistent (like a belly or equipment
>pouch), you won't see these errors.

Agreed. Drop test dummies, however, do not fall "belly to earth."

[3331 108]

USPA News Letter.

http://skydiveuspa.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/uspa-raises-minimum-deployment-altitude/

I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving.

[stratostar 5]

Quote

Once again the USPA BOD proves it is nothing more than a mouth piece doing several gear manufacturers bidding.

The USPA BOD just raised the min pull altitude for 'C' and 'D' license holders from 2,000 feet to 2,500. This was not on any agenda list that I read, and no input from regular skydivers was solicited....

What was done was to bow down to Bill Booth. This action has zero reason unless the next step is to mandate AAD's. And last I recall (it has been a while) Booth had a pretty large stake in the US distribution rights of Vigil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tQuJr5wuvSw#t=336

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[Ron 7]

stratostar

Quote

Once again the USPA BOD proves it is nothing more than a mouth piece doing several gear manufacturers bidding.

The USPA BOD just raised the min pull altitude for 'C' and 'D' license holders from 2,000 feet to 2,500. This was not on any agenda list that I read, and no input from regular skydivers was solicited....

What was done was to bow down to Bill Booth. This action has zero reason unless the next step is to mandate AAD's. And last I recall (it has been a while) Booth had a pretty large stake in the US distribution rights of Vigil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tQuJr5wuvSw#t=336

Thanks, anyone that thinks that the BOD is not following the request of Bill Booth... They need to watch this.

1. Raise the min pull altitudes - Done
2. Keep the tandem age limit at the age to sign waivers - Done.


Just goes to show that the BOD is doing what Booth wants.

I wish that someone would of asked Booth why these AAD fire/bounces have just started to hone in the last few years.

Because logically the only answer is the rigs and reserves are no longer working as TSO'd

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

[billvon 2,396]

>Just goes to show that the BOD is doing what Booth wants.

Good! They have occasionally done what I wanted, and Booth knows a lot more than I do about gear safety.

[Ron 7]

billvon

>Just goes to show that the BOD is doing what Booth wants.

Good! They have occasionally done what I wanted, and Booth knows a lot more than I do about gear safety.

The USPA is supposed to represent the jumpers, not be a mouth piece for the manufacturers

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

[billvon 2,396]

>The USPA is supposed to represent the jumpers, not be a mouth piece for the manufacturers

Right. And in doing so I hope they get their information from the most authoritative sources possible. I would much rather base their decisions on gear-related safety regulation on the advice of Booth, Reid, LeBlanc etc than on popular opinion.

[Ron 7]

billvon

>The USPA is supposed to represent the jumpers, not be a mouth piece for the manufacturers

Right. And in doing so I hope they get their information from the most authoritative sources possible. I would much rather base their decisions on gear-related safety regulation on the advice of Booth, Reid, LeBlanc etc than on popular opinion.

You are intentionally missing the point.

There is a problem now. There was not a problem 10 years ago. Instead of the USPA looking at the reason since it would upset the manufacurers... They instead change the BSR's to make the manufacturers happy.

You can ignore the facts.... That does not make them go away

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

[billvon 2,396]

>There is a problem now. There was not a problem 10 years ago.

Agreed.

>Instead of the USPA looking at the reason since it would upset the manufacurers...

They ARE looking at the reason. They have a formal request in to the PIA for research into it - and the PIA has responded and said they would. They have been publishing information about the problem in Parachutist and in emails to members. And the manufacturers I have talked to have not been upset by these requests/actions.

>They instead change the BSR's to make the manufacturers happy.

They changed the BSR's to try to save skydivers from increasing levels of fatalities from gear problems. Is it the best solution? Probably not. But it is A solution that might save lives.

[Ron 7]

Quote

>Instead of the USPA looking at the reason since it would upset the manufacurers...

They ARE looking at the reason. They have a formal request in to the PIA for research into it - and the PIA has responded and said they would. They have been publishing information about the problem in Parachutist and in emails to members. And the manufacturers I have talked to have not been upset by these requests/actions.

That is because they have not really done anything. You and I have done just as much yet we don't claim to represent jumpers in the US.

They ASKED the PIA to do something.... And gave no time line or repercussion for ignoring the request. So the PIA ignored it. I assume you have been a manager before and this is not the way to handle a situation.... I would think you know that.

They published some info.... Great, how about they publish a feature in 'Parachutist' where they list every combination of gear that has had this happen. Size, make, model, year.

And then maybe they could test some of those combinations to see if they meet the TSO standard? Seen that happen? Nope? I wonder why?

Oh because listing the gear in a feature would upset the manufactures. Testing those combinations would upset the manufacturers.

Yeah, yeah, you are going to claim that testing is expensive... Fine. But why no FEATURE in the MEMBER SUPPORTED magazine listing the combinations that have not worked as advertised?

Quote

They changed the BSR's to try to save skydivers from increasing levels of fatalities from gear problems. Is it the best solution? Probably not. But it is A solution that might save lives.

And finding the issue with reserves not opening in time would save more... To include the people who react slow to a malfunction and cut away below 1000 feet.

I always pegged you for a logical guy.... But you refuse to see that they are ignoring the issue and instead passing rules they HOPE will work.

Simply put:

1. This was not a problem 10 years ago. It is a problem now. You have to identify the real reason to get a real solution.

2. The USPA is supposed to represent the jumpers, not rubber stamp the wishes of a manufacturer.

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

[yoink 321]

Ron,

I agree with everything you say regarding the problems with tight rigs... so do most folk here, I think.

Is there a problem? Probably. Do we need to investigate it? Certainly. Should the USPA be doing more about it? Absolutely.


The bit I can't get in line with is that you take this argument, and then make a leap to 'the USPA is doing what Booth and other manufacturers want' - I know nothing about the other examples you've cited, the tandem waiver for example, but for me, you're pushing this agenda when it doesn't logically fit in this example.

If there is a suspected problem, this raise of minimum deployment altitude is in the members best interests (it may not be the BEST solution, but it helps temporarily). That it was raised by manufacturers, or industry experts is a 'so what?' in my mind.


As we've said before, (and as most people have said) this BSR is only a Band Aid, but is better than doing nothing.
The trick will be to either press the PIA for the research they've promised, or do it ourselves to come up with the BEST solution...

[mark 102]

yoink

I agree with everything you say regarding the problems with tight rigs... so do most folks here, I think.

Most folks agree because it seems intuitively obvious.

Which two harness/container/reserve/AAD combinations would you test first, and why?

Mark

[Ron 7]

Quote

The bit I can't get in line with is that you take this argument, and then make a leap to 'the USPA is doing what Booth and other manufacturers want' - I know nothing about the other examples you've cited, the tandem waiver for example, but for me, you're pushing this agenda when it doesn't logically fit in this example.

Then maybe you should learn about the other issues and then you will see the pattern.

Quote

If there is a suspected problem, this raise of minimum deployment altitude is in the members best interests (it may not be the BEST solution, but it helps temporarily). That it was raised by manufacturers, or industry experts is a 'so what?' in my mind.

This helps a very small subset of skydivers... Currently almost NO ONE since most AADs do not have the new altitude. Then it will only fix the rare person who rides a closed container below 1k feet.

However, it does NOTHING for a person who cuts away low. While those numbers have been included in the numbers of deaths that this was supposed to help prevent.

So it helps manufactures, *might help* a super small percentage of skydivers who have already made more than one mistake, and helps zero skydivers who might have a low bailout or cut away low.

It is a bandaid.... Not even a very good one. What it is very good at is covering up the manufacturers no longer meeting TSO.

It is the only thing this does well

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

[yoink 321]

mark

***I agree with everything you say regarding the problems with tight rigs... so do most folks here, I think.

Most folks agree because it seems intuitively obvious.

Which two harness/container/reserve/AAD combinations would you test first, and why?

Mark

As we discussed earlier in the thread - I'd personally start with investigating reports from riggers who have identified tight combinations (as folks here have already said they've seen) and see if they're reproducible and then move onto quantitative drop testing for those that have questions about them.

I believe BillVon suggested a different approach - only investigating those rig combinations which have been involved in suspect incidents.

These are 2 possible options. There are certainly more.

[mark 102]

yoink

******I agree with everything you say regarding the problems with tight rigs... so do most folks here, I think.

Most folks agree because it seems intuitively obvious.

Which two harness/container/reserve/AAD combinations would you test first, and why?

Mark

As we discussed earlier in the thread - I'd personally start with investigating reports from riggers who have identified tight combinations (as folks here have already said they've seen) and see if they're reproducible and then move onto quantitative drop testing for those that have questions about them.

I believe BillVon suggested a different approach - only investigating those rig combinations which have been involved in suspect incidents.

These are 2 possible options. There are certainly more.

So far there has been exactly one rig reported by exactly one rigger, and that particular combination has not been implicated in any of the suspect incidents.

Perhaps we might go with one of the rigs involved in the Z-Hills double fatality earlier this year, reported in the incident thread as

Quote

Student jumping a 1996/7 Student Javelin with a 1996/7 PD253R and PD 280 Main, Cypres expert , not sure if it was a I or II. All compatible gear, in good condition with no size of compatibility issues.

What hypotheses would you test?

Mark

[billvon 2,396]

>This helps a very small subset of skydivers...

True. All BSR's do.

>However, it does NOTHING for a person who cuts away low.

Neither do wind limits. Does that mean that the wind limits section of the BSR's mean that it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for DZO's who want to shirk responsibility?

>*might help* a super small percentage of skydivers who have already made more than one mistake . . . .

All incidents are the result of people who make more than one mistake.

>It is a bandaid....

Yes, it is. And people use bandaids because they work.

>What it is very good at is covering up the manufacturers no longer meeting TSO.

Prove it.

[diablopilot 2]

There is no evidence to support that this change with alter the number of fatalities. Period. None.


If it were a matter of "in the best interest of the membership", then the wingloading BSR would have past years ago, or an increase in the standards of instructors, or mandatory RSL usage.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

True. All BSR's do.

Nonsense. Most BSR's benefit a majority of skydivers, or students. This does neither

Quote

Neither do wind limits. Does that mean that the wind limits section of the BSR's mean that it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for DZO's who want to shirk responsibility?

I used to think you could do better than this... I am not so sure anymore.

But the wind limit for D license holders is 'unlimited'. So your 'argument' falls flat.

Quote

All incidents are the result of people who make more than one mistake.

Interectually dishonest of you... Young ignored the small per percentage comment.

Seriously... Is this the best you can do?

Quote

Yes, it is. And people use bandaids because they work.

They work for *minor* wounds.... Unless you recommend a bandaid for cancer or a broken bone?

Seriously... This the best you can do?

Quote

>What it is very good at is covering up the manufacturers no longer meeting TSO.

Prove it.

Wow, I guess it is the best you can do.

Ok simply put this action ignored the issue of rigs not meeting TSO anymore... As evidenced by this not being an issue even 5 much less 10 years ago.

Why don't you list the incidents and dates for us? It is pretty clear you are either ignorant of them, or choose to ignore them.

Seriously.... This the best you have? I (wrongly?) expected more from you.

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

[billvon 2,396]

> Most BSR's benefit a majority of skydivers, or students. This does neither.

Section H. Minimum clearances in landing areas. Minimal benefit. People still hit trees.
Section I. No one is required to do this. So it's meaningless.
Section J3. Clearly useless; look at all the problems with demos.

Etc etc.

>But the wind limit for D license holders is 'unlimited'. So your 'argument' falls flat.

So you do not think students count? In that case many of the BSR's don't count - and by your argument are useless.

>Wow, I guess it is the best you can do.

I asked you to prove that manufacturers no longer meet the requirements of the TSO they were tested to. That's a serious claim. Do you have any proof of this, or are you just talking out of your ass?

[nigel99 143]

billvon

>This helps a very small subset of skydivers...

True. All BSR's do.

>However, it does NOTHING for a person who cuts away low.

Neither do wind limits. Does that mean that the wind limits section of the BSR's mean that it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for DZO's who want to shirk responsibility?

>*might help* a super small percentage of skydivers who have already made more than one mistake . . . .

All incidents are the result of people who make more than one mistake.

>It is a bandaid....

Yes, it is. And people use bandaids because they work.

>What it is very good at is covering up the manufacturers no longer meeting TSO.

Prove it.

Bill, your stance is really odd.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone twist the band aid expression to make it a positive approach. I think whenever people talk about bandaid's it is universally understood to mean avoiding the real issue.

A band aid doesn't fix a broken femur, and a higher BSR doesn't make a reserve/container open quicker.

It may be typical internet miscommunication, but it appears that you are contradicting everything Ron is saying just for the sake of holding a different view.

You've been around a while - putting aside the specific issue of the BSR, do you hold the view that the USPA BOD is adequately serving the interests of the GENERAL membership?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.