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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Section H. Minimum clearances in landing areas. Minimal benefit. People still hit trees.

Yes, people still hit trees. What you have not seen is the USPA change the BSR because people still hit trees.

You are proving my point, and are too obsessed with being argumentative to even notice.

Quote

>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.

Pathetic... I am starting to see a trend. You have to counter anything I say just to be contrary. But the problem is I have already mentioned your point.... You are so eager to contradict me that you have not bothered to read what has already been written.

If this was a case of jumper SKILL and the BSR addressed THAT... Your diatribe would have merit. But this is about the equipment, not about skill. And the historical record shows that 10 years ago when people pulled lower on average than they do today.... This was not an issue. The only *significant* factor is the gear.

Instead of focusing on the data, your personal hard on for me has clouded your judgment.

Quote

Do you have any proof of this, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Funny.
1. The data from deaths of this nature is recent.

2. I thought mods were supposed to not make personal attacks? Shame that if I had said that if YOU, you would have banned me.

Maybe you should stop posting for a bit on the topic till you can be less emotional?

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

[Ron 7]

billvon

> 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?

Hey mods (other than Bill of course)... How exactly is that NOT a personal attack?

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

[skypuppy 1]

yoink

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...

Doing 'something' is not always better than doing 'nothing'. That is a fallacy.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[yoink 321]

True, but dong nothing in this case is worse than doing this.

Doing the proper research would be the best answer.


Mark tells me that there has only ever been a single reported tight container situation - maybe Ron would like to address this as he's the guy who brought all this up and said that all this data exists from recent incidents?

[nigel99 143]

yoink

True, but dong nothing in this case is worse than doing this.

Doing the proper research would be the best answer.


Mark tells me that there has only ever been a single reported tight container situation - maybe Ron would like to address this as he's the guy who brought all this up and said that all this data exists from recent incidents?

I disagree about this being better than doing nothing. At present we have an increasing number of people dying with partially deployed reserves. People already have the option of increasing their AAD deployment altitude, but that still misses the root cause. So we raise the deployment BSR, but that still does nothing to address people going in at reserve line stretch, it ONLY makes a few people feel good.

Just look at the past 10 years of fatalities here on dz.com and you see the increasing proportion of 'low cutaway' type deaths. Edited to add: just clicking through the Fatalities database there is a sharp upward trend around 2009/2010 onwards. A number of them are listed as 'low cutaway' and I am willing to accept that the rise in popularity of Skyhooks is to blame - directly because people have started to blur the line of no cutaway decision altitudes.

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

[Southern_Man 0]

nigel99

***True, but dong nothing in this case is worse than doing this.

Doing the proper research would be the best answer.


Mark tells me that there has only ever been a single reported tight container situation - maybe Ron would like to address this as he's the guy who brought all this up and said that all this data exists from recent incidents?

I disagree about this being better than doing nothing. At present we have an increasing number of people dying with partially deployed reserves. People already have the option of increasing their AAD deployment altitude, but that still misses the root cause. So we raise the deployment BSR, but that still does nothing to address people going in at reserve line stretch, it ONLY makes a few people feel good.

Just look at the past 10 years of fatalities here on dz.com and you see the increasing proportion of 'low cutaway' type deaths. Edited to add: just clicking through the Fatalities database there is a sharp upward trend around 2009/2010 onwards. A number of them are listed as 'low cutaway' and I am willing to accept that the rise in popularity of Skyhooks is to blame - directly because people have started to blur the line of no cutaway decision altitudes.

Raising the AAD firing altitude may help with "reserve at line stretch".

Raising the minimum deployment altitude may help prevent 2 outs (although I think that is dubious).

Neither does anything to help with low-cutaways.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[nigel99 143]

Southern_Man

******True, but dong nothing in this case is worse than doing this.

Doing the proper research would be the best answer.


Mark tells me that there has only ever been a single reported tight container situation - maybe Ron would like to address this as he's the guy who brought all this up and said that all this data exists from recent incidents?

I disagree about this being better than doing nothing. At present we have an increasing number of people dying with partially deployed reserves. People already have the option of increasing their AAD deployment altitude, but that still misses the root cause. So we raise the deployment BSR, but that still does nothing to address people going in at reserve line stretch, it ONLY makes a few people feel good.

Just look at the past 10 years of fatalities here on dz.com and you see the increasing proportion of 'low cutaway' type deaths. Edited to add: just clicking through the Fatalities database there is a sharp upward trend around 2009/2010 onwards. A number of them are listed as 'low cutaway' and I am willing to accept that the rise in popularity of Skyhooks is to blame - directly because people have started to blur the line of no cutaway decision altitudes.

Raising the AAD firing altitude may help with "reserve at line stretch".

Raising the minimum deployment altitude may help prevent 2 outs (although I think that is dubious).

Neither does anything to help with low-cutaways.

Precisely and raising the AAD altitude does not require messing with the BSR. The rest of the world is not scrambling to change deployment altitudes, we have an 1800ft requirement. As numerous people have pointed out 3k is pretty much the norm anyway. So we aren't solving anything with the change.

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

Raising the AAD firing altitude may help with "reserve at line stretch".

Raising the minimum deployment altitude may help prevent 2 outs (although I think that is dubious).

Neither does anything to help with low-cutaways.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that raising the minimum pull altitude means people will actually pull highigher. I've seen the argument here that people will continue to pull low, but that's begging the question, so I'd like to put it aside for now.

If people pull higher, they will have longer to deal with a partial malfunction before getting to the point that their reserve is useless. Don't discount the extra time. There have been fatalities, including recently, where people futzed around with partial malfunctions, finally gave up, and cutaway too low to survive. If they had a few extra seconds, perhaps they would have either fixed their problem, or cutaway at a survivable altitude. My last cutaway happened when I hit my hard deck after messing with a spinning line twist. I was just about out of the twists. The temptation was there to keep working on it for just a little longer. I can't see how having an extra 7-10 seconds of working time could possibly hurt in a situation like that. The only thing that cures a loss of altitude awareness is become altitude aware. If you have another 7-10 seconds for that to happen, it's better than being interrupted by impact.

I don't agree that preventing two-outs is a dubious concern. Two-outs are rarely fatal, but they are most certainly dangerous, and can turn an uneventful low pull into a life threatening situation.

- Dan G

[Southern_Man 0]

DanG

Quote

Raising the AAD firing altitude may help with "reserve at line stretch".

Raising the minimum deployment altitude may help prevent 2 outs (although I think that is dubious).

Neither does anything to help with low-cutaways.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that raising the minimum pull altitude means people will actually pull highigher. I've seen the argument here that people will continue to pull low, but that's begging the question, so I'd like to put it aside for now.

If people pull higher, they will have longer to deal with a partial malfunction before getting to the point that their reserve is useless. Don't discount the extra time. There have been fatalities, including recently, where people futzed around with partial malfunctions, finally gave up, and cutaway too low to survive. If they had a few extra seconds, perhaps they would have either fixed their problem, or cutaway at a survivable altitude. My last cutaway happened when I hit my hard deck after messing with a spinning line twist. I was just about out of the twists. The temptation was there to keep working on it for just a little longer. I can't see how having an extra 7-10 seconds of working time could possibly hurt in a situation like that. The only thing that cures a loss of altitude awareness is become altitude aware. If you have another 7-10 seconds for that to happen, it's better than being interrupted by impact.

I don't agree that preventing two-outs is a dubious concern. Two-outs are rarely fatal, but they are most certainly dangerous, and can turn an uneventful low pull into a life threatening situation.

I don't disagree with either of your statements, I guess I just disagree with the underlying assumptions regarding those statements. We either see different facts on the ground or interpret them differently.

I do not know (many) people who pull below 3000 feet on any sort of regular basis. Raising the minimum pull altitudes will have no effect on any sort on the vast majority of skydivers and skydivers. I believe there was an incident of spinning line-twists and low-cutaway on a big-way out in California last year but I do not believe that low deployment altitude (<2500 ft) is a common contributor to these accidents.

Preventing 2 outs is not a dubious concern. I have seen a number of two-outs and they are kind of scary. The dubious proposition is that if they raise the AAD firing altitude (to ~1000 ft) there would be a spate of two-out incidents due to people deploying at 2000 ft and sniveling to firing altitude. In every two-out that I have personally witnessed the planned deployment altitude was at 3000 ft. or greater. The problem was a simple loss of altitude awareness that had nothing at all to do with a low planned deployment.

Most people (as I see and hear things, so maybe I am completely off) pull well above the minimum deployment altitude. I do not believe most skydivers will raise their planned deployment altitudes 500 ft. I pull at 3000 ft. in freefall. I plan to continue that.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DanG 1]

Quote

Preventing 2 outs is not a dubious concern. I have seen a number of two-outs and they are kind of scary. The dubious proposition is that if they raise the AAD firing altitude (to ~1000 ft) there would be a spate of two-out incidents due to people deploying at 2000 ft and sniveling to firing altitude. In every two-out that I have personally witnessed the planned deployment altitude was at 3000 ft. or greater. The problem was a simple loss of altitude awareness that had nothing at all to do with a low planned deployment.

The rules aren't for smart people who know they can't open their main within a few hundred feet of their AAD activation altitude. The rules are for the guy who (at Orange years ago) had an AAD fire and two-out after a helicopter jump. It never even occured to him that sucking it down low (because the helicopter was only giving 5,000ft) could result in a two-out. And yes, he had most certainly been taught this in his student days, which were years behind him.

Quote

I do not believe most skydivers will raise their planned deployment altitudes 500 ft. I pull at 3000 ft. in freefall. I plan to continue that.

You're right. This will not affect most people directly. It will however, change attitudes about what is "low". Given the state of modern gear, and the trend toward slower and slower opening canopies, I think that is a good thing.

- Dan G

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You're right. This will not affect most people directly. It will however, change attitudes about what is "low". Given the state of modern gear, and the trend toward slower and slower opening canopies, I think that is a good thing.

Agreed. For example, I took a long hiatus from active jumping back when most people regularly pulled in the 2000-2500 ft range. I stayed semi-active in the business & community aspects of the sport & kept up with the mags & a few safety days, etc., but didn't get out to the DZ very often. Years later, when I decided to get recurrent and went out to the DZ to hang out & watch a couple hours of jumping, my initial visual impression from the ground was "how high" people were opening. Of course, that wasn't high for them, it was normal. When I mentioned that we used to regularly pull close to 2000, most of them thought that was crazy.

BTW, at about 50ish jumps I had a total malfunction pulling just under 2500. The result was getting fully under reserve at about 900 ft. Glad I didn't need an extra few seconds to make that happen.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Let's assume for the sake of argument that raising the minimum pull altitude means people will actually pull highigher. I've seen the argument here that people will continue to pull low, but that's begging the question, so I'd like to put it aside for now.

The fact of the matter is people are already pulling above 2k most of the time now. So this does not really give any more time but to those very few that are pulling at 2k (not many people).

Quote

If people pull higher, they will have longer to deal with a partial malfunction before getting to the point that their reserve is useless. Don't discount the extra time. There have been fatalities, including recently, where people futzed around with partial malfunctions, finally gave up, and cutaway too low to survive. If they had a few extra seconds, perhaps they would have either fixed their problem, or cutaway at a survivable altitude.

Do you have any data that any of those that died recently pulled at 2k feet? Because, from the data I have seen - That is not the case. So this would not have helped them.

Quote

I can't see how having an extra 7-10 seconds of working time could possibly hurt in a situation like that. The only thing that cures a loss of altitude awareness is become altitude aware. If you have another 7-10 seconds for that to happen, it's better than being interrupted by impact

For this to do any good, you would have to know that altitude that most people are pulling and raise THAT altitude.

Most people already pull above. 2.5 so this will fix nothing

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

Most people already pull above. 2.5 so this will fix nothing

Well then I guess it won't hurt anything either.

- Dan G

[Rick 67]

DanG

Quote

Most people already pull above. 2.5 so this will fix nothing

Well then I guess it won't hurt anything either.

It may mean a few more demos get canceled when you are right at the cloud clearance limit. It may mean some record attempts need to start break off higher.

I just don't see any reason for the change.

The BOD says they made the change so the AAD manufacturers can increase activation altitude. Do we really need to increas pack opening height so they can do this??

I agree with Ron the USPA is making this change for the manufacturers and not the jumpers......wait aren't the jumpers the USPA??? guess not

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[DanG 1]

Quote

The BOD says they made the change so the AAD manufacturers can increase activation altitude. Do we really need to increas pack opening height so they can do this??

For Ron's theory to be true, yes, they needed to do this so the AAD manufacturers can increase activation altitude.

Quote

I agree with Ron the USPA is making this change for the manufacturers and not the jumpers......wait aren't the jumpers the USPA??? guess not

Can you guys really not understand a logic chain that has more than one link? Or is it just the same old generic anti-USPA bashing?

- Dan G

[diablopilot 2]

Not one ounce of this BSR is about safety. It's 100% about liability.

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

Not one ounce of this BSR is about safety. It's 100% about liability.

It's about both. For some people, that makes it evil. For others, that makes it part of the real world.

- Dan G

[Rick 67]

DanG

Quote

Not one ounce of this BSR is about safety. It's 100% about liability.

It's about both. For some people, that makes it evil. For others, that makes it part of the real world.

Dan I never said it was evil. I see a couple, albeit small downsides to it and no upside. I think it was a waste of time by the board.

I did not see any jumpers calling for this change.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[diablopilot 2]

I wouldn't call it evil, I would call it a mistake for the BOD to put a members organization, and some members in the liability path.

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

[DanG 1]

I can understand how this can be seen as an attempt to shift potential liability from AAD manufacturers to S&TAs. Perhaps that's true. The difference is that S&TAs have direct control over the liability they will accept by either granting or refusing waivers. The AAD manufacturers would not, and can not.

- Dan G

[Bolas 5]

The BSR is about deployment height but what is killing jumpers is cutaway height. Raising the main deployment does nothing if jumpers either don't change their EP hard decks or realize they're too low to cutaway.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Ron 7]

DanG

Quote

Most people already pull above. 2.5 so this will fix nothing

Well then I guess it won't hurt anything either.

If it will not fix the problem... It is worthless. And the problem is slower opening reserves. Fixing that problem will help not only those who have an AAD fire, but those that cutaway lower than ideal.

And it will hurt things. Some demos will get canceled. Some days D license folks will not be able to do hop n pops.

So it fixes nothing, and impacts skydivers. Worse, it tries to cover up the real issue with a bandaid.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

For Ron's theory to be true, yes, they needed to do this so the AAD manufacturers can increase activation altitude.

They have stated that is why they did this.... No need to wonder.

Quote

Can you guys really not understand a logic chain that has more than one link? Or is it just the same old generic anti-USPA bashing?

Can you not understand that they had two options:
1. Do what the would be best for the jumpers and fix the underlying problem of reserves not deploying in time from AAD fires.... Which is a new development. This would have also benefited people who chop low or bail out low.

2. Do what is best for the manufacturers and put a bandaid fix on the problem that will not fix the underlying problem but will provide protection from liability to the manufacturers. This will not protect people who chop low or bail out low.

Not a difficult concept.... Most people see the forest for the trees.

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

[billvon 2,400]

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

No. But given an opening speed that is too slow, and given that this is a risk, a higher opening altitude BSR will result in more skydivers surviving.

Does it fix the problem? No.

Does it keep a few skydivers alive while we DO fix the problem? Yes.

That's why it's a band-aid.

[mark 102]

Ron

. . .the problem is slower opening reserves.

Are you saying the problem is slower opening reserve canopies (which canopies?), slower opening reserve containers (which containers?), or some combination (which combinations)?

Mark