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

[billvon 2,396]

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

That's the problem. We don't know yet. If we knew that it was always Optimum 160's in Mirage M1Z's then it would be a very easy problem to solve. If the problem is that rarely a random reserve doesn't work with a random container it's going to be a lot harder.

[ridebmxbikes 0]

Noon here, not responding to anyone in particular but have theory? If someone is pulling at 2k then shouldn't their mindset be not to try to fix a mal and go straight to ep's but then you have the guy who pulls at 3k or higher that figures he has time to play with his ball of cloth till its past the deadline and cuts too low? Not saying everyone should be pulling low but if less people were cutting away too low 10 years ago when people were pulling lower it seems like people got complacement by pulling higher. does any of that make sense or am I way out of my league with this subject? Thoughts?

[nigel99 143]

ridebmxbikes

Noon here, not responding to anyone in particular but have theory? If someone is pulling at 2k then shouldn't their mindset be not to try to fix a mal and go straight to ep's but then you have the guy who pulls at 3k or higher that figures he has time to play with his ball of cloth till its past the deadline and cuts too low? Not saying everyone should be pulling low but if less people were cutting away too low 10 years ago when people were pulling lower it seems like people got complacement by pulling higher. does any of that make sense or am I way out of my league with this subject? Thoughts?

Somewhere amongst all the noise, someone posted about the ground rush effect. From what I recall they said is that somewhere between 100-500ft you suddenly get immense ground rush, triggering an 'oh shit' response. They suggested that people may keep trying to fix the problem until the ground rush, breaks the spell.

That seems completely logical as nobody intentionally chops to low or waits too long. From this you could potentially argue that actual hard-deck altitudes and deployment altitudes are irrelevant as it is a physiological response.

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

[billvon 2,396]

>does any of that make sense or am I way out of my league with this subject?

That does make sense - although with modern canopies even "go straight to EPs if it doesn't open" still puts you making the decision too low on a canopy that takes 1000 feet to open.

Pulling higher and thinking you have time to screw around also may be contributing to the problem. Combine that with a lower pull _and_ a slower opening reserve and you might have a deadly combination.

[mark 102]

billvon

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

That's the problem. We don't know yet. If we knew that it was always Optimum 160's in Mirage M1Z's then it would be a very easy problem to solve. If the problem is that rarely a random reserve doesn't work with a random container it's going to be a lot harder.

My question was directed more at Ron, who has identified the problem as "slower opening reserves," and who, I hope, has something specific in mind.

Mark

[skypuppy 1]

DanG

Quote

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

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

well, actually it does. It hurts the people that want to continue to pull at 2 grand.

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

[skypuppy 1]

billvon

>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.

Well, actually, there is no proof that your first statement is true. If the reserve doesn't deploy out of the container because it's too tight, and extra 2 1/2 seconds will quite likely not help either.

And the jumpers that are going low are jumpers already planning on dumping above 2 grand anyways, they just forget they were going to dump at 3 grand, or at 2.5 grand.

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

[Ron 7]

mark

***. . .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

Bill gave a good answer - We don't know yet. We do know that 10 years ago we didn't have people having AAD fires bouncing even after the AAD fired (there were some random cases, but those were quickly traced to issues like using mostly dead batteries, way low temperatures, cutters that were built incorrectly, set wrong... Etc).

So when the devices were built, tested, and introduced, 750 feet was fine. But today we are seeing a few cases of the AAD firing an the reserve not getting open in time.

So ask what changed?

20 years ago more people pulled at or even below 2k than today. So logically the only thing that has changed is the gear. Same AAD firing height so it is not the AAD (although an argument could be made that maybe it is the new generation AAD's having issues). But most likely it is the result of modifications that have taken place on the container while still using the old TSO. Add in that maybe it is only an issue with the new generation of reserves. Maybe it is a combination issue where it only happens with 'X' AAD with 'Y' reserve in a 'Z' container.

But unless we look into the issue we will never know. This rule change does not even look into the issue, it just slaps a bandaid on it and hopes for the best.

The problem is that if it is a reserve/container issue. Then the problem is still there. And it will remain a problem that will impact each and every cutaway and emergency exit forever. This 'fix' only helps with reserve activation by AAD as long as the cutaway was above the new firing height. And a good number of these deaths are from low cutaways.... So this will not help, and worse by ignoring the real issue it hurts them.

What should happen?
Well the USPA should not be making rules to protect manufacturers. The USPA should look at every suspected gear combination and list out the container, reserve, and AAD and see if there is any trend. They should also test, or ask the manufacturer to test those same gear combinations that were involved in these accidents to see if it is a repeatable event.

By doing this we can see if it is a size issue, brand issue, comparability issue, or something else.

But the current path does nothing but provide liability protection to the people who make the gear. It throws extra altitude to one scenario (in free fall with nothing out) in the HOPE that it will fix the problem.

The problem is simple... Reserves are no longer opening fast enough from AAD fires. Why was this not a problem 20 years ago when people pulled at 2k more than today?

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

[mark 102]

Ron

The USPA should look at every suspected gear combination and list out the container, reserve, and AAD and see if there is any trend.

Time to put in a plug for better incident reporting. USPA needs more reports and more complete reports. Something like what Bryan Burke (Skydive Arizona) and TK Hayes (Z-Hills) write up.

Many posters in this thread, including you, I'm afraid, seem to have the impression that USPA knows make/model/size etc of many or most of the suspect incidents. I'm not sure that's the case, and it's up to us to make sure USPA has the information it needs.

I have also tried to collect information from a variety of sources, some confidential. I'd be happy if folks sent me more. So far, from the very thin information I have, there is nothing that points to a particular manufacturer or combination of components.

Mark

[topdocker 0]

mark

***The USPA should look at every suspected gear combination and list out the container, reserve, and AAD and see if there is any trend.

Time to put in a plug for better incident reporting. USPA needs more reports and more complete reports. Something like what Bryan Burke (Skydive Arizona) and TK Hayes (Z-Hills) write up.

Many posters in this thread, including you, I'm afraid, seem to have the impression that USPA knows make/model/size etc of many or most of the suspect incidents. I'm not sure that's the case, and it's up to us to make sure USPA has the information it needs.

I have also tried to collect information from a variety of sources, some confidential. I'd be happy if folks sent me more. So far, from the very thin information I have, there is nothing that points to a particular manufacturer or combination of components.

Mark

And we should also put a plug in for reporting online at USPA.org, which can by done anonymously. There are some notable DZ's that refuse to send in Incident Reports for whatever reason. But anyone can report an incident with as little or much information they want online without submitting their name.

There is no reason not to submit an Incident Report after a fatality, it is the industry standard and I wish USPA would be more forceful about receiving them. People should send them in not just for fatalities, but for any "unusual" event that could be lessons could be learned.

top

Jump more, post less!

[billvon 2,396]

> If the reserve doesn't deploy out of the container because it's too tight, and extra 2
>1/2 seconds will quite likely not help either.

Well, given that we have had a few incidents recently where the jumper was getting line stretch at impact, an extra 2 1/2 seconds will help with those incidents - provided the givens are there (i.e. jumper took too long and then cutaway too low, and had a slow opening reserve.)

>And the jumpers that are going low are jumpers already planning on dumping above 2
>grand anyways, they just forget they were going to dump at 3 grand, or at 2.5 grand.

Agreed. However, if there is a given number of people who are going to pull 500 feet too low, raising the minimum pull altitude will still tend to help them.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Many posters in this thread, including you, I'm afraid, seem to have the impression that USPA knows make/model/size etc of many or most of the suspect incidents. I'm not sure that's the case, and it's up to us to make sure USPA has the information it needs.

Where did I say I thought they knew all the data? Please provide that quote to me.

In fact, I said they DON'T have all the info and instead made a rule in the blind hope it would fix something.

As for giving the information to the USPA. The USPA has already given personal information to lawyers that hurt a DZ during a lawsuit. It was information that the USPA was not supposed to keep.

But they are ignoring the real issue and their actions *might* help in a VERY small set of circumstances. All I. Really does is help to protect the manufacturers.

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

[mark 102]

Ron

Quote

Many posters in this thread, including you, I'm afraid, seem to have the impression that USPA knows make/model/size etc of many or most of the suspect incidents. I'm not sure that's the case, and it's up to us to make sure USPA has the information it needs.

Where did I say I thought they knew all the data? Please provide that quote to me.

In fact, I said they DON'T have all the info and instead made a rule in the blind hope it would fix something.

As for giving the information to the USPA. The USPA has already given personal information to lawyers that hurt a DZ during a lawsuit. It was information that the USPA was not supposed to keep.

But they are ignoring the real issue and their actions *might* help in a VERY small set of circumstances. All I. Really does is help to protect the manufacturers.

I give up.

Mark

[billvon 2,396]

> and their actions *might* help in a VERY small set of circumstances.

Agreed.

> All I. Really does is help to protect the manufacturers.

Hey, if it saves a manufacturer from a lawsuit because one skydiver doesn't die, or one skydiver isn't crippled, that's a good thing. Not because it saved a manufacturer from a lawsuit, but because one skydiver wasn't killed or crippled.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Ron,

Quote

But most likely it is the result of modifications that have taken place on the container while still using the old TSO.

Just for the record, what rig/reserve canopy do you jump?

Just wondering as your profile is vacant,

JerryBaumchen

[Ron 7]

mark

***

Quote

Many posters in this thread, including you, I'm afraid, seem to have the impression that USPA knows make/model/size etc of many or most of the suspect incidents. I'm not sure that's the case, and it's up to us to make sure USPA has the information it needs.

Where did I say I thought they knew all the data? Please provide that quote to me.

In fact, I said they DON'T have all the info and instead made a rule in the blind hope it would fix something.

As for giving the information to the USPA. The USPA has already given personal information to lawyers that hurt a DZ during a lawsuit. It was information that the USPA was not supposed to keep.

But they are ignoring the real issue and their actions *might* help in a VERY small set of circumstances. All I. Really does is help to protect the manufacturers.

I give up.

Mark

You made a comment claiming I 'knew' something.
I asked you to back up that claim. Don't blame me because you misspoke

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

[Ron 7]

billvon

> and their actions *might* help in a VERY small set of circumstances.

Agreed.

> All I. Really does is help to protect the manufacturers.

Hey, if it saves a manufacturer from a lawsuit because one skydiver doesn't die, or one skydiver isn't crippled, that's a good thing. Not because it saved a manufacturer from a lawsuit, but because one skydiver wasn't killed or crippled.

It *might* save someone. It *will* protect the manufacturer. Don't you think the USPA should be more concerned with fixing the real problem than a solution that *might* save a very, very small number of members?

They are doing the business of the manufacturers, not the members. There is an organization to support the manufacturers... It is called the PIA.

We could save a skydiver from death and a manufacturer from a lawsuit by banning high performance canopies, or by restricting their use.... Why don't we see the BOD taking BSR action on that issue? In fact, we would save quite a bit more than this issue *might* save.

Why no BSR on limiting canopy sizes?

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

[Ron 7]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Ron,

Quote

But most likely it is the result of modifications that have taken place on the container while still using the old TSO.

Just for the record, what rig/reserve canopy do you jump?

Just wondering as your profile is vacant,

JerryBaumchen

How is my personal gear relevant when I have not mentioned a single 'suspect' piece of equipment?

You tell me why my personal rigs are important to the discussion and I will gladly tell you. But since I am not promoting one brand over another, or laying blame on one or the other.... I fail to see how it is relevant.

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

[topdocker 0]

billvon

> and their actions *might* help in a VERY small set of circumstances.

Agreed.

> All I. Really does is help to protect the manufacturers.

Hey, if it saves a manufacturer from a lawsuit because one skydiver doesn't die, or one skydiver isn't crippled, that's a good thing. Not because it saved a manufacturer from a lawsuit, but because one skydiver wasn't killed or crippled.

But what if it has the unintentional consequences of: 1) Making jumpers think they have more time to deal with a bad canopy so more are injured or killed because they ride the mal that much longer, 2) the manufacturers continue to ignore the container/reserve extraction problem, so more jumpers are killed, 3) The BOD continue to think it is more important to cover the manufacturers' liability than it is to serve and save the members.

How did a few people getting killed pulling low/getting their reserves out too low get a change in the BSR, when so many more people have been injured and killed with intentional hook turns and or poor canopy flying? It ain't about the people you save, its about who you serve. The BOD has spoken volumes about that......

top

Jump more, post less!

[RiggerLee 61]

Warning: What follows is a rant and you might just want to skip all of it.

I've been watching this thread for a while and I just don't get it. I'm not saying there aren't real issues here, actually I think there are several that deserve there own threads, but I don't get where it's being approached from.

Here are some of the things I don't get.

What's wrong with helping and protecting the manufacturers? Are they not skydivers? Are they not a vital part of the industry? Are they not one of the most critical parts of the sport? You really want to build your own gear? I might be able to. I even know some body with a TSO. But most people would be fucked.

Now for the record I have railed against some of the games people have started to play over the last few years with liability. Like trying to shift it off onto some one else and leaving riggers, pilots, and dropzones hanging out in the wind. I don't see this that way. I don't see this negatively affecting, 95% of the people out there. I'm one of the few people I know that would be comfortable pulling at 2000 ft regularly and more often then not spots dictate that I open higher any ways. Maybe professional demos but there is autherazation for it to be waved. The only people I can see complaining are S&TA for fear that they might feel pressured to wave it. But they don't have to. They don't have to accept that responceablity. I think that's key. So they don't even have the right to bitch. Any of you guys S&TA's?

AAD manufacturers. The operating limitations and margions on the deployment sequence are tight. They have always been tight. And it's become clear they may have become too tight over the last few years. There are a thousand possible reasons why this might be and I don't see the AAD manufacturer being responcable for any of them. The units actually work really well. Better then I would expect. They are however only one link in the chain. Rigs are not opening fast enough. That has become clear. So they decide that to do there part they need to raise the firing highth of there unit. Some thing I have no doubt they had wanted from the beginning. There lawyers say that they can't do that unless the "regulated" minimum opening altitude is raised. Any body really doubt that it was a lawyer that said that? So they start campaigning for a BSR change. Now my rig doesn't have an AAD but I realize that puts me in a very small minority. So if you want reasonable reliability out of these devices that the vast majority want installed in there rigs then you need a BSR change. How is that not in the best interest of the vast majority of there membership? Why is this wrong. We need more margin for error. The BOD is helping in that. So I don't blame the AAD manufacturers.

Rig manufacturers. This gets a little bit stickier. But in the end I don't all the blame on them. I don't think most of you appreaceate how complex this problem is. This could be several threads all on it's own. They have made some decisions over the years that are part of this problem but the decisions were caused by you. That would be the customers and there demands. You are ultimently respocable for this escalating war of esthetics over function. You have voted with your dollars and you have voted poorly. Now you are stuck with thousands of "suspect" rigs out there.

But it's not just the design. A lot of the designs are not fundamentally bad. How much can you really blame them for when they can not control what is put in to them? And who's to blame for that? The dealer who you pressured into selling you the combination? The rigger you strong armed into packing it? How bout that sky god of a coach that convenced you that you had to jump a container as small as his if you wanted to be able to fly. I've got stories about every one of those and I've been one of them. How are any of those things the fault of the rig manufacturers?

Canopies manufacturers. Canopies have continued to evolve. The thing is that the sport has evolved. When did we ever fly at these speeds before or demand these wing loadings? The newer reserves are built for the demands of a new environment, different from what we have ever faced before. One of those changes is they open slower. How is that a bad thing when 75% of jumpers are flying head down. Are you forgetting the canopies we have blown up? You should just thank your lucky stars that more things are not failing. It's a fundamental and nessasary evolution to keep pace with how you are flying. You know people use to brag about how there reserve opened so much faster then every one else. Do you really want that opening at 160 mph head down? Now the goal is to open as slow as possible and still pass the TSO. Maybe they have gone over board and they might be a bit slow now. But that's what we need in some areas of the envelope we are flying in. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's a trade off. I think this is a good thing. If any thing I'd say that what really should have been done was to relax the requirments in the latest TSO. If I'd written it I'd extend the opening time and distance. Hell I might even put upper limits on acceleration.

As I see it, in the end it's not about the gear. It's about the people. Although I do see problems out there. People are bouncing. I see most of this as a failure to come to terms with the reprocusions of the decisions that they have made. And for the record I'm talking about the jumpers there. You want to free fly, you want this super tight clean rig, with a reserve that wont slam you, but you are not willing to face the reality that it requires different operating peramiters. I honestly see this BSR change as a good first step towards fixing that.

There seems to be a lot of finger pointing going on. I see a lot of misconceptions about what peoples jobs are and what powers they posses. To half of this I want to scream, "It's not there job." Or "Where do you think they get that power." Or "How do you expect them to do that?" I'll bet all of these people wish that they had the authority, power, money, or ability that you give them credit for. What, you think USPA has aircraft? A tailgate? Money or resources for a testing program? Any thing to do with TSO certification? The FAA? You think they certify any of this shit? You think they test parachutes? They don't even want to deal with it. You have no idea how lucky you are that they have done as much as they have.

You really wont to force a change. You can do it. I don't remember it off the top of my head but there is actually an office you can write to in the FAA where you can report any airworthiness concerns. I want to say it's actually in Washington not OK city. If you really feel there is an addressable problem write it up, and send it in. You'll need a stack of well documented accedents with conclusive evidence against a spicfic design. If your evidence is compelling enough they can issue an AD or even pull the TSO grounding that entire line of equipment. Good luck with this they don't even like to issue AD's any more. You can do this your self. You don't need the USPA or PIA or any one. Go convence them. If you think all Vectors are Evil then convence them and you can ground every one all the way back to the first Wonderhog. After that you're on your own. I wish you luck finding a hole deep enough to hide in.

If you want to return to practical reality and have a rational discussion about problems we face there are a lot of bright people here. My personal opinion is that raising our over all activation altitudes is the best practical solution to dealing with this issue. Another might be a comprehensive and binding sizing chart for each rig. A compatibility list. No body really wants to go there. As a rigger I'd be all behind it. Do you realize how much easier life would be if all rigs fit. That's like jack off fantasy material for all riggers. No more bricks. But can you imagine the uprising? Hell if you want to really make it fun put real enforceable wing loading limitations. Hell that might be a good time to recut some pattern sets as you'd be replacing 2/3 of all the rigs out there. We could actually fix a lot of shit if we were willing to go through the heart ache.

Ok, I'm tired of writing. Shot my wad for the night.

End of rant.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[skyjumpenfool 2]

topdocker

How did a few people getting killed pulling low/getting their reserves out too low get a change in the BSR, when so many more people have been injured and killed with intentional hook turns and or poor canopy flying? It ain't about the people you save, its about who you serve. The BOD has spoken volumes about that......

top

Seems to me, raising the BSR is a good thing. Some have talked about "Demo Teams" not being allowed to do lower Hop -N- Pops? Maybe, in light of recent incidents, they shoud not be doing this? At least until we know more. To that end, USPA has put the safety of it's members first. And this, Ron, is wether you like it or not.

I personally don't see the conspiriacy. Until we find out what is going on here (I've seen much theory and conjecture but no research based facts) I think the USPA has made a good decision. It must, however, be followed up with a full investigation to find out why people are dying. And this, Ron, is why I lke that you are being vocal on this subject.

If manufactuers (the best, most innovative minds we have)are crying for this change, then I assume there must be good cause? Again, the USPA is making this decision for the good of it's membership based on information it has.

Remember, if we just make the reserves open faster, then we'll just be dying from broken necks during opening shock. This is a complex problem. Although I don't buy the conspiriacy theory, I applaud Ron for calling attention to this subject.

Also, Mark said "he gives up" We all know Mark has never given up on anything.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[grue 1]

RiggerLee

my rig doesn't have an AAD but I realize that puts me in a very small minority.

I'd question that, at least in the US. I don't have any numbers to support my theory, though.

Quote

How much can you really blame them for when they can not control what is put in to them? And who's to blame for that? The dealer who you pressured into selling you the combination? The rigger you strong armed into packing it?

I think that's pretty unfair since a lot of (most?) jumpers don't even know that this can be a problem. I've been jumping for 9 years (not with the frequency of some people, admittedly) and if I didn't post on DZ.com I'd have no idea that this was an issue. I haven't had a repack since I found out about it, but I'm damned sure going to ask my rigger to check the extraction force required for my reserve with the main still in the pack tray. I don't expect a problem since my container is sized for 218-228 reserve (I have a 220) and a 190-210 main (I have a 190), but I'll feel a hell of a lot better KNOWING there isn't a problem.

I don't think it'd be a bad idea for the USPA to issue notice in one way or another that this is a problem in some cases, and that jumpers should have their gear checked at their next repack. If the extraction force seems high according to the rigger (and perhaps we should get objective numbers), it should be reported to an independent party who will collect the data and look into it further.

cavete terrae.

[billvon 2,396]

>It *might* save someone. It *will* protect the manufacturer.

It MIGHT protect both.

Surely you are not going to claim that anything anyone does will protect a manufacturer 100% from lawsuits? Manufacturers have been trying to do that for 30 years with no success.

>We could save a skydiver from death and a manufacturer from a lawsuit by banning
>high performance canopies

Yes we could. Would you support such a BSR?

>Why no BSR on limiting canopy sizes?

Propose one; if it looks good you'll get support and can take it to the BOD. You might get it, or you might get a compromise that does some of what you want.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Ron,

Quote

How is my personal gear relevant . . .

Oh, how about that old adage about people who live in glass houses?

Is your rig TSO'd under C23d, the newest version?

Or is it one those 'old' rigs " . . while still using the old TSO . . ." and all of those nasty Minor Changes?

Curious people want to know.

JerryBaumchen

[nigel99 143]

billvon

>It *might* save someone. It *will* protect the manufacturer.

It MIGHT protect both.

Surely you are not going to claim that anything anyone does will protect a manufacturer 100% from lawsuits? Manufacturers have been trying to do that for 30 years with no success.

>We could save a skydiver from death and a manufacturer from a lawsuit by banning
>high performance canopies

Yes we could. Would you support such a BSR?

>Why no BSR on limiting canopy sizes?

Propose one; if it looks good you'll get support and can take it to the BOD. You might get it, or you might get a compromise that does some of what you want.

My understanding is that a number of canopy related BSR's have been shot down over the years, and yet it is THE biggest cause of injury and death in the sport, and yet the BOD has done nothing of substance about it.

I'm still curious to know whether you think the BOD is acting in the best interests of the 'general' membership?

I serve on various committee's and one thing that is apparent to me 90% of members do nothing but will complain among themselves.The remaining 9-10% of active members act with a large degree of self interest and a personal agenda. Very few people are active in the true best interest of what-ever they are involved in.

It is the job of a 'good' committee to modulate those forces, to try and read what the passive majority are most concerned about and to prevent the loudest voices having too much influence.

My personal view is that the USPA has a substantive problem with membership trust. They try far to hard to appease the verbal minority, and I don't only include DZOs and Manufacturers in the verbal minority but they are certainly in the mix. I'd be very interested in your perspective?

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