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

[JackC1 0]

I pretty much agree with what RiggerLee said. I actually want to survive a head down reserve deployment should I be unlucky/stupid enough to have one. That necessitates a slow(er) opening reserve. I realise this means that I need to pull higher and perform my EPs higher to compensate, it also means my AAD might be set too low to save me. So I want a higher firing AAD and if it requires this BSR to enable it, I can live with that.

RiggerLee

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.

And this is the crux of it. TSO c23 in all its forms is an FAA specification. The FAA are ultimately responsible for the rules that specify how fast reserves should deploy and the rules that allow manufacturers to modify a rig and maintain an existing TSO. The manufacturers operate within those rules or risk losing their TSO. If you do not like those rules or you think that certain manufacturers are no longer meeting the specifications of their TSO, then your complaint needs to go to the FAA.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

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.

Lee,
If you really think that the gear is not the major issue, you have an issue IMHO.

I will lay it out in plain text for you.

There are five issues:

1. The OPT reserve snivels. Several openings have been filmed at longer than 3 seconds which is the standard for TSO certification. Previous canopies meet the three second rule.
So there is a major difference in performance and design.

2. H/C's ( all of them) have been gradually locking down the reserve and main flaps with "new and improved" methods which hinder deployments.

3. Reserve Pilot chutes had been filmed "towing" after a successful cutaway on the Wings container.

I personally have witnessed one towing after a dual deployment. The main came out just before the Cypres fired. The Cypres fired and the pilot chute deployed and was towed at 30 plus MPH and never extracted the freebag. In this case it was a good thing; in other cases it was bad.

4. Speedbags from Jumpshack take longer to deploy a canopy than did the previous, simple two stow version freebag.
Simple physics applies here.

5. TSO standards- The TSO standards have changed over the years which has allowed some manufacturers to slide through some loop holes regarding deployment times.
Deployment times are a key component in not dying in this sport in case one does not know this.

Yes, the person needs to responsible enough to the pull handles, but at the same time if the gear is equipped with an AAD, it should save the life of the user. This is why we install them.

When we install the AAD into a system, it as a system should work as designed. If it does not, we have effectively a failed system as a whole.

So when several people are lying dead after an AAD fire on those systems, those systems should be reported as such to the FAA as failed systems.

I can assure you neither the PIA, USPA, or any manufacturer has done just that.

By reporting this to the FAA, they (FAA) will in turn go to the manufacturer of each component to assure that that equipment meets the TSO and also could issue an AAD to pull the equipment from service.

Testing for performance standards and compatibility is the responsibility of the manufacturer and the FAA; not PIA.

The bottom line is this:
We never had these issues with Vector IIs, earlier Javelins, earlier Talons (except for all of the ADs and pilot chute issues),Ravens, Firelites, PDR reserves, and etc.

We do now have issues with the newer gear.
The new gear IS the difference between then and now....period.


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[Ron 7]

Quote

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.

And the manufacturers should try.... However the USPA is supposed to represent jumpers, not the manufacturers.

The USPA is doing nothing about the real issue... Instead they applied a bandaid that *might* do something about one very small type of accident while ignoring the larger issue.

Quote

>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?

This is not about what I personally want. It is about how MANY more skydivers have been killed by controlled flight into terrain.... And still no BSR about it. But a handful I jumpers die because of slow opening reserves and the BOD acts.

Why BSR action on the lesser issue and not the much larger issue?

Quote

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.

I don't need to propose one... You already did an it failed.

Again, why has the BOD ignored your proposal that might have saved MANY times the number of jumpers yet acted on an issue that might affect very few?

The answer is simple:

WL BSR would hurt business.
Raising AAD altitude might save them a lawsuit.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

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

Your distraction might be valid if I had known about this issue before they were procured. But when I got them 2002, 2005, this was not an issue.

I have not mentioned a single brand as being better or worse. And I have refrained from making assumption other than bring up the general issue.... And I have done that on purpose.

Quote

Curious people want to know.

Since it is in no way relevant to the discussion.... You will just have to learn to live with disappointment.

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

WL BSR would hurt business.
Raising AAD altitude might save them a lawsuit.

How would a WL BSR hurt business? If people are required to downsize one step at a time, they'll require more canopies than if they are allowed to skip sizes willy-nilly.

The simple fact remains that saving any manufacturer a wrongful death lawsuit requires the elimination of that wrongful death. You cannot have one without the other in this case.

If the move was made to change the laws or the waivers, making it harder to sue, you would have a point. In that case, the wrongful death could occur and the lawsuit would not follow. Win for the manufacturer, no gain for the gen. pop. of jumpers.

However, by making a move designed to prevent the wrongful death in the first place, the first benefit is the jumper who does not die, with the secondary benefit being to the manufacturers who don't get sued.

I still cannot see where there is a line of demarcation between the manufacturers and the jumpers such that the USPA could serve only one. Even if some of their actions only benefitted the manufactures, as long as there was no harm to the jumpers, the worst part is that they wasted some time on that business to only benefit the manufacturers. Even then, there's a symbiotic relationship between the jumpers and manufactures, and typically if one is better off, the benefits will 'trickle down' to the other.

If you can show where the USPA has served the manufacturers to the detriment of jumpers, you might have a point. Short of that, I just don't see the problem.

[mark 102]

masterrigger1

The bottom line is this:
We never had these issues with Vector IIs, earlier Javelins, earlier Talons (except for all of the ADs and pilot chute issues),Ravens, Firelites, PDR reserves, and etc.

We do now have issues with the newer gear.
The new gear IS the difference between then and now....period.

While this view is intuitively appealing, the little bit of data I've collected shows more incidents involving older gear (PDRs, Ravens, Javelins, etc) than newer (Optimums, very small tight containers).

I'd be interested in whatever you'd be able to contribute to the data set, including incidents where equipment did not perform as expected but no injury or fatality resulted.

Mark

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

While this view is intuitively appealing, the little bit of data I've collected shows more incidents involving older gear (PDRs, Ravens, Javelins, etc) than newer (Optimums, very small tight containers).

I would like to see that data.

In the last, lets say 15 (estimate) most recent fatalities, they all have used one piece of equipment, if not more than, one piece or part that I have pointed out in my previous post.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[mark 102]

masterrigger1

In the last, lets say 15 (estimate) most recent fatalities, they all have used one piece of equipment, if not more than, one piece or part that I have pointed out in my previous post.

This is from TK's report here on dz.com on the most recent incident, in Z-Hills:

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.

Mark

[DocPop 1]

I'm glad we are actually looking at data here, not just assumptions and speculation. Thanks.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[mark 102]

Your welcome.

The other rig from the double fatality in Z-Hills, according to the thread here on dz.com:

Quote

Instructor jumping a newer Icon harness, with Smart 120 reserve, and 117ish Aerodyne pilot main. Cypres Expert II.

Here's another from dz.com, this one from Spaceland 7 Nov 2007:

Quote

Main: PD 210 w / 500 Jumps+
Reserve: PD143R New
Container: Reflex / 100 jumps
AAD: Cypress 2 / Brand new / Turned on

and also from dz.com, one from Cross Keys 11 Apr 2011:

Quote

Sabre2 230
Optimum 253
Javelin J6NKS
Cypres2

Not many data points, no pattern.

Mark

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Mark,

I am going to disagree on a number of things you bring up.

Quote

Several openings have been filmed at longer than 3 seconds which is the standard for TSO certification.

Does not mean that it did not open within the time req'ment during the actual TSO testing; which is the only issue in the eyes of the FAA ( IMO ).

Quote

Reserve Pilot chutes had been filmed "towing" after a successful cutaway on the Wings container.

May or may not be an issue. Cutaway tests are only in the latest versions of the TSO standards.

Quote

The Cypres fired and the pilot chute deployed and was towed at 30 plus MPH and never extracted the freebag.

An AAD firing to activate is not a TSO standard test. And I cannot recall any TSO standard test at 30 MPH; but I could be wrong on that one.

Quote

Speedbags from Jumpshack take longer to deploy a canopy than did the previous, simple two stow version freebag.

The only issue here is if they still meet the TSO standard tests. For C23b that is 3 seconds during Functional Testing. This means that a timed test that took 3.00 seconds to open is acceptable per the standard.

Quote

but at the same time if the gear is equipped with an AAD, it should save the life of the user.

I agree; but that is not a TSO issue as an activation by an AAD is not a TSO standard test. Some may think it should be, but it is not.

Quote

So when several people are lying dead after an AAD fire on those systems, those systems should be reported as such to the FAA as failed systems.

While we both may conclude that those are 'failed systems,' I seriously doubt that the FAA would see it that way. Once again, an AAD activation is not a TSO standard test.

Quote

Testing for performance standards and compatibility is the responsibility of the manufacturer and the FAA

Testing for performance standards is the responsibility of the mfr, not the FAA.

Testing for compatability is the responsibility of the rigger who signs off on the gear IMO.

Quote

We do now have issues with the newer gear.

That is still to be determined as an actual fact. I do tend to agree; and that is why the AAD mfrs are now offering units in which the firing altitude can be raised by the user.

None of this is any form of any personal attack; it is just something that we disagree about.

JerryBaumchen

PS) And you are still one of the first guys I turn to with a sewing machine question.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Instructor jumping a newer Icon harness, with Smart 120 reserve, and 117ish Aerodyne pilot main. Cypres Expert II.

Well That one has one of the items I mentioned. The H/C...

Quote

Reserve: PD143R New

Did this one have the newer Fabric?

Quote

d also from dz.com, one from Cross Keys 11 Apr 2011:
Quote:
Sabre2 230
Optimum 253
Javelin J6NKS
Cypres2

Yep, two items.
I am very familiar with this one BTW....


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[Ron 7]

mark

Your welcome.

The other rig from the double fatality in Z-Hills, according to the thread here on dz.com:

Quote

Instructor jumping a newer Icon harness, with Smart 120 reserve, and 117ish Aerodyne pilot main. Cypres Expert II.

Here's another from dz.com, this one from Spaceland 7 Nov 2007:
***Main: PD 210 w / 500 Jumps+
Reserve: PD143R New
Container: Reflex / 100 jumps
AAD: Cypress 2 / Brand new / Turned on

and also from dz.com, one from Cross Keys 11 Apr 2011:

Quote

Sabre2 230
Optimum 253
Javelin J6NKS
Cypres2

Not many data points, no pattern.

Mark

You say no pattern.... But everything you have listed seems to be a CYPRES... And what you have posted shows all but *maybe* one (for the data you have provided) seems to be a C2.

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

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Hi Mark,

I am going to disagree on a number of things you bring up.

You usually do and I respect that to some degree.

Quote

Quote:
Several openings have been filmed at longer than 3 seconds which is the standard for TSO certification.

Does not mean that it did not open within the time req'ment during the actual TSO testing; which is the only issue in the eyes of the FAA ( IMO ).

Not really.
I have already been in discussion with the FAA regarding these issues.
If it is found that the TSO item is not meeting the same standard as previously tested, it can be pulled.

Quote

Reserve Pilot chutes had been filmed "towing" after a successful cutaway on the Wings container.

May or may not be an issue. Cutaway tests are only in the latest versions of the TSO standards.

Jerry, if you think that a towed PC is not an issue or considered defective, we have a real problem here!

Quote

The Cypres fired and the pilot chute deployed and was towed at 30 plus MPH and never extracted the freebag.

An AAD firing to activate is not a TSO standard test. And I cannot recall any TSO standard test at 30 MPH; but I could be wrong on that one.

Again, see previous quote.
The videos and my personal eyewitness data shows that the PC is weak.
Maybe we need to add some qualifications to the TSO standards to qualify that.

Quote

Quote:
Speedbags from Jumpshack take longer to deploy a canopy than did the previous, simple two stow version freebag.

The only issue here is if they still meet the TSO standard tests. For C23b that is 3 seconds during Functional Testing. This means that a timed test that took 3.00 seconds to open is acceptable per the standard.

I have witnessed videos on here that were longer than 3 seconds....

Quote

but at the same time if the gear is equipped with an AAD, it should save the life of the user.

I agree; but that is not a TSO issue as an activation by an AAD is not a TSO standard test. Some may think it should be, but it is not.

I am glad you agree on this one.
The FAA is looking at this very issue right now just so you know.

Quote

So when several people are lying dead after an AAD fire on those systems, those systems should be reported as such to the FAA as failed systems.

While we both may conclude that those are 'failed systems,' I seriously doubt that the FAA would see it that way. Once again, an AAD activation is not a TSO standard test.

Again see above..

Quote

Quote:
Testing for performance standards and compatibility is the responsibility of the manufacturer and the FAA

Testing for performance standards is the responsibility of the mfr, not the FAA.

Testing for compatability is the responsibility of the rigger who signs off on the gear IMO.

Negative!
You might want to speak to the FAA on this one.

Take an airplane for instance:
Cessna does their testing and states what is compatibile with what from their own testing to comply with the TSO.

A mechanic that wants something else that differs with the TSO either has to get a field approval or a STC for that change.In this case the mechanic has the full responsibilty.

We on the other hand are simply assembling standard assemblies that are TSO'd with in the same family of TSOs.

If you look at the old 23B, you will not that it states what canopy the H/C is compatible with right on the label.
Look at some old containers if you will.

The Manufacturers no longer comply with that for some reason.


MEL

Got tandems to do...
Busy weekend

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[RiggerLee 61]

Let's break it all down. I'll try to reply concisely to each point.

I'm sorry this got long again.


Lee,
If you really think that the gear is not the major issue, you have an issue IMHO.

Are there gear issues? Yes, I think there are gear issues or I should say potential gear issues. But I don't think it's fair to simply point to the rig with out looking at how and why those changes were made. Where did these decisions come from? Not just what has changed but why. All design is compromise. Any design taken to any one extreme is inevitably a bad design. I actually support why some of these design decisions were made and I'll try to explain why. Note I said some not all.



I will lay it out in plain text for you.

There are five issues:

1. The OPT reserve snivels. Several openings have been filmed at longer than 3 seconds which is the standard for TSO certification. Previous canopies meet the three second rule.
So there is a major difference in performance and design.

This is true. Or at least to some extent. I've seen some of the video and some times it's a little hard to tell exactly when to time from. But that's beside the point. The Optimum is a slower opening reserve. Here is the difference. I don't actually see that as being a bad thing. Are people dead from it, yes. Dead, spat, crater in the ground, grave stone, pushing up daises, mothers crying, the whole nine yards, dead. But I think we have to look deeper.

People don't seem to understand design. There are all these forks in the road where you make decisions one way or the other. What people fail to grasp is that there is not really a right choice. It's just a decision and colectivly they form the shape of the final design. You seem to think that if you make the "right" choice at each fork that you will some how find your way to the perfect design, with out flaws and no one will ever die again. Pipe dream. We keep looking for better paths in the end it just comes down to trade offs. If you want better glide you lose flare authority. In the end you seek a balance and where that balance lays depends on the priorities you set. That's the "why" in the design. I don't think you can evaluate the function with out examining the intent.

How fast should a canopy open? It's easy to say that it should open fast enough to save your life before you hit the ground. Good priority. I might also say that it should also open slow enough that it should not be injured or killed and you're rig should not tear in half. I've seen with my own eyes people die from hard opening so I say that that is also a good priority. These two issues are at odds with each other. The compromise you select determines your operating envelope. It determines how fast you can be going with out failing the harness or the body on opening shock and it also determines how low you can cut away. I can build/pack you a canopy that you can jump from 100 ft 0 airspeed but you wont be able to take it to terminal. The optimum can be deployed head down at 160+ mph with out killing you or tearing a well built harness apart but It does take longer to open. This is just the reality. The question here is what is the intent.

Life was easier back in the eighties. People on the whole weren't as fat. They wore bigger jumpsuits. They fell on there bellies. They jumped bigger canopies. It was a different world when the PDr, Raven, Firelite(still have one in my rig) were made. Life has changed and it could be argued that those designs are no longer good designs for todays skydivers. I remember a conversation once where I was predicted that we were going to start seeing things blow up and that it would start with reserves. Remember all the broken lines on super ravens? Then along comes the M-series. A "good" fast opening canopy that blew line attachment points off on opening. I seem to recall some line breakage on tempo reserves. I think there were two different incidents on those. And the truth is that those came from a relatively small pool of openings. Terminal openings on reserves are relatively rare. And yet we were seeing failures. But look at mains, a far bigger pool. These canopies are actually designed to open soft. Far slower then reserves but we have seen a number of hard opening fatalities and injuries. Imagine if those deployments had been reserve fires head down rather then mains. Althoue it's a smaller end of the curve we can not ignore the issue in the design of this next generation of reserve canopies.

There have always been fatalities from low cutaways/deployments. That's not new. It's not an canopy problem it's a margin problem of not enough separation between our decision/opening altitudes and the envelope of our equipment. That hard deck will always be there regardless of what the number might be. It's up to us to shape our selves around the performance envelope of the equipment we chose to jump with.

TSO. There's another thread about interpritations of the TSO requirments. You can make arguments about the letter of the law. You can rant about what you think the performance should be. We can talk about loop holes and "cheating". Does any one actually doubt that PD actually did the drop test? We are talking about the most reputable company in our industry. And they did receave there TSO. You might say that they squeaked by on the slower end of the spectrum but what we are really talking about is a design decision made to address a very real issue in our sport. I think it's a good thing. The rest of the world may have some catching up to do, starting with changing our ideas about deployment altitudes, but I see this as a good thing.


2. H/C's ( all of them) have been gradually locking down the reserve and main flaps with "new and improved" methods which hinder deployments.


Yes, this is an issue. If there are any real problems that need to be addressed I think they lie here. But in all fairness I feel the need to remind you of the flip side of the argument. Let's review some incidents. Remember the video of the guy that had a riser come louse and it got under his arm and he Spun and spun and spun and... Remember that one? It was a big push towards the attitudes about how tight the shoulders and riser covers had to be. How much coverage they had to have. What was "safe". How about all the uncommanded main deployments from PC's or bridles snaking there way out of pockets in "unusual" flight attitudes, now common. How about the mall where that guy cut away from a spinner and tumbled. The bag was tossed out of the container and tumbled through the lines and he towed his free bag to impact in a bag lock with the lines twisted around the bridle.

So those are some of the real reasons why staging and security are important. Those are all real incident's/accidents. There have however been many design decisions, some small, some large that in my oppion are primarily esthetic in nature. From subtle things in the way patterns and flaps are cut, all the way to fundamental decisions in the design and I think these are contrary to the function of the rig. Too tight, too inclosed, too dependent on the geometry, fit, packing, etc. And where did some of these decisions come from? Demands from, expectations of, and catering to the jumpers. If Booth had his way he'd still be building vector II's. It's like an arms race to see who can though the most bells and whistles and flaps on a rig and it's driven by you, the jumper. They are competing for your money.

I suppose the real question which at times seems to be ignored in this thread is what we should do about it. In all the bickering and finger pointing no one seems to be focused on the real problem. To some extent I don't blame them. It's a hard problem. I don't think it's easily solved. It's much easier to point finger and rage. The truth is that we have built our selves into a corner with thousands of rigs out there that might be subject to a problem. The worst part is that I don't see any way to really get a grip on them. There are just two many variables. I don't think we will be able to pin it down to a design, model, sequence of rigs. Too many are susceptible dependent on compatibility, packing, geometry of the harness or the whims of god. It's my opinion that we will be plagued with this till we fundamentally change our designs to no longer be dependent on these things. I think it can be done. But it means a move away from fashion to functionality. Maybe it's time for the staging of the rig to no longer be dependent on it's tightness or it's geometry. Your going to give me grief about this because there were issues with them, mainly do to miss rigging, but what about staging loops? Maybe it's time to stop trying to retain the free bag with the tightness of the container, which is far too variable, and get old school on this shit. Have you ever taken a pare of scissors and cut one of those multi stripe flaps in half? Between the 1000 denear cordura, the ballistic cloth, all those stripes, and pinstripes... Look how stiff some of those things are. And it's holding your pilot chute in. How wide do the side flaps need to be? Heven forbid the inner top flap show any where. You know that space to hinge at the top flap was there for a reason but then it just seemed to go away to make the rig look sleaker and thinner. Do we need riser covers, yes, but do they need to be so restrictive of the reserve bag? It's getting better. At first I thought they were gimmiky but I'm more and more impressed with the magnetic riser covers. I think there are things that could be done that would be less restrictive on the free bag. We might want to be looking at a slightly smaller diameter spring and cap. If we're set on building smaller rigs how can you expect that large cap to push out of the flaps in the same way. And how small do rigs need to be any way?

This is another one of those things that could be a couple of threads on it's own but in the end it's some thing that can only really be solved on the cutting table as they draw new pattern sets for the next generation of rigs. In the mean time we might do what we can to deal with this situation. Like get more serious about what constitutes acceptable compatibility, improving packing techniques, swopping out existing canopies for newer lower pack volume options like the Optimum. And I think raising all of our altitudes is a good stop gap measure. We can try to test for these issues but the problem is so wide spread that you would almost have to do a distributed program. IE. having every rigger do there own testing in the field like they are discussing in England. But the problem is so complex that I'm not sure that it's practical to do it in a meaningful way in the field. I honestly doubt it's practicality.

3. Reserve Pilot chutes had been filmed "towing" after a successful cutaway on the Wings container.

I personally have witnessed one towing after a dual deployment. The main came out just before the Cypres fired. The Cypres fired and the pilot chute deployed and was towed at 30 plus MPH and never extracted the freebag. In this case it was a good thing; in other cases it was bad.


I'm not saying that you can't have too big a pilot chute because too much snatch force can have a negative effect on the staging of high speed openings. But I am a base jumper. I like big pilot chutes. I like drag. I'm with you on this. Sherman's been up in arms over this for years. I see it as a complimentary problem to the container. and I think the primary problem rest in the container design rather then in the pilot chutes. Yes some are minimal, I just think it shouldn't take that much to deploy the bag. I suppose we could retrofit larger higher drag pilotchutes into existing rigs. Pilot chute changes have been done before. It might be a good chance to go to a slightly smaller cap/spring on some rigs. This is one of the few practical retrofits that we could do at this point.

4. Speedbags from Jumpshack take longer to deploy a canopy than did the previous, simple two stow version freebag.
Simple physics applies here.

Ya, that's true. I'm not sure if it's needed for this purpose but for some applications it works great. You know I hate stroking his ego, it's big enough as it is, but I have to give him credit. I guess it's a question of how much you value the added staging. I will say this. Speed bag or no speed bag racers seem to perform just fine for the most part. Do you think this is a significant issue in what we are discussing?

5. TSO standards- The TSO standards have changed over the years which has allowed some manufacturers to slide through some loop holes regarding deployment times.
Deployment times are a key component in not dying in this sport in case one does not know this.

Yes and no. Part of this I agree with but part I object to. I don't think there is any real excuse for slow deployment to line stretch but I think there is good reason for extending the opening time on the canopy. I think these to things should be judged separately. I've played with things from one end of the spectrum to the other. I think it's more about respecting the realities of the operating envelope. You build the best gear you can, but the people involved must accept and respect the limitations of it, what ever they may be. Only in this way is safety achieved regardless of what environment you are in.

Yes, the person needs to responsible enough to the pull handles, but at the same time if the gear is equipped with an AAD, it should save the life of the user. This is why we install them.

When we install the AAD into a system, it as a system should work as designed. If it does not, we have effectively a failed system as a whole.

So when several people are lying dead after an AAD fire on those systems, those systems should be reported as such to the FAA as failed systems.

Whether you realize it or not you stated a major point. "When we install the AAD into a system, it as a system should work as designed." In point of fact it doesn't. And it was never intended to. And that was never promised at least with the current designs we are using today. None of the "modern" AAD's pull the pin of the reserve. So by definition none of them have any intention of causing the system to function as it was designed. Now that begs the question of what if any standard we feel they should be held to. As I under stand it right now there is no standard, none. You seem to be implying that the system when fired by the unit should be held to the same standards as in it's manual deployments in TSO testing. Furthermore you seem to be implying that if it does not meet this then the system as a whole fails and is some how void of it's TSO. Well first off that is not my understanding and furthermore I hope you do not have any of these devices in your rig as it should by your statement be grounded. Cutting the loop is not the same as pulling the pin and does not work as well. We've seen it. It's no secret. True it's more of a problem on some designs then others. This I see as a separate issue from the others we have discussed. Time for PC deployment vs time to line stretch vs. opening time. These are all separate issues. The aggregate has been and is becoming a problem but we shouldn't confuse them.

I can assure you neither the PIA, USPA, or any manufacturer has done just that.

Maybe we were spoiled or maybe we were cursed but we used to have a fed around here by the name of Gene Bland. He showed up at every fatality and took great interest. He wasn't generally aware of all the non fatal incidents but it's hard for me to believe that no one is paying attention. He sure did.

By reporting this to the FAA, they (FAA) will in turn go to the manufacturer of each component to assure that that equipment meets the TSO and also could issue an AAD to pull the equipment from service.

Testing for performance standards and compatibility is the responsibility of the manufacturer and the FAA; not PIA.

The data that the manufacturers test for is submitted to the FAA. I don't think they take any responceablity for the testing. PIA is the manufacturers collectively. PIA has been setting these standards for testing. PIA, although not capable of controlling and regulating the testing it self does have ethics standard for membership and if a manufacturer was found to have violated it could in theory chastise them althoue all they can really do is say that you're not one of us any more, bad boy, turn in your plack thingy.

The bottom line is this:
We never had these issues with Vector IIs, earlier Javelins, earlier Talons (except for all of the ADs and pilot chute issues),Ravens, Firelites, PDR reserves, and etc.

We do now have issues with the newer gear.
The new gear IS the difference between then and now....period.


And things have changed between then and now. And the gear has changed. Some for the good and some for the bad and needs to be fixed. But the bottom line is that now we need to change to keep up with both the changes in skydiving and it's gear.


Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[Ron 7]

Quote

How would a WL BSR hurt business?

It would depend on how it was written. The fact remains that s equipment that works as intended is killing more skydivers because of the jumpers performance.... Yet we see no rule from the BOD. Ironically, this is a situation where a BSR would be able to modify behavior and save lives.

Then we have a situation that most likey involves a gear issue. So the BOD makes a change not to the gear, but tries to modify a behavior... Never mind that the behavior is no the issue.

So. Why did the BOD not implement a rule change when a behavior modification would actually work. But then implement a behavior modification rule when it was not the issue?

Quote

If you can show where the USPA has served the manufacturers to the detriment of jumpers, you might have a point. Short of that, I just don't see the problem.

Issuing a behavior modification rule to the jumpers to fix a flaw in equipment. The higher main pull altitudes will not save a jumper who cuts away low or has an emergency exit... While fixing the gear issue might.

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Mark,

For the most part it is merely that we see some things differently. I have no problem with your disagreeing with me; we just see things differently.

The FAA might/might not rule on some of these things. I doubt that they will.

However:

Quote

If you look at the old 23B, you will not that it states what canopy the H/C is compatible with right on the label.

There is no req'ment in TSO C23(b) that any canopy be listed on the TSO placard.

UPT does list a canopy on their TSO placard. They also could include the 10 Commandments and/or the Declaration of Independence if they would want to. The FAA addresses that which is the minimum req'ment.

See my attachment; I have taken these directly out of TSO C23(b) and NAS 804.

JerryBaumchen

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

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.

Not entirely true. They USPA did come out with the canopy progression requirements for the B license, and that's a good thing.

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

[billvon 2,380]

>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 would disagree there. The three concrete things I can think of are:

1) The ISP which includes a lot of (new) canopy training
2) The changes to license requirements which requires more canopy skills demonstration
3) The change to the group member pledge which requires separate landing areas

This would go along with all the "soft" stuff like the canopy skills articles in PARACHUTIST.

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

I think that's their goal. The current BOD has several DZO's on it so they see the sport from a slightly different direction, but with the exception of Larry and Mike I think they are all current skydivers as well as DZO's. They don't always do a great job (as in this case) but their intent is to act in the best interests of all USPA members.

>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.

I disagree with the first part of that statement. They all like to bitch and complain but that's true of every skydiver out there. They do still get stuff done at board meetings.

They do act out of self interest but then so do I - that's why I was pushing for the 'graduate course' and the landing area separation years ago. Several people have similar personal agendas, and I think that's good overall. I think it's important to remember that "personal agendas" are not the opposite of "things that are good for skydiving safety."

>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?

I think that's true. They heed the people who talk the loudest and the most, especially the people who show up to meetings to talk loud and long about what they think is important. They also base their decisions on the people they actually see, typically at their home DZ's and at the events they go to. That's the inevitable consequence of being a small BOD in a large organization; they react to what they can see, hear and read about.

That's why elections are so important, because when you elect someone like Mike Mullins you get a more DZO-centric viewpoint, with Tom Noonan it's a more tandem-centric viewpoint. (Not saying they have that viewpoint _only_ but that's the environment they are in.) Fortunately we can choose who goes into those roles.

[peanut4040 0]

GO Ron,,,,,, LLLLLLL yeahhhhh

Its a good day to LIVE, why puck up a good thing.

There is no reply in aad section for. " hell no i would not put an AAD on my back"

[chuckakers 369]

grue

***
You've never heard of a person dieing because they deployed too high.

Maybe YOU haven't.

Canopy collisions happen.

Deployment proximity canopy collisions aren't caused from opening too high above the ground. They are caused by opening too close to another canopy - be it horizontally or vertically - regardless of the altitude above the ground.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[ChrisD 0]

I want to point out absolutely no one, including me, asked this person to clarify or expand upon this point: Just my opinion, but if the PIA was lobbying, who what, when , and where? All I'm trying to point out with this, and I'll allow the possibility that I can be very wrong,...

is that the media here and other places may be contributing to miscommunication. Are we misinterpreting the opposing viewpoint because it is underrepresented and unheard???? Can we do anything about it??

MakeItHappen

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

I don't know why, but during the past couple of meetings, PIA has approached USPA about several issues.
PIA sent representatives to pitch the age limit again.
USPA did not change their rules based mostly on an assessment by the USPA attorneys.

Another item that came up was the waiver. This motion passed the GM comm and made it to the FB.
The motion was eventually withdrawn, but I think that it will reappear at a later meeting.

This item was to add a clause to the GM pledge that required GM DZs to add mfgs as a class to the DZO's waiver.
Objections to this included
- the cost to the DZO associated with a waiver change
- that no other 3rd party was singled out in the GM pledge to require mention in the hold harmless/waiver agreement
- effective date of the requirement
- alternative methods could be used by PIA to request that mfgs as a class be added to each DZ waiver

PIA is asking USPA to do its legwork here.
I think that PIA should create its own DZ distribution list and ask the DZOs directly to add mfgs as a class to their waiver.
How difficult could that be? not very hard.
USPA also should not be burdened with the task of verifying that mfgs are listed as a class (or individually) in each waiver.

I'd like to know if there are DZOs out there that may object to this requirement too.
Keep your eyes out for this in the future - it might come up again.

BTW, I voted against the raising of the pull altitudes for C & D license holders.

The raised altitudes also effect the AFF eval dives and the decision altitude cited in the IRM and SIM, respectively.
These changes are going to be done by HQ - I don't know if the BOD will be able to vote on what HQ proposes before the manuals get reprinted this fall.

I don't know how many S&TAs are going to object to giving waivers out for pull altitudes because they assume some additional risk, when before there was none. People are pulling higher now anyway. There was no reason to raise the altitude.

Jay Stokes claims that this will 'force' the AAD mfgs to raise the AAD activation altitude.
It's not going to 'force' them to do anything. They will have more latitude to do so, but 'forcing' them to do so is BS.
If the AAD mfgs wanted to raise activation altitude (and they do want to do this), they are free to do so now and distribute another model, just like they did with the swooper model.

.

Some issues have in fact been discussed in the past. The repost, this post, is in response to a dare, (someone dared me to do it,) so don't take my head off will ya??? Nor am I directing my opinions at any one person, nor am I angry at skydiving, I'm just pointing something out about this media and some of the effects that as human beings we forget about sometimes.

The age limit was in the works for some time and more than a few saw it coming. Kudos to MakeItHappen for bringing a number of issues to the table years before the rest of us saw it coming/ and or after the fact. On the other hand many, many, concerned skydivers were and have been discussing the age limit long before the recent meeting as well. I think the opposing view, those that opposed the increase in the age limit, see some of the responses here and think that this was a majority view and the BOD ignored them. I also think that many people who held that the age limit should have been increased long ago, have kept their mouths silent for a number of reasons, many of which I don't fully understand. But the fact remains that in my talks with many other people the majority of individual skydivers wanted the age increase. It's just that everyone here didn't "see" that. Perhaps, IMO, a few very vocal and visible individuals here are perceived as some kind of majority, but in reality they are a minority. I don't know, but some of these issues clearly indicate, to me anyways, that there is a need for more discussion of some of the upcoming items that are on the agenda. And certainly more involvement and understanding of the other persons viewpoint. Many people, based upon the responses in the other postings here, about the age increase feel that they have been blindsided and or the BOD has operated behind closed doors. I don't see it this way. I see the BOD being engaged with many people that don't use Dropzone.com as their exclusive source of information. In other words there is more to communication than the internet. But many fail to grasp this point. This little psych effect is a kind of "displacement." Think of it this way, ten posts here is not the same as a BOD member getting 50 phone calls.

Also kudos to this person for being humble and dignified by their current conduct. They continue to show us their wisdom and knowledge and their commitment to skydiving!!
I want to thank this person once again for their commitment to discussing every issue to the fullest possible and in complete daylight.

And for the numerous times that they have taken the time to educate as compared with others pithy comebacks and personal attacks.

Just my two cents for today,...

C

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

[airtwardo 6]

There have been several Q & A's on FB regarding various issues and the latest BOD meeting.

I'm one of the people that isn't surprised about the age being raised, nor do I have a problem with it. In the sue 'em all environment we live in - this was coming...

Having run a few business (no DZ's though) one of MY 1st priorities is lowering liability exposure in as many ways as possible, I can't imagine ANY scenario where risking the ranch for a revenue increase less that 1000% makes any sense.

Ya don't gamble the whole Goose for and extra egg. . . and the thing with gambling is - sometimes, the odds REALLY get ya.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[topdocker 0]

airtwardo

There have been several Q & A's on FB regarding various issues and the latest BOD meeting.

I'm one of the people that isn't surprised about the age being raised, nor do I have a problem with it. In the sue 'em all environment we live in - this was coming...

Having run a few business (no DZ's though) one of MY 1st priorities is lowering liability exposure in as many ways as possible, I can't imagine ANY scenario where risking the ranch for a revenue increase less that 1000% makes any sense.

Ya don't gamble the whole Goose for and extra egg. . . and the thing with gambling is - sometimes, the odds REALLY get ya.

This issue was brought before the BOD when I was on it several times. It lost every time because the basic argument was it was not about safety therefore it could not be a BSR. That has not changed.

The second point is that in several states, waivers for minors are enforceable in court. To hold DZ's in those states to a standard that is unnecessary is ridiculous. It is any more risky to take a minor in those states than any other age group. That has not changed.

What has changed in the few years since the last vote? Some BOD members and this was a BOD meeting held in conjunction with (and purposely held way later than normal) the PIA convention. Very convenient.

Maybe PIA will next ask USPA to have every member to sign a release of liability form for the manufacturers with every new membership or renewal. Wouldn't shock me one bit.

top

Jump more, post less!

[Amazon 7]

Is it time yet for boycotts of those manufacturers, DZO's and BOD members who pushed for this travesty???