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

[ChrisD 0]

3331

The problem is not Main Canopy opening altitude. The problem is gear made for Marketing Fashion not Function. Lots of flaps covering a reserve container that’s too tight and restricts the reserve no matter when the AAD fires.

We have incidents where the tight cool looking (Gucci Gear) container kept the reserve from opening before impact. Test results from SSK showed the AAD's fired at 750 Feet every time, plenty of room for a reserve to open.

Right here on Dropzone dot com there was a video of a jumper with a Reserve Pilot chute in tow, he reached back and pulled his reserve out.

Pay Attention!

I want to clarify a point raised by this issue, that really belongs in another thread...

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

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

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

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

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

C

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

[topdocker 0]

I just see this as one more time where "for the good of the manufacturers" has tried to become "good for the sport."

First, the "age of legal majority" rule change. No DZO or member asked for this, the manufacturers did. Specifically, the tandem gear manufacturers. This was touted as being the way to save skydiving in this country, not just the manufacturers.

Second, the "age limit on equipment" BSR, which is now suspended. No member group ask for this, but it would have been a boon to the manufacturers because a lot of gear would have been BSR'ed out.

Now, the "raise minimum altitude" BSR change. This has been defeated at numerous BOD meetings in the past. Essentially leaving it up to the member to decide their minimum opening altitude if they have equipment requiring that extra altitude. Again, no member group came running to the BOD asking for this change.....

So, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If this group of Board members insists on walking and talking like the manufacturers, then they should expect to be called "mouthpieces."

top

PS. I believe Mr. Sherman has been debating the effectiveness of the equipment, not the pull altitudes.....

Jump more, post less!

[gowlerk 1,906]

What I don't get is why do AAD manufacturers need a change in the rules to enact an increase in their activation height? And in what way does a change in USPA rules justify a change given that AADs are all manufactured in Europe and used and sold around the world. What is the minimum everywhere else? In Canada it is still 2200ft, as far as I know. But I could be wrong, or there could be a current movement to change it.

Given that different jurisdictions have different rules couldn't the manufacturers get together and have a standard of their own?

Ken

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Chris,

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JerryBaumchen

[Divalent 89]

JerryBaumchen

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

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

[Andy9o8 0]

gowlerk

What I don't get is why do AAD manufacturers need a change in the rules to enact an increase in their activation height? And in what way does a change in USPA rules justify a change given that AADs are all manufactured in Europe and used and sold around the world. What is the minimum everywhere else? In Canada it is still 2200ft, as far as I know. But I could be wrong, or there could be a current movement to change it.
Given that different jurisdictions have different rules couldn't the manufacturers get together and have a standard of their own

It's because the mfgrs fear that if they increase the activation height, but the minimum container-opening altitude is not correspondingly raised, the result will be more 2-outs, with a corresponding increase in the risk of entanglements or downplanes. Which (they reason) means greater risk of more jumpers getting hurt in 2-outs, and lawsuits claiming the mfgrs were negligent in allowing their AADs to open too high (absurd as that sounds).

As for jurisdiction, the mfgrs really care most about the US, since that's probably the country where the greatest risk of legal liability exists, both in terms of laws and number of skydives performed.

[Ron 7]

Quote

If Booth and others want to raise altitudes it's for a reason.

No one is saying he does not have a reason. No one is saying it might not even be a good idea. What I am saying is Booth and other manufacturers have an influence on the BOD that is greater than the jumpers who make up the USPA.

Is the USPA an organization to support the manufacturers, or the jumpers?

Quote

And if you have meet Bill you are aware he is a mouthpiece for no one!

You have (intentionally?) missed the thread. It is not about Booth being the mouth piece of anyone. It is the BOD being a mouth piece for Booth. An I have known Booth since 1996, so I know a bit about him.

The issue is the new containers are not meeting the TSO standards they were certified under. The solution is to fix that, not move the AAD altitude up.

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

[Ron 7]

topdocker

I just see this as one more time where "for the good of the manufacturers" has tried to become "good for the sport."

First, the "age of legal majority" rule change. No DZO or member asked for this, the manufacturers did. Specifically, the tandem gear manufacturers. This was touted as being the way to save skydiving in this country, not just the manufacturers.

Second, the "age limit on equipment" BSR, which is now suspended. No member group ask for this, but it would have been a boon to the manufacturers because a lot of gear would have been BSR'ed out.

Now, the "raise minimum altitude" BSR change. This has been defeated at numerous BOD meetings in the past. Essentially leaving it up to the member to decide their minimum opening altitude if they have equipment requiring that extra altitude. Again, no member group came running to the BOD asking for this change.....

So, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If this group of Board members insists on walking and talking like the manufacturers, then they should expect to be called "mouthpieces."

top

PS. I believe Mr. Sherman has been debating the effectiveness of the equipment, not the pull altitudes.....

+1
This is the gist of this....

No member asked for this - Manufacturers asked for this.
No member asked for age limits - Manufacturers did.
No member asked for FAA medicals - Manufacturers did.
No member asked for gear life spans - Manufacturers did.
Members have asked for something to stop canopy deaths - Manufacturers didn't

See a trend yet?

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

[grue 1]

Ron

+1
This is the gist of this....

No member asked for this - Manufacturers asked for this.
No member asked for age limits - Manufacturers did.
No member asked for FAA medicals - Manufacturers did.
No member asked for gear life spans - Manufacturers did.
Members have asked for something to stop canopy deaths - Manufacturers didn't

See a trend yet?

THAT sums things up nicely.

cavete terrae.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Ron,

Quote

The issue is the new containers are not meeting the TSO standards they were certified under.

That is a very strong statement.

Do you have any factual data that backs it up?

JerryBaumchen

PS) And for you and anyone: There is no TSO certification test for any parachute system to be open within 'x' seconds and/or 'y' feet when activated by an uncertificated AAD. IMO they should, but there is no req'ment that they must perform so.

[SStewart 13]

While we are at it, how about this new BSR?

-A new Basic Safety Requirement has been added as follows: No person may make a parachute jump or attempt to make a parachute jump if that person is or appears to be under the influence of—
a. alcohol
b. any drug that affects that person’s faculties in any way contrary to safety.

Great! now we can't pull low or drink and jump. The good news is that the SIM is now officially heavy enough to be used as a packing weight. It took years but we finally did it!

Onward and Upward!

[yoink 321]

SStewart

Great! now we can't pull low or drink and jump. The good news is that the SIM is now officially heavy enough to be used as a packing weight. It took years but we finally did it!

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

[Ron 7]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Ron,

Quote

The issue is the new containers are not meeting the TSO standards they were certified under.

That is a very strong statement.

Do you have any factual data that backs it up?

JerryBaumchen

PS) And for you and anyone: There is no TSO certification test for any parachute system to be open within 'x' seconds and/or 'y' feet when activated by an uncertificated AAD. IMO they should, but there is no req'ment that they must perform so.

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

But, answer these questions:

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

2. The CYPRES has been around 20+ years (and remember people used to pull lower). How many AAD fire/Bounces had happened 10 years ago?

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

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

[SStewart 13]

yoink

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

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

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

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

Onward and Upward!

[Bignugget 0]

faulknerwn

But how many people going in pulled at 2k? I know that most of the reports I've read of people going in with partial reserves had people pulling much higher than that but just taking too long on procedures. I don't think this will do much because young jumpers all seem to be terrified below 3k, and the old farts are going to do whatever anyway. It very well may stop demos from occurring however.

The real problem is that these modern tiny tight containers aren't getting a reserve out in 300 feet like they are supposed to.

To me this is the real problem and the bumping up of AAD firing altitudes is trying to get around that many of the modern tight systems wouldn't pass a TSO test. I mean - how many years ago did many of these manufacturers do the TSO testing on their rigs? I bet most are anywhere from 20-30 years ago ( or more!) when rigs were very different.

Did I read this correctly?



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

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

How/Why is this allowed?

[nigel99 143]

Bignugget

***But how many people going in pulled at 2k? I know that most of the reports I've read of people going in with partial reserves had people pulling much higher than that but just taking too long on procedures. I don't think this will do much because young jumpers all seem to be terrified below 3k, and the old farts are going to do whatever anyway. It very well may stop demos from occurring however.

The real problem is that these modern tiny tight containers aren't getting a reserve out in 300 feet like they are supposed to.

To me this is the real problem and the bumping up of AAD firing altitudes is trying to get around that many of the modern tight systems wouldn't pass a TSO test. I mean - how many years ago did many of these manufacturers do the TSO testing on their rigs? I bet most are anywhere from 20-30 years ago ( or more!) when rigs were very different.

Did I read this correctly?



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

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

How/Why is this allowed?

My entire education on the subject is watching a few years of threads on dz.com and a bit of supplementary reading.

But my understanding is that there are very few 'new' harnesses on the market. In general they are an evolution, with minor tweaks and enhancements over the years.

As normal in life there are trade-offs. You don't want to demand manufacturers retest after every change/enhancement - if you do the cost of harnesses will either skyrocket or innovation will stop. The flip side is the apparent situation where significant small changes have happened over a few decades without FORMAL retesting. I emphasis formal simply because I'm sure that the manufacturers do their own testing.

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

And if in their mind they have that extra 500 feet, then that will lead them to think they have more time. Thinking you have extra time is one of the major factors in cutting away low. No, no one thinks chopping at 200 feet is a good idea, however 700 feet might be ok (and I have done it).

Yes, the people who have already have their impression of 'low' planted in their brains might not benefit from this change, but like I said, there is a whole generation of people who are up and coming who will.

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

The point being that the psychological aspect is huge in shaping people's performance. Try taking an American driver to the Autobahn and sticking them in traffic at 90+ mph. To them, it's crazy-town, and they'll be white knuckles on the steering wheel. The locals, on the other hand, will be playing with the radio and thinking about laundry and grocery shopping.

So we make this change today, and there's a whole crop of jumpers who will be in full on 'panic mode' at 2k, not 1500ft like current jumpers. There's something about 2k, about the fact that some people are allowed to pull down there, that makes it a 'line of demarcation'. A B license jumper who was planning to pull at 3k could smoke it down to 2100ft be accident, and while they would realize that they pulled 'lower' than they planned, they would still not think it was 'low' because some people are allowed to pull at 2k.

This change is not about you or me, it's about future jumpers. This change might also be about manufacturers interest, but I still don't see how jumpers and manufacturers are necessarily on opposite sides of the aisle. We need them, and they need us, and we all need the sport to be safe and thriving in order to have a future.

[DanG 1]

Quote

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

Do you think there should be no BSRs at all?

- Dan G

[kallend 1,623]

What EXACTLY does "container opening altitude" mean? Which container, the pilot chute pouch (?), the rig or the D-Bag?

I have direct control over when I wave off and when I deploy, but only indirectly over when the rig opens and D-bag stows undo.

Am I violating a BSR if I have a PC in tow through 2500ft?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Ron

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.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[faulk04 0]

SStewart

While we are at it, how about this new BSR?

-A new Basic Safety Requirement has been added as follows: No person may make a parachute jump or attempt to make a parachute jump if that person is or appears to be under the influence of—
a. alcohol
b. any drug that affects that person’s faculties in any way contrary to safety.

Great! now we can't pull low or drink and jump. The good news is that the SIM is now officially heavy enough to be used as a packing weight. It took years but we finally did it!

Why would you need a BSR for that if you already have Sec. 105.7 in the SIM for that?

[topdocker 0]

faulk04

***While we are at it, how about this new BSR?

-A new Basic Safety Requirement has been added as follows: No person may make a parachute jump or attempt to make a parachute jump if that person is or appears to be under the influence of—
a. alcohol
b. any drug that affects that person’s faculties in any way contrary to safety.

Great! now we can't pull low or drink and jump. The good news is that the SIM is now officially heavy enough to be used as a packing weight. It took years but we finally did it!

Why would you need a BSR for that if you already have Sec. 105.7 in the SIM for that?

I believe this is actually an FAR.

top

Jump more, post less!

[ChrisD 0]

Ron

Quote

If Booth and others want to raise altitudes it's for a reason.

No one is saying he does not have a reason. No one is saying it might not even be a good idea. What I am saying is Booth and other manufacturers have an influence on the BOD that is greater than the jumpers who make up the USPA.

Is the USPA an organization to support the manufacturers, or the jumpers?

***And if you have meet Bill you are aware he is a mouthpiece for no one!

You have (intentionally?) missed the thread. It is not about Booth being the mouth piece of anyone. It is the BOD being a mouth piece for Booth. An I have known Booth since 1996, so I know a bit about him.

The issue is the new containers are not meeting the TSO standards they were certified under. The solution is to fix that, not move the AAD altitude up.

Naw I didn't miss any thing here, and your right on target as far as the USPA is our and for jumpers. It's just that the USPA, us / we have a multitude of opinions!

there is nothing like facing off in a room full of drop zone owners as compared with individuals that want the freedom to abolish the SIM. Yes there are those of us out there that don't want any regulation at all! They usually point out that once their out the door, no regulation is going to save their ass! And ya know what they are right!

Then we have the owners and many others that point out your actions, affect my sport! And they are right!

On the other hand some of these individuals have experience over the last 50 or so years. They did stuff, that would get You or I kicked off the most liberal of drop zones in a heartbeat. That kind of experience cost a few lives, they are the survivors...

When they speak, I listen. Not that I approve of everything they say mind you as you are pointing out. But on the other hand their opinion is missing here on this forum, as well as the manufacturers voice as well.

If ya want to go thru the posted min of some of these meetings...

Well continue the good fight, this might be one of those hard decisions I speak about because of the nature of the things we do....

I fully support putting pressure on the manufacturers to raise their game

Just be kind in the fact that they have to deal with employees, lawyers, and large numbers of individuals all with varying ideas of how things should be done.

I think having adjustable firing altitudes is going to be the compromise that is worked out as soon as the other manufacturer gets their act together. As well as for D lic holders there isn't going to be much of a change.

It's your local DZ and their insurance that is pushing for mandatory AAD's, I don't like the idea of forcing expensive equipment upon anyone, especially when they point out it's their life and I can't do shit for them if something goes wrong. We might see mandatory AAD requierments if some NTSB or politicians kid gets wacked and they don't have one, this is what keeps me up at night, the government mandate will be swift and absolute, we have seen this kind of reaction before...And then our organization won't matter for shit!

But I think your spot on when form and function clash with the idea that many want to belive in that the containers are built with reserve function first.

Just dig out some literature from the seventies to see what is promoted or better said marketed as compared with today!

Most jumpers just want to jump, it's tough enough to get the average jumper to check their closing loop washer nevermind take an interest in the future of jumping....

Keep up the fight, it's through your efforts and comments that the min effort is heard, it's a war kid! Don't loose sight of that. Each and every day, each and every opportunity, such is a crusade! And sometimes that's what it takes to effect a positive change such as you have undertaken!

C

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

[billvon 2,396]

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

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

>How/Why is this allowed?

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

[Southern_Man 0]

billvon

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

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

>How/Why is this allowed?

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

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

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

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"