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

[grue 1]

Deisel

Just passing along the 'for' argument as it was presented to the BOD. BTW - This all came from Mike Mullins.

Think ya missed your attachment there, hoss

cavete terrae.

[Ron 7]

Deisel

Just passing along the 'for' argument as it was presented to the BOD. BTW - This all came from Mike Mullins.

Then maybe you should of reminded Mike that there are FAR's that cover this?

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

Then maybe you should of reminded Mike that there are FAR's that cover this?

Why should the pilot be punished for the bad actions of the jumper? Without this BSR, there is nothing USPA can do to punish jumpers that try to jump drunk. The drunk jumper only runs afoul of the rules if they manage to succeed in jumping drunk. With the new BSR, jumpers, and more importantly instructors, can have USPA action initiated against them for trying to jump drunk, even if they don't succeed. And, enforcement is no longer limited to the pilot, who's done nothing wrong.

- Dan G

[Ron 7]

DanG

Quote

Then maybe you should of reminded Mike that there are FAR's that cover this?

Why should the pilot be punished for the bad actions of the jumper? Without this BSR, there is nothing USPA can do to punish jumpers that try to jump drunk. The drunk jumper only runs afoul of the rules if they manage to succeed in jumping drunk. With the new BSR, jumpers, and more importantly instructors, can have USPA action initiated against them for trying to jump drunk, even if they don't succeed. And, enforcement is no longer limited to the pilot, who's done nothing wrong.

And what punishment does the USPA give out for breaking any other BSR? That's right, nothing or close enough to nothing that I'd bet you can't cite five cases in the last 12 months.

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

[randompoints 0]

And Ed's letter just proves the point. Just plain stupid and have no understanding of their role.

Even tho i don't agree with the new opening altitudes. The S&ta waiver is one of the dumbest things I've seen.
So P3 at the end of the year gets an s&ta to waiver. And then we have an incident. Perris and the s&ta are up in front of the judge explaining why they waiver something called a "basic saftey rule" try explaining that to a jury. Jump prices go up or worse we lose a great dz.

Protect the sport!!!! First rule of being on the board.

Now back to the debate of what the heights should be

[michaelmullins 77]

Ron

***The argument was that until someone actually exits an aircraft in flight while intoxicated, they have not broken any rules. This would include getting on the manifest, gearing up, and riding to altitude. All now against the rules.

FAR 121.575 does not allow a pilot to take up a drunk pax.
FAR 91.17 does not allow a pilot to take up a drunk or drugged pax.
FAR 91.15 does not allow dropping of objects that creates a hazard to persons or property.

We don't need a BSR to cover this, since it is clearly covered by FAR's

There is a BSR that states that USPA Members must follow all FARs. So, all FARs are already "de facto" BSRs

The FAR that concerns alcohol, drugs, and skydiving is:

§ 105.7 Use of alcohol and drugs.
No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft, if that person is or appears to be under the influence of—

(a) Alcohol, or

(b) Any drug that affects that person's faculties in any way contrary to safety.


The BOD added 4 words to the FAR:

§ 105.7 Use of alcohol and drugs.
No person may conduct, or attempt to conduct, a parachute operation.............

As we cannot change a FAR the only way we could make this effective was to state it as a BSR.

This change was made as a direct result of a situation that arose where a Tandem Instructor was stopped from making a jump after a DZO observed him smoking dope and then attempting to make a Tandem Jump. The DZO banned him from the DZ but no action could be taken against him by USPA as he had not actually jumped (there were other issues involved but this is the gist of the situation).

In your above post you state that the pilot is not allowed to take someone up under the influence as your justification that we do not need this BSR. Does anyone out there even vaguely believe that the pilot can police this? I suppose the pilot could shut the aircraft down after every load and interview each jumper before going up on the next load. I am sure that would be popular.

This was done to plug a hole in the rules. I am sure that most skydivers do not want someone attempting to jump under the influence and want the option of some way to discourage and/or discipline them if they attempt to do so.

Under Part 121 and 135 rules, pilots are not allowed to be under the influence when they start duty time prior to flight. That is how they handle it and that is how we are now handling it.

I see no downside to publish this FAR with this 4 word change. Again, it was already a BSR as there is a BSR to follow all FARs. If we did not have the BSR that you must follow all FARs then we would have to put all the FARs in the BSRs.

This is a tempest in a teapot over 4 words.

Mike Mullins

[Ron 7]

Quote

In your above post you state that the pilot is not allowed to take someone up under the influence as your justification that we do not need this BSR. Does anyone out there even vaguely believe that the pilot can police this? I suppose the pilot could shut the aircraft down after every load and interview each jumper before going up on the next load. I am sure that would be popular.

Maybe the same way we make sure the pilot checks that rigs are in date. The point being that it is not really a gigantic problem and there are FAR's that cover the situation. The USPA could pull the TI's ratings for gross stupidity.

Quote

This is a tempest in a teapot over 4 words.

No, I don't really give a shit about the drug BSR... I care more about the BOD changing rules that skydivers don't want changed just because manufacturers want them changed.

This thread is about how the BOD changed pull altitudes to make AAD makers happy. Nevermind that the actual issue is with the rigs.

But the BOD will not take action that makes the manufacturers mad.

Why hasn't the USPA demanded the PIA provide the report the USPa asked for three years ago?

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

[michaelmullins 77]

Ron

Quote

In your above post you state that the pilot is not allowed to take someone up under the influence as your justification that we do not need this BSR. Does anyone out there even vaguely believe that the pilot can police this? I suppose the pilot could shut the aircraft down after every load and interview each jumper before going up on the next load. I am sure that would be popular.

Maybe the same way we make sure the pilot checks that rigs are in date. The point being that it is not really a gigantic problem and there are FAR's that cover the situation. The USPA could pull the TI's ratings for gross stupidity.

***This is a tempest in a teapot over 4 words.

No, I don't really give a shit about this... I care more about the BOD changing rules that skydivers don't want changed just because manufacturers want them changed.

This thread is about how the BOD changed pull altitudes to make AAD makers happy. Nevermind that the actual issue is with the rigs.

But the BOD will not take action that makes the manufacturers mad.

Why hasn't the USPA demanded the PIA provide the report the USPa asked for three years ago?

It is USPA's primary responsibility to promote safety. Fact is, regardless of where the fault lies, some skydivers are hitting the ground and dying after AAD activation. We must take the course of action that will help this problem and do it in a practical manner. For argument sake, let us just assume that the fault lies with the containers becoming too tight after manufacturers gave the skydivers what they demanded: smaller, better looking rigs.

What should we do? Recall thousands of rigs for testing or compatibility checks? Not practical and would take a FAA AD to accomplish this. Not going to happen. What is practical is to raise the AAD activation altitude by about 300' to give more time for deployment.

If the AAD altitude is changed up 300', then we need to raise the minimum container opening altitude to avoid a two out scenario.

For those that need/want a 2,000' altitude, the waiver process was made as easy as possible and can be waived for one jump, a series of jumps, for one person, for a group of persons, etc., by an S&TA.

There are "fails" out there. These are the jumpers for lack of awareness, poor training, not following their training, or a million other reasons are getting a AAD activation but are not getting a fully deployed reserve. The quickest approach to help with this is to raise the AAD activation altitude 300'.

As for your statement that "the BOD will not take action that makes the manufacturers mad" I can tell you that is pure bullshit. I promise you that I and others on the board have taken actions that did not please the manufacturers.

This is not about pleasing or displeasing someone. This is about a practical solution to a real problem.

Mike Mullins

[Ron 7]

Quote

What should we do? Recall thousands of rigs for testing or compatibility checks? Not practical and would take a FAA AD to accomplish this. Not going to happen. What is practical is to raise the AAD activation altitude by about 300' to give more time for deployment.

If the USPA suspects that the manufactures are not making rigs that meet the TSO.... Then they should tell the manufacturers to start making them better, not change a rule to make them happy.

If a rig is not making the TSO standards.... The solution is not to just change the rule. Are we now going to make min bail out altitude 1300 feet to make up for the slow opening of the rig and reserve?

If the USPA thinks part of the problem is the manufacturers (and it seems in 2010 they asked the PIA about it)... Then instead of kicking the can down the road, they should hold them accountable.

What happens when in 5-10 years the manufacturers have made a few more 'mods' and now AAD's have to now fire at 1200 feet.

Fix the problem, not kick the can down the road to keep the manufacturers happy.

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

[michaelmullins 77]

Ron

Quote

What should we do? Recall thousands of rigs for testing or compatibility checks? Not practical and would take a FAA AD to accomplish this. Not going to happen. What is practical is to raise the AAD activation altitude by about 300' to give more time for deployment.

If the USPA suspects that the manufactures are not making rigs that meet the TSO.... Then they should tell the manufacturers to start making them better, not change a rule to make them happy.

If a rig is not making the TSO standards.... The solution is not to just change the rule. Are we now going to make min bail out altitude 1300 feet to make up for the slow opening of the rig and reserve?

If the USPA thinks part of the problem is the manufacturers (and it seems in 2010 they asked the PIA about it)... Then instead of kicking the can down the road, they should hold them accountable.

What happens when in 5-10 years the manufacturers have made a few more 'mods' and now AAD's have to now fire at 1200 feet.

Fix the problem, not kick the can down the road to keep the manufacturers happy.

We are exactly NOT kicking the can down the road. We are doing NOW what we can to keep the "fails" from dying. We can make demands that will be ignored or we can do now what we can to save a few people.

The manufacturers simply say there is nothing wrong with their rigs, will continue to say that, and say that their rigs meet the TSO Standard. So we can keep telling them there is a problem, do study after study, and waste more time. Or, we can take a practical approach and do something that will help the problem now.

Further, what do we do with the 50,000 (or more) rigs that are out there that may have a problem with slow reserve deployments that the manufacturers assert meet all TSO requirements?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "pleasing" the manufacturers.

Mike Mullins

[Southern_Man 0]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Ken,

Quote

They are the ones who TSO the rigs.

Please do not think I am trying to be negative towards you. I am only trying put forth some information.

The FAA does not "TSO the rigs.' The mfr does; heck, the FAA does not even come out to watch any of the testing.

hi Jerry,

You can always disagree with me without worrying that I will take it the wrong way. I am new in rigging and relatively new in the sport and have a lot of respect for experienced folks.

You have given me some food for thought, especially in your analogies to airbags and (someone else) medical devices.

I am not convinced that the AAD firing, reserve not deploying is down to rig design, or at least not solely to rig design. I know a lot of very experienced people are convinced that is the sole issue.

I do not know enough about how extensively the manufacturers re-test minor design changes. I believe that retesting is not as thorough as the TSO process but maybe it should be. If rig design is playing a role than it may be that there was not enough real world testing done (such as putting enough different size reserves in it, testing every container size, etc).

Anyway, I am in favor of raising AAD firing altitudes. I think the 750 is cutting the margin too thin. I don't know if it will eliminate this sort of incident and suspect that if rig design is really the culprit they will continue.

I do not see why the minimum pull altitude had to be raised to do that. I am unaware that any of the "going in w/ reserve still in the freebag" incidents happened on a jump with a planned deployment altitude below 2500 ft.

Interested to hear further thoughts.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

michaelmullins

If the AAD altitude is changed up 300', then we need to raise the minimum container opening altitude to avoid a two out scenario.

Mike Mullins

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your service on the board. Please do not take this as adversarial but my question is why you think we had to raise minimum opening altitudes to raise AAD deployment altitudes?

I see fear of two-outs comes into play. I have seen at least 3 different two outs which came from AAD fires. On all three of them the planned deployment altitude was above 3000 ft.

Is there a rash of 2 outs from jumpers deploying below 2500?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[michaelmullins 77]

Southern_Man

***
If the AAD altitude is changed up 300', then we need to raise the minimum container opening altitude to avoid a two out scenario.

Mike Mullins

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your service on the board. Please do not take this as adversarial but my question is why you think we had to raise minimum opening altitudes to raise AAD deployment altitudes?

I see fear of two-outs comes into play. I have seen at least 3 different two outs which came from AAD fires. On all three of them the planned deployment altitude was above 3000 ft.

Is there a rash of 2 outs from jumpers deploying below 2500?

Because if we raise the AAD activation altitude then we must raise the minimum deployment altitude or we will have two outs. They go hand in hand.

I have seen several two outs with a deployment altitude of 2,000'. It is a common misconception that a Vigil fires at 840' and a Cypres at 750'. Those are the activation altitudes if you are on your back. When belly to earth the Vigil activates at 1100' and the Cypres also activates higher but in the case of the Cypres they do not specify how much higher. I tried to get the exact figure for the Cypres but they would only say "higher".

It is now very risky to deploy at 2000' if you are going to get an AAD activation at 1100'. It would be virtually guaranteed a AAD activation with an AAD set to 1400' and a deployment altitude of 2000'.

Mike Mullins

[Southern_Man 0]

michaelmullins

******
If the AAD altitude is changed up 300', then we need to raise the minimum container opening altitude to avoid a two out scenario.

Mike Mullins

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your service on the board. Please do not take this as adversarial but my question is why you think we had to raise minimum opening altitudes to raise AAD deployment altitudes?

I see fear of two-outs comes into play. I have seen at least 3 different two outs which came from AAD fires. On all three of them the planned deployment altitude was above 3000 ft.

Is there a rash of 2 outs from jumpers deploying below 2500?

Because if we raise the AAD activation altitude then we must raise the minimum deployment altitude or we will have two outs. They go hand in hand.

I have seen several two outs with a deployment altitude of 2,000'. It is a common misconception that a Vigil fires at 840' and a Cypres at 750'. Those are the activation altitudes if you are on your back. When belly to earth the Vigil activates at 1100' and the Cypres also activates higher but in the case of the Cypres they do not specify how much higher. I tried to get the exact figure for the Cypres but they would only say "higher".

It is now very risky to deploy at 2000' if you are going to get an AAD activation at 1100'. It would be virtually guaranteed a AAD activation with an AAD set to 1400' and a deployment altitude of 2000'.

Mike Mullins

Hi Mike,

I agree that it is risky to deploy at 2000' with an AAD, at least at Freefall speeds. As a hop and pop I think you would still be OK. I do understand how orientation affects firing altitude (although I know some jumpers do not).

I personally do not believe that is a reason to raise the minimum deployment altitude. Some people do not have AADs (and can safely deploy at 2000' or at least without AAD risk). I do not know anybody with an AAD who deploys at 2000' in freefall. There is some risk now but it appears jumpers have already adjusted to the AAD firing altitude and we do not have a rash of two outs based on people deploying at 2000 and I do not believe anything will change if the AAD manufacturers simply raised the firing altitude.

I would still like the option to hop and pop below 2500'. Obviously the board decided otherwise.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[michaelmullins 77]

Southern_Man

*********
If the AAD altitude is changed up 300', then we need to raise the minimum container opening altitude to avoid a two out scenario.

Mike Mullins

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your service on the board. Please do not take this as adversarial but my question is why you think we had to raise minimum opening altitudes to raise AAD deployment altitudes?

I see fear of two-outs comes into play. I have seen at least 3 different two outs which came from AAD fires. On all three of them the planned deployment altitude was above 3000 ft.

Is there a rash of 2 outs from jumpers deploying below 2500?

Because if we raise the AAD activation altitude then we must raise the minimum deployment altitude or we will have two outs. They go hand in hand.

I have seen several two outs with a deployment altitude of 2,000'. It is a common misconception that a Vigil fires at 840' and a Cypres at 750'. Those are the activation altitudes if you are on your back. When belly to earth the Vigil activates at 1100' and the Cypres also activates higher but in the case of the Cypres they do not specify how much higher. I tried to get the exact figure for the Cypres but they would only say "higher".

It is now very risky to deploy at 2000' if you are going to get an AAD activation at 1100'. It would be virtually guaranteed a AAD activation with an AAD set to 1400' and a deployment altitude of 2000'.

Mike Mullins

Hi Mike,

I agree that it is risky to deploy at 2000' with an AAD, at least at Freefall speeds. As a hop and pop I think you would still be OK. I do understand how orientation affects firing altitude (although I know some jumpers do not).

I personally do not believe that is a reason to raise the minimum deployment altitude. Some people do not have AADs (and can safely deploy at 2000' or at least without AAD risk). I do not know anybody with an AAD who deploys at 2000' in freefall. There is some risk now but it appears jumpers have already adjusted to the AAD firing altitude and we do not have a rash of two outs based on people deploying at 2000 and I do not believe anything will change if the AAD manufacturers simply raised the firing altitude.

I would still like the option to hop and pop below 2500'. Obviously the board decided otherwise.

The BOD has made it waiverable by an S&TA. If you wish to deploy at 2000' then just ask. It can be waived for one jump, a series of jumps, or any way that the S&TA desires to waive it.

Mike Mullins

[topdocker 0]

michaelmullins

************
If the AAD altitude is changed up 300', then we need to raise the minimum container opening altitude to avoid a two out scenario.

Mike Mullins

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your service on the board. Please do not take this as adversarial but my question is why you think we had to raise minimum opening altitudes to raise AAD deployment altitudes?

I see fear of two-outs comes into play. I have seen at least 3 different two outs which came from AAD fires. On all three of them the planned deployment altitude was above 3000 ft.

Is there a rash of 2 outs from jumpers deploying below 2500?

Because if we raise the AAD activation altitude then we must raise the minimum deployment altitude or we will have two outs. They go hand in hand.

I have seen several two outs with a deployment altitude of 2,000'. It is a common misconception that a Vigil fires at 840' and a Cypres at 750'. Those are the activation altitudes if you are on your back. When belly to earth the Vigil activates at 1100' and the Cypres also activates higher but in the case of the Cypres they do not specify how much higher. I tried to get the exact figure for the Cypres but they would only say "higher".

It is now very risky to deploy at 2000' if you are going to get an AAD activation at 1100'. It would be virtually guaranteed a AAD activation with an AAD set to 1400' and a deployment altitude of 2000'.

Mike Mullins

Hi Mike,

I agree that it is risky to deploy at 2000' with an AAD, at least at Freefall speeds. As a hop and pop I think you would still be OK. I do understand how orientation affects firing altitude (although I know some jumpers do not).

I personally do not believe that is a reason to raise the minimum deployment altitude. Some people do not have AADs (and can safely deploy at 2000' or at least without AAD risk). I do not know anybody with an AAD who deploys at 2000' in freefall. There is some risk now but it appears jumpers have already adjusted to the AAD firing altitude and we do not have a rash of two outs based on people deploying at 2000 and I do not believe anything will change if the AAD manufacturers simply raised the firing altitude.

I would still like the option to hop and pop below 2500'. Obviously the board decided otherwise.

The BOD has made it waiverable by an S&TA. If you wish to deploy at 2000' then just ask. It can be waived for one jump, a series of jumps, or any way that the S&TA desires to waive it.

Mike Mullins

And as an S&TA, you have essentially hog tied me. The gear manufacturers and USPA say it is too dangerous to deploy below 2500', so how can I, a lowly S&TA possibly defend my waiving of that BSR if something happens? An S&TA would have to be out of their mind to waive this rule change.

top

PS. Thanks for your service and for coming here and addressing this issue!

Jump more, post less!

[Ron 7]

Quote

We are exactly NOT kicking the can down the road. We are doing NOW what we can to keep the "fails" from dying. We can make demands that will be ignored or we can do now what we can to save a few people.

It is kicking the can down the road. 10 years ago when people pulled lower than they do today... We didn't have these kinds of issues.

So, what changed? The only logical answer is the rig design. So what is going to prevent the manufacturers from making more changes after you already changed the rules once?

Fact is that the problem is the rig. But the BOD is unwilling to fix the problem jut to make the manufacturers happy.

That is the BOD acting to fix a problem... Fine. But the solution they picked made damn sure not to bother the manufacturers.

Again, if the BOD thinks the rigs are the problem , they should not kick the can down the road by changing the rules. Fix THE problem and pull altitudes are not the problem.

Act in the best interest of jumpers and hold the manufactures accountable. Otherwise we are going to have to revisit this again in a few years.

And if you choose to bow down to the manufacturers.... You had better raise emergency exit altitudes and decision altitudes as well.

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

[diablopilot 2]

randompoints

And Ed's letter just proves the point. Just plain stupid and have no understanding of their role.

Even tho i don't agree with the new opening altitudes. The S&ta waiver is one of the dumbest things I've seen.
So P3 at the end of the year gets an s&ta to waiver. And then we have an incident. Perris and the s&ta are up in front of the judge explaining why they waiver something called a "basic saftey rule" try explaining that to a jury. Jump prices go up or worse we lose a great dz.

Protect the sport!!!! First rule of being on the board.

Now back to the debate of what the heights should be

Exactly. I said it before, but it bears repeating, the more regulations the more liability especially when said regulation is not thought about in the context of the courtroom.

All this BSR does is shift the liability from manufacturers to the USPA and S&TA's. Jumpers should be held liable for the actions they take including the gear they jump.

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

[diablopilot 2]

Simple question Mike, what is wrong wish simply advising jumpers who jump with AAD's that opening higher is safer, and letting them be grown adults who make their own decisions and live (or die) with the consequences?

If the USPA is about safety, where are the BSR's on wing loading? Or the mandatory use of an RSL?

Though I would not support either BSR, those are ones that have been proven statistically to prevent death.

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

[michaelmullins 77]

Ron

Quote

We are exactly NOT kicking the can down the road. We are doing NOW what we can to keep the "fails" from dying. We can make demands that will be ignored or we can do now what we can to save a few people.

It is kicking the can down the road. 10 years ago when people pulled lower than they do today... We didn't have these kinds of issues.

So, what changed? The only logical answer is the rig design. So what is going to prevent the manufacturers from making more changes after you already changed the rules once?

Fact is that the problem is the rig. But the BOD is unwilling to fix the problem jut to make the manufacturers happy.

That is the BOD acting to fix a problem... Fine. But the solution they picked made damn sure not to bother the manufacturers.

Again, if the BOD thinks the rigs are the problem , they should not kick the can down the road by changing the rules. Fix THE problem and pull altitudes are not the problem.

Act in the best interest of jumpers and hold the manufactures accountable. Otherwise we are going to have to revisit this again in a few years.

And if you choose to bow down to the manufacturers.... You had better raise emergency exit altitudes and decision altitudes as well.

The BOD cannot make the manufacturers do anything and I have no idea why you think that we can. We are acting to do what is in the best interest of safety to try and prevent a few deaths. Since you obviously think you can make them do something then I highly suggest that you make them do as you wish.

On one hand you do not want the BOD to make any new rule or BSR and on the other hand you want us to force the manufactures to do what we say. So, no rules for you but new rules for the manufacturers. We have no authority to make them do anything, their rigs are TSOed and legal.

Mike

[michaelmullins 77]

topdocker

***************
If the AAD altitude is changed up 300', then we need to raise the minimum container opening altitude to avoid a two out scenario.

Mike Mullins

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your service on the board. Please do not take this as adversarial but my question is why you think we had to raise minimum opening altitudes to raise AAD deployment altitudes?

I see fear of two-outs comes into play. I have seen at least 3 different two outs which came from AAD fires. On all three of them the planned deployment altitude was above 3000 ft.

Is there a rash of 2 outs from jumpers deploying below 2500?

Because if we raise the AAD activation altitude then we must raise the minimum deployment altitude or we will have two outs. They go hand in hand.

I have seen several two outs with a deployment altitude of 2,000'. It is a common misconception that a Vigil fires at 840' and a Cypres at 750'. Those are the activation altitudes if you are on your back. When belly to earth the Vigil activates at 1100' and the Cypres also activates higher but in the case of the Cypres they do not specify how much higher. I tried to get the exact figure for the Cypres but they would only say "higher".

It is now very risky to deploy at 2000' if you are going to get an AAD activation at 1100'. It would be virtually guaranteed a AAD activation with an AAD set to 1400' and a deployment altitude of 2000'.

Mike Mullins

Hi Mike,

I agree that it is risky to deploy at 2000' with an AAD, at least at Freefall speeds. As a hop and pop I think you would still be OK. I do understand how orientation affects firing altitude (although I know some jumpers do not).

I personally do not believe that is a reason to raise the minimum deployment altitude. Some people do not have AADs (and can safely deploy at 2000' or at least without AAD risk). I do not know anybody with an AAD who deploys at 2000' in freefall. There is some risk now but it appears jumpers have already adjusted to the AAD firing altitude and we do not have a rash of two outs based on people deploying at 2000 and I do not believe anything will change if the AAD manufacturers simply raised the firing altitude.

I would still like the option to hop and pop below 2500'. Obviously the board decided otherwise.

The BOD has made it waiverable by an S&TA. If you wish to deploy at 2000' then just ask. It can be waived for one jump, a series of jumps, or any way that the S&TA desires to waive it.

Mike Mullins

And as an S&TA, you have essentially hog tied me. The gear manufacturers and USPA say it is too dangerous to deploy below 2500', so how can I, a lowly S&TA possibly defend my waiving of that BSR if something happens? An S&TA would have to be out of their mind to waive this rule change.

top

PS. Thanks for your service and for coming here and addressing this issue!

It is not dangerous to do hop and pops at 2,000' and it is not dangerous to pull at 2000' if you do not have an AAD (as far a two outs go). That is primarily what the waiver is for and that is why it was put in place. I would have no hesitation to issue a waiver for those 2 scenarios. What I would not issue a waiver for is a 2,000' terminal deployment with AAD.

Mike

[Ron 7]

Quote

Since you obviously think you can make them do something then I highly suggest that you make them do as you wish.

I have never claimed *I* could do anything. I am not an organization that claims to represent jumpers. The USPA is supposed to be that organization. Are you now claiming the USPA is not that organization?

Quote

We have no authority to make them do anything, their rigs are TSOed and legal.

Ah.. And there it is. You can't do anything to the manufacturers, so you pounce on the jumpers.

How about the BOD simply tell the manufacturers that they have one year to perform testing to prove they still are within the TSO or the USPA will ask the FAA to look into concerns that the manufacturers are no longer compliant with the TSO?

Or is the BOD afraid to piss off the manufacturers?

So again, does the BOD represent the manufacturers, or the jumpers? Because the action the BOD has taken has shown they do not represent jumpers.

I also see you avoided answering if the BOD is going to raise the altitudes for bailouts and decision altitudes.

I don't think you are a bad guy.... I do think the entire BOD as an organization is afraid to upset the manufacturers. Since 2010 the BOD has known about this issue and has asked the PIA to look into it. Nothing happened.

So to keep from pissing off the manufacturers while making AAD manufacturers happy.... You have done the only think you think you could do.... More rules in the jumpers while ignoring the real issue.

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

[michaelmullins 77]

Ron

Quote

Since you obviously think you can make them do something then I highly suggest that you make them do as you wish.

I have never claimed *I* could do anything. I am not an organization that claims to represent jumpers. The USPA is supposed to be that organization. Are you now claiming the USPA is not that organization?

***We have no authority to make them do anything, their rigs are TSOed and legal.

Ah.. And there it is. You can't do anything to the manufacturers, so you pounce on the jumpers.

How about the BOD simply tell the manufacturers that they have one year to perform testing to prove they still are within the TSO or the USPA will ask the FAA to look into concerns that the manufacturers are no longer compliant with the TSO?

Or is the BOD afraid to piss off the manufacturers?

So again, does the BOD represent the manufacturers, or the jumpers? Because the action the BOD has taken has shown they do not represent jumpers.

I also see you avoided answering if the BOD is going to raise the altitudes for bailouts and decision altitudes.

I don't think you are a bad guy.... I do think the entire BOD as an organization is afraid to upset the manufacturers. Since 2010 the BOD has known about this issue and has asked the PIA to look into it. Nothing happened.

So to keep from pissing off the manufacturers while making AAD manufacturers happy.... You have done the only think you think you could do.... More rules in the jumpers while ignoring the real issue.

Altitudes for bailout decisions and decision heights are not BSRs, they are recommendations that Instructors are free to use or change as they see fit for their students and the same goes for all jumpers. Do you wish a BSR for this? I think not.

You can keep your rant on the BOD all you wish, it does not solve the problem. What we have done will probably prevent a few fatalities. An FAA investigation, supposing they would even do an investigation, would take years so how many are we willing to lose while that may be in progress. They would simply ask the manufacturers to make sure their rigs met the TSO and he manufacturers would say yes, they do. Do you really think the FAA could test dozens of rigs in all the different main/reserve configurations to see if there is a problem? Not going to happen.

Meanwhile, I am sure that all who need a waiver for this can receive one.

I am really done on this. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Mike

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Ron,

Quote

How about the BOD simply tell the manufacturers that they have one year to perform testing to prove they still are within the TSO or the USPA will ask the FAA to look into concerns that the manufacturers are no longer compliant with the TSO?

I cannot think of any mfr who would not simply tell the USPA to go pound sand. The USPA has absolutely no authority over any mfr, ever.

Quote

. . . the FAA to look into concerns that the manufacturers are no longer compliant with the TSO?

I would tell the FAA to write me a letter directing me to do so. Then I would send them back a letter with the costs and that I will be billing them for those costs.

So what do you think the FAA would do then?

No one thing.

It is the way it is.

If anyone thinks there is a problem with a mfr's rig, then don't buy it. It is that simple.

JerryBaumchen

[diablopilot 2]

You are suggesting that people exercise personal responsibility in the selection of their equipment. However the USPA hasjust decided that people can't exercise personal responsibility in the use of their equipment.

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