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

[Ron 7]

JerryBaumchen

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.

*** . . . 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

And there it is.... The USPA does not care about fixing the problem and is unwilling to even think about making sure the manufacturers actually meet the TSO standard they claim.

Like I said. The BOD is nothing but a mouth piece for the manufacturers.... In this case the ones that make AAD's

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

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.

So the official word from the BOD is that they are not even willing to work on the real problem and will instead kick the can down the road by changing the BSR's to benefit one group of manufacturers (AAD) so the USPA will not have to upset another group of manufacturers (rig manufacturers.....).

The real issue is not important since it is not easy to fix.... Much better to just pass another rule to make all the manufacturers happy while adding tons of liability to S&TA's

So now that we know that the BOD works for manufacturers... Who is supposed to be representing jumpers?

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Ron,

Quote

And there it is.... The USPA does not care about fixing the problem and is unwilling to even think about making sure the manufacturers actually meet the TSO standard they claim.

OK, let's have USPA force the mfrs to rerun their TSO testing. Now, everything passes the testing.

Are you going to pay the bill for that retesting?

What would you suggest USPA do with the claim that those mfrs submit to them for this retesting?

I would suggest that the gear meets the TSO standards until testing to the TSO standard proves otherwise.

Just my thoughts, YMMV,

JerryBaumchen

PS) IMO, your thoughts are right up there with the NIMBY folks.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi J P,

Quote

You are suggesting that people exercise personal responsibility in the selection of their equipment.

Yes.

Quote

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

I made no comment on that issue. Please do not associate it with me.

JerryBaumchen

[Ron 7]

Quote

I would suggest that the gear meets the TSO standards until testing to the TSO standard proves otherwise.

And yet when you look at the facts... Your position is indefensible.

1. Modern AAD's have been around 20+ years.
2. People pulled lower than 2.5k for years while these AAD's existed.
3. It was not until recently that AAD fires ended up in a bounce

What changed? People pull higher, the AAD's have not changed pull altitudes.

The only thing that has changed is the rigs and in some cases the reserves. Add in that the USPA has already asked the PIA to look into it.... And nothing has happened.

So if people are pulling higher, and AAD's have not changed..... AND the USPA three years ago thought it was the rigs.....

What the fuck good is the USPA if they don't actually care about the issues they know about? Instead of doing the right thing, they took the easy path to make the manufacturers happy.

I ask again, who is the USPA supposed to represent? You may be fine with laying down to keep the manufacturers happy.... But just because it is easy, that does not make it right.

Quote

PS) IMO, your thoughts are right up there with the NIMBY folks.

IMO, your thoughts are in line with those who are lazy and see a problem and want to ignore it since the true fix might seem difficult.

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

[yoink 321]

I don't see the conspiracy between the USPA and the manufacturers that Ron is upset about.

I am deeply concerned that that TSO certification of many rigs may have been submitted on a design that is no longer in production. If the USPA were concerned enough about it to ask PIA to look into it 3 years ago, that's enough to raise my eyebrows.

Where are the results of that testing? What is the timeline for it? It's been 3 years... There has to be some data available, yes?

You can't ask for something like that, then not care about when the answer is delivered.

[topdocker 0]

yoink

I don't see the conspiracy between the USPA and the manufacturers that Ron is upset about.

I am deeply concerned that that TSO certification of many rigs may have been submitted on a design that is no longer in production. If the USPA were concerned enough about it to ask PIA to look into it 3 years ago, that's enough to raise my eyebrows.

Where are the results of that testing? What is the timeline for it? It's been 3 years... There has to be some data available, yes?

You can't ask for something like that, then not care about when the answer is delivered.

It's not just rigs out there that are the concern. There are some very slow opening reserves that are part of the problem as well.

This whole can of worms stinks of a problem some rig manufacturers and some reserve canopy manufacturers are trying to shove off as something the AAD manufacturers want. But the request for this change did not come from an AAD manufacturer or a USPA member.

While every BOD member must disclose their relationships with equipment manufacturers and dropzones to USPA, they never disclose that to the rest of us. It would be interesting to know who receives non-monetary compensation (i.e. dealer rates, discounts, sponsorship, etc) from manufacturers.

top

Jump more, post less!

[stratostar 5]

Quote

While every BOD member must disclose their relationships with equipment manufacturers and dropzones to USPA, they never disclose that to the rest of us. It would be interesting to know who receives non-monetary compensation (i.e. dealer rates, discounts, sponsorship, etc) from manufacturers.

There is part of the problem right there! It's mostly been a good old boys club for yrs, made up mostly of former golden weenies and their buddies. Now days you see the professional suck asses waiting in line to suck ass to get their turn.... all one has to do is read the fluffy write ups in the mag, just before the election, and right after they lost by 6 votes, that is free advertising for the "chosen ones" who been sucking ass for a few yrs while they wait their turn at the table. Takes years of sucking ass and being one of "Glen's Girls" has helped a few along the way....

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[Ron 7]

Quote

I don't see the conspiracy between the USPA and the manufacturers that Ron is upset about.

Keep reading

Quote

I am deeply concerned that that TSO certification of many rigs may have been submitted on a design that is no longer in production. If the USPA were concerned enough about it to ask PIA to look into it 3 years ago, that's enough to raise my eyebrows.

Where are the results of that testing? What is the timeline for it? It's been 3 years... There has to be some data available, yes?

You can't ask for something like that, then not care about when the answer is delivered.

And there it is.

The USPA thinks there is a problem with containers and reserves opening slow, the USPA was concerned enough to ask about it.... And when the PIA and the manufactures ignored the USPA, the AAD makers wanted higher activation altitudes. Instead of pissing them off, or pissing container manufacturers off by making them make rigs that work as the TSO says..... The USPA decided to just do what the AAD manufacturers wanted so not to upset the container manufacturers. And the USPA's solution to people who might want to pull low? Have the S&TA take on all the liability that they AAD manufacturers didn't want to take.

So the AAD manufacturers are happy.
Container manufacturers are happy.
Skydivers are not happy.
S&TA's are not happy.

The USPA, once again, took action that makes the manufacturers happy and not the jumpers.

Even YOU admitted that the USPA thinks there is a problem and did nothing about it to the manufacturers. Add in that the only action the USPA has taken was against jumpers and adds more liability to S&TA's.... And who do you think the BOD was working for here?

Then look at FAA medicals for tandems. Ask who wants that and who does not... Can you see who the USPA is working for there?

Then look at the 'group member' program. What benefit does that bring jumpers? But look at the benefit it brings DZO's and the USPA itself.... How does the group member program benefit jumpers?

The USPA BOD seems to serve the DZO's and manufacturers.... Not regular jumpers.

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

[stratostar 5]

Quote

The USPA BOD seems to serve the DZO's

Gee with all the DZO's on the BOD.... that is big surprise!

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Ron,

Quote

Your position is indefensible.

My position is absolutely defensible.

I previously wrote: "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."

Airworthiness is based upon conformance to the applicable TSO standard, nothing else. That is a fact. If you disagee, so be it. If you do not believe it, write to the FAA and see what they say.

Once again: There is no TSO standard anywhere in which a parachute system has to open within 'x' seconds and/or 'y' feet when activated by an AAD.

topdocker writes about: "It's not just rigs out there that are the concern. There are some very slow opening reserves that are part of the problem as well."

Then that is on the rigger who packs and certifies that the system is airworthy. I don't like it but that is how it is.

JerryBaumchen

[GobbleGobble 0]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Ron,

Quote

Your position is indefensible.

Once again: There is no TSO standard anywhere in which a parachute system has to open within 'x' seconds and/or 'y' feet when activated by an AAD.

topdocker writes about: "It's not just rigs out there that are the concern. There are some very slow opening reserves that are part of the problem as well."

Then that is on the rigger who packs and certifies that the system is airworthy. I don't like it but that is how it is.

JerryBaumchen

When activated by an AAD being the key part of that statement. To the best of my knowledge.

Top was referring, I believe to the Optimum reserve. IIRC there are some sizes that don't conform to the performance specification and were waivered or something like that.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Gobble,

Quote

I believe to the Optimum reserve. IIRC there are some sizes that don't conform to the performance specification and were waivered or something like that.

I once sat in a restaurant talking with one of the major players at PD. I believe this was at the PIA Symposium in Jacksonville, FL in '03.

This individual, point-blank during a routine discussion, told me that the Optimum reserves exceeded the 'total velocity' test req'ment. If you look up TSO C23d/AS8015B, section 4.3.7 Rate of Descent Tests, All Types, you will see that it says ( in part ), '. . . and the total velocity shall not exceed 36 ft/s (11.0 m/s), in unaltered post deployment configuration.'

I have no knowledge of any certificated canopy that has not met the applicable test standard for opening times.

Does this explain it a little better?

And:

Quote

When activated by an AAD being the key part of that statement.

Yup; as I say, there is no TSO testing req'ment for a parachute when activated by an AAD.

Some people might think there should; some people might wish there was; but there is not.

JerryBaumchen

[GobbleGobble 0]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Gobble,

Quote

I believe to the Optimum reserve. IIRC there are some sizes that don't conform to the performance specification and were waivered or something like that.

I once sat in a restaurant talking with one of the major players at PD. I believe this was at the PIA Symposium in Jacksonville, FL in '03.

This individual, point-blank during a routine discussion, told me that the Optimum reserves exceeded the 'total velocity' test req'ment. If you look up TSO C23d/AS8015B, section 4.3.7 Rate of Descent Tests, All Types, you will see that it says ( in part ), '. . . and the total velocity shall not exceed 36 ft/s (11.0 m/s), in unaltered post deployment configuration.'

I have no knowledge of any certificated canopy that has not met the applicable test standard for opening times.

Does this explain it a little better?

I understand the requirements. I'm just repeating what I've seen on here several times. I don't know if there is actually any validity to it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Ron

And yet when you look at the facts... Your position is indefensible.

1. Modern AAD's have been around 20+ years.
2. People pulled lower than 2.5k for years while these AAD's existed.
3. It was not until recently that AAD fires ended up in a bounce

What changed? People pull higher, the AAD's have not changed pull altitudes.

The only thing that has changed is the rigs and in some cases the reserves. Add in that the USPA has already asked the PIA to look into it.... And nothing has happened.

So if people are pulling higher, and AAD's have not changed..... AND the USPA three years ago thought it was the rigs.....

What the fuck good is the USPA if they don't actually care about the issues they know about? Instead of doing the right thing, they took the easy path to make the manufacturers happy.

I ask again, who is the USPA supposed to represent? You may be fine with laying down to keep the manufacturers happy.... But just because it is easy, that does not make it right...

First off, for the record. I agree that this new BSR is wrong. Wrong in the implementation process, wrong in it idea.
IMO, all that should happen is that the AAD mfgs include a statement along the lines of "Make sure your main canopy is open XXX feet above AAD activation altitude. Many canopies take several hundred feet to fully open and pulling at minimum allowed altitudes may not be high enough to prevent AAD activation while the main is not fully open."

But you ask "what has changed?"

A couple things:

First off, canopies open slower these days. "Soft Opening" is a selling point. Jumpers are jumping to an older age now, and a slammer from an original Sabre isn't acceptable.
And that takes more altitude.

People want small rigs. So they ask their rigger to stuff the rig full. We've already seen a tight reserve plus a tight main equaling a stuck freebag in a "main still in the container reserve deployment" situation.

Remember, the TSO process doesn't require every possible main/reserve combination to be tested. And unless that is changed, the mfgs can be required to show that the rigs still meet TSO until the cows come home without any failures. The rigs still have the same basic configuration as when the TSO was met, even though there have been a lot of changes in a lot of the rig.

Again, I agree that the BSR change is a bad idea, but I don't see it as a TSO issue.
Personally, I won't pack a reserve that I feel is overstuffed. I like to have the owner pull the reserve handle with the main in place, in front of me. I can evaluate RPC spring action and pull the freebag out by the bridle to evaluate how tight it is. If I don't like it, I will suggest that they take it elsewhere or get another reserve (or another container).

But I'm a part-timer who can afford to turn away stuff that I don't want to do.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

nce again: There is no TSO standard anywhere in which a parachute system has to open within 'x' seconds and/or 'y' feet when activated by an AAD.

It's been some time since I've read the regs and changes keep getting "snuck in" but I'm pretty sure I've read verbiage that says the AAD cannot affect the function of the TSO'd components.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>However the USPA has just decided that people can't exercise personal responsibility
>in the use of their equipment.

"Just?" USPA has been doing that as long as I have been involved with them (22 years.)

[DanG 1]

Just to figure out where you're coming from, can you name a BSR that you agree with?

- Dan G

[Ron 7]

Quote

Just to figure out where you're coming from, can you name a BSR that you agree with?

I don't see how my position is not very well explained.... It is pretty simple, the USPA should represent the JUMPERS and not the manufacturers or DZO's.

But, I'll gladly answer your question if it might help you.

2-1
B. Great idea
D. Not bad.
E 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 All Good
F Great
(starting to get the idea?)
G (except for the new 4 FOR THE REASONS, not for the rule itself.... Starting to pick up the idea?)
H Great
I Great
J Great
K Great
L Great

Have you picked up the trend yet? I'll explain it one more time. It is not the RULE itself. It is how the BOD made the rule to protect the AAD manufacturers. To remove THEIR liability because of a trend that container manufacturers and canopy companies are making rigs and parachutes that open slower. In the process, they ADDED liability to S&TA's.

Do I think 2.5K is a good pull altitude? Yep. Would I be upset if the BOD made the change for any other reason? NO. It is how the BOD is acting like a mouthpiece for the AAD manufacturers to cover up an issue of containers taking longer to deploy that the USPA *knows* about.

So once again, it is not the rule... It is how the USPA is acting as an agent of manufacturers not skydivers.

I can't explain it any simpler than that.

Ask the BOD why they did this. The answer is so AAD manufacturers could raise the firing altitude to 1K. This is the BOD acting FOR the manufactures.

Does that answer your question?

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

Have you picked up the trend yet? I'll explain it one more time. It is not the RULE itself. It is how the BOD made the rule to protect the AAD manufacturers. To remove THEIR liability because of a trend that container manufacturers and canopy companies are making rigs and parachutes that open slower. In the process, they ADDED liability to S&TA's.

Do I think 2.5K is a good pull altitude? Yep. Would I be upset if the BOD made the change for any other reason? NO. It is how the BOD is acting like a mouthpiece for the AAD manufacturers to cover up an issue of containers taking longer to deploy that the USPA *knows* about.

So once again, it is not the rule... It is how the USPA is acting as an agent of manufacturers not skydivers.

I can't explain it any simpler than that.

Ask the BOD why they did this. The answer is so AAD manufacturers could raise the firing altitude to 1K. This is the BOD acting FOR the manufactures.

Yeah, I was trying to see if you were one of those people who think all rules are bad.

As far as the gist of your argument, it really makes no sense. So you like the rule (or at least don't dislike it) but you're hung up on why it was implemented. Are lives saved only valuable if they are saved for the "right" reason? Can you not understand the complicated "if...then" structure of the BOD logic?

The ultimate reason behind the rule (IMO) was to save lives. There are two ways to do this vis a vis the current problem. One, which you are right to demand, is to fix the slow reserve deployment issues through rig/canopy redesign. Even if everyone involved jumped on that immediately, it would take years to be effective. The second way to fix the problem is to raise deployment altitude, thereby letting the AAD manufacturers raise their firing altitude. Of course they're going to want to limit their liability. Why wouldn't they? Allowing the AAD manufacturers to make the change be liability neutral is not "being a mouthpiece" for anyone. It's addressing a problem in an expeditious way.

As far as adding liability to an S&TA, you're right in a gross sense, but the difference is that an S&TA can evaluate each jump/jumper/event/situation individually. If they feel the liability (read risk of injury/death) is too high, then they should refuse the waiver. That's the S&TA's job, using their knowledge to make jumps as safe as possible. If they don't want to do that, they should get out of the S&TA position.

- Dan G

[Southern_Man 0]

DanG

Quote

Yeah, I was trying to see if you were one of those people who think all rules are bad.

As far as the gist of your argument, it really makes no sense. So you like the rule (or at least don't dislike it) but you're hung up on why it was implemented. Are lives saved only valuable if they are saved for the "right" reason? Can you not understand the complicated "if...then" structure of the BOD logic?

The ultimate reason behind the rule (IMO) was to save lives. There are two ways to do this vis a vis the current problem. One, which you are right to demand, is to fix the slow reserve deployment issues through rig/canopy redesign. Even if everyone involved jumped on that immediately, it would take years to be effective. The second way to fix the problem is to raise deployment altitude, thereby letting the AAD manufacturers raise their firing altitude. Of course they're going to want to limit their liability. Why wouldn't they? Allowing the AAD manufacturers to make the change be liability neutral is not "being a mouthpiece" for anyone. It's addressing a problem in an expeditious way.

I'm not Ron, but I don't like the rule. I favor higher AAD firing altitudes (~1000 ft) but see no reason to have to raise deployment minimums to do that.

If the manufacturers won't do that, well that is fine but I don't think very highly of that decision and won't support such manufactures in that action.

If manufacturers already know that that firing altitudes are too low to operate with acceptable reliability (and there is a pretty considerable body of evidence that suggests that they do) than they are already exposing themselves to considerable extra liability by not acting.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

• Quote

[topdocker 0]

DanG

Quote

Have you picked up the trend yet? I'll explain it one more time. It is not the RULE itself. It is how the BOD made the rule to protect the AAD manufacturers. To remove THEIR liability because of a trend that container manufacturers and canopy companies are making rigs and parachutes that open slower. In the process, they ADDED liability to S&TA's.

Do I think 2.5K is a good pull altitude? Yep. Would I be upset if the BOD made the change for any other reason? NO. It is how the BOD is acting like a mouthpiece for the AAD manufacturers to cover up an issue of containers taking longer to deploy that the USPA *knows* about.

So once again, it is not the rule... It is how the USPA is acting as an agent of manufacturers not skydivers.

I can't explain it any simpler than that.

Ask the BOD why they did this. The answer is so AAD manufacturers could raise the firing altitude to 1K. This is the BOD acting FOR the manufactures.

Yeah, I was trying to see if you were one of those people who think all rules are bad.

As far as the gist of your argument, it really makes no sense. So you like the rule (or at least don't dislike it) but you're hung up on why it was implemented. Are lives saved only valuable if they are saved for the "right" reason? Can you not understand the complicated "if...then" structure of the BOD logic?

The ultimate reason behind the rule (IMO) was to save lives. There are two ways to do this vis a vis the current problem. One, which you are right to demand, is to fix the slow reserve deployment issues through rig/canopy redesign. Even if everyone involved jumped on that immediately, it would take years to be effective. The second way to fix the problem is to raise deployment altitude, thereby letting the AAD manufacturers raise their firing altitude. Of course they're going to want to limit their liability. Why wouldn't they? Allowing the AAD manufacturers to make the change be liability neutral is not "being a mouthpiece" for anyone. It's addressing a problem in an expeditious way.

As far as adding liability to an S&TA, you're right in a gross sense, but the difference is that an S&TA can evaluate each jump/jumper/event/situation individually. If they feel the liability (read risk of injury/death) is too high, then they should refuse the waiver. That's the S&TA's job, using their knowledge to make jumps as safe as possible. If they don't want to do that, they should get out of the S&TA position.

The change in pull altitude has already happened for most people. Most jumpers consider a container opening at 2.5K to be way too low. So a change to this rule wasn't really necessary in a practical sense.

As an S&TA, it places great liability on me to decide if a jumper is capable of safely going against what USPA and the gear manufacturers recommend (including AAD makers). If something happens to little Johnny Dumpsonhishead, then his family will come looking for me through an attorney. So pretty much I will NEVER approve anyone for a jump below this altitude, and if the jumper doesn't like it, he can complain to the RD, I will even dial my phone for him.

My job is a Safety and Training Advisor, not decision-maker. It should be up to the individual jumper to decide if their experience and gear is appropriate for the situation, not me. I will advise him/her as to the dangers involved and if I would make that decision, but ultimately it is up to the individual jumper.

USPA just through a bunch of S&TA's under a bus so a few gear manufacturers can dodge their responsibilities.

BTW, what is the plan to recalibrate the existing AADs over the next few years, since they are obviously firing too low? Is the individual jumper going to have to pay for that? Now when you buy used gear you have to know the firing altitude of the AAD....

Nice can o'worms gang!
top

Jump more, post less!

[DanG 1]

Quote

I'm not Ron, but I don't like the rule. I favor higher AAD firing altitudes (~1000 ft) but see no reason to have to raise deployment minimums to do that.

If the manufacturers won't do that, well that is fine but I don't think very highly of that decision and won't support such manufactures in that action.

If manufacturers already know that that firing altitudes are too low to operate with acceptable reliability (and there is a pretty considerable body of evidence that suggests that they do) than they are already exposing themselves to considerable extra liability by not acting.

The risk of a two-out will go up. Two-outs are not as dangerous as no-outs, but the frequency of potential two-out situations is a lot higher than the frequency of no pulls. One of the main reasons people give for not using an AAD is that they don't want a safety device that could increase their risk in certain cimcumstances. Raising the AAD deployment altitude without adjusting general behavior regarding activation altitudes and hard decks will increase the risk that a safety device will kill someone.

- Dan G

[Ron 7]

Quote

Yeah, I was trying to see if you were one of those people who think all rules are bad.

If you had read the posts, you would see I have already said the rule itself is not terrible.

Quote

As far as the gist of your argument, it really makes no sense. So you like the rule (or at least don't dislike it) but you're hung up on why it was implemented.

Makes total sense. Is the USPA an organization that is supposed to represent skydivers or the manufacturers? Answer that and you see the logic in my position.

Just because the rule is not terrible, the fact the USPA BOD is acting like a lap dog for the AAD manufacturers so not to upset the container manufacturers... THAT is a big deal.

In 2010 the USPA asked the PIA to look into the issue.... After that, the USPA did nothing. NOTHING. If the problem is the rig issue, this does not fix it, this just *might* put a bandaid on it. But it is not going to help a single person who who does not have an AAd, and it is not going to help the jumper who cuts away low.

Quote

Can you not understand the complicated "if...then" structure of the BOD logic?

Can you not understand the "if-then" logic that if the manufacturer is making rigs that will not work under the TSO standard that the solution is to fix IT and not apply a bandaid? Can you not understand the logic that the USPA is supposed to represent the JUMPERS and not the manufacturers? Because if you can't see that... Then yes, there is no point in a discussion with you on this topic.

1. The USPA is supposed to represent jumpers not PD, not UPT, not VIGIL.

2. If the problem is the rig, then raising AAD altitudes will not save those without an AAD or that chop low.

Fix THE problem, do not apply a bandaid.

If you can't grasp that simple concept.... Then yes, we have nothing to discuss.

Quote

As far as adding liability to an S&TA, you're right in a gross sense, but the difference is that an S&TA can evaluate each jump/jumper/event/situation individually. If they feel the liability (read risk of injury/death) is too high, then they should refuse the waiver. That's the S&TA's job, using their knowledge to make jumps as safe as possible. If they don't want to do that, they should get out of the S&TA position.

No S&TA in their right mind is going to waive a BSR when the BOD has said that the practice is not safe. If there is an accident, the BOD and the USPA will hang that S&TA out to dry.

The USPA should not put S&TA's in that position.

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

[Zlew 0]

diablopilot

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.

IMO, this is the correct line of thought. AAD's are not required by the USPA, so instead of changing a rule for everyone, so the makers of optional gear can raise their firing altitude, the correct thing to do is to tell the AAD makers to man up and put a policy out there that says- if you jump our gear, there are things you have to do to make it work correctly and safely. Turn it on...understand DZ offsets and the auto shutoff functions, and PULL ABOVE 2500 feet.

It is part of the operation of their gear, and not gear that we have to have. I don't see the logic in having USPA change a rule so that the makers of optional equipment can change their product...when they can change it without USPA making rules for everyone.