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

[Southern_Man 0]

DanG

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.

My position is that there has already been an adjustment in general behavior regarding activation altitudes and hard decks. I am unaware of a rash of problems happening because people are pulling so low (intentionally) that their AAD fires anyway. All the two outs I am aware of happened because of a general loss of altitude awareness, which is exactly when you want them to fire because there is no way to know if the jumper will regain such awareness before impact. All those cases the planned deployment altitude was above 3000 feet.

Honestly I know a few jumpers, but only a few, who pull below ~3000.

The rule is, IMHO, totally unnecessary because jumpers have already modified their behavior and takes away one option which I would like to avail myself of (low hop and pop on cloudy days) when its purported intent is not in play.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi J P,

Quote

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.

I am not the FAA & do not speak for them. I know of no TSO standard that makes any reference to any AAD.

But, here are my thoughts.

The AAD must not effect the function of the parachute system when the parachute system is operated as designed. This means that the AAD cannot effect the parachute system when you manually activate the parachute system/pull the ripcord ( obviously, on a ripcord deployment design; and there are other designs ).

I know of no AAD that negatively effects the manual activation of the parachute system.

IMO if the parachute system was certificated under TSO C23b ( as a lot of the best selling rigs are/were ), there is no reference to an RSL in the standard. Therefore ( IMO again ), if the parachute system is activated by an RSL then it is not req'd to be open within any 'x' time and/or 'y' feet when activated by the RSL.

Not at you J P, but I think a lot of people have a lot of thoughts on 'TSO this' and 'TSO that.' Most have probably never read a TSO standard. The TSO standard delineates the tests that must be passed. All other tests/activations/etc ( IMO ) have nothing to do with a 'TSO req'ment.'

Personally, I will not pack/repack a parachute system that I feel is too tight. It might meet the 22 lb pull req'ment of the TSO standard but I reserve the right to say, 'This rig is too tight, go somewhere else.' I've had to do that to my best friend in jumping.

But, hey; everybody wants to be cool, right?

JerryBaumchen

PS) This whole 'what is/what is not' a TSO req'met would make for a great seminar at a Symposium.

[DanG 1]

Quote

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.

Raising the minimum depolyment altitude won't improve the odds for someone without an AAD? You're off the deep end on that. Of course it will.

As far as the jumper who cuts away low, you're right that the manufacturers need to fix any problems with their gear. That's the only fix for someone who cuts away low. But you can't simultaneously hold the position that AAD users should adjust their procedures, but people with slow opening reserves, or super tight packs jobs shouldn't. If we're going to put it all on the individual jumper, then there's no need to change the rigs or canopies. People should be aware that their gear combination is more likely to open slow, and adjust accordingly. That's essentially your position regarding AAD users, why doesn't that apply to other gear choices?

Quote

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.

Are BSRs that are currently S&TA waiverable never waived? Of course they are, if the S&TA thinks the operations can still be conducted safely. If they can't, then the S&TA is right to refuse to waive a requirement. At my DZ we had a waiver for student landing area size for years. By your argument, no S&TA would ever waive that requirement, but it, and others, get waived all the time.

- Dan G

[Ron 7]

Quote

Raising the minimum depolyment altitude won't improve the odds for someone without an AAD? You're off the deep end on that. Of course it will.

Ah yes... Insults. Nice. Cut it out, or we are done.

Do you have data that the people that cut away low and bounced pulled their main lower than 2.5k? Cause if not, you are making up data to support your conclusion.

Most people pull above 2.5k now.... So making it a rule is not going to change that.

Quote

As far as the jumper who cuts away low, you're right that the manufacturers need to fix any problems with their gear.

Then MAYBE the USPA should look at that problem and not apply a bandaid.

Quote

But you can't simultaneously hold the position that AAD users should adjust their procedures, but people with slow opening reserves, or super tight packs jobs shouldn't.

I don't hold that position. Again, you are not paying attention to what I have written.

Quote

If we're going to put it all on the individual jumper, then there's no need to change the rigs or canopies.

That is one way to look at it, not my view... but you are free to take that view. ME, I think the USPA should do its job and hold the manufacturers accountable... Barring that, the USPA should educate jumpers on the most dangerous rigs on the market and list them by name..... THIS would be an example of the USPA doing its job.

What the USPA should NOT do is change a rule to protect the manufacturers while doing nothing about the real problem.

Quote

That's essentially your position regarding AAD users, why doesn't that apply to other gear choices?

Again, you are either not reading, or not understanding the position.... I'll try one more time. In fact, I think I already mentioned when the Stiletto came out people started to pull higher without a BSR being needed.

The USPA knows there is an issue with certain rigs and certain reserves..... They should do something to fix that problem so that ALL jumpers will benefit, not just those with AAD's. What they should NOT do is change a rule that will reduce liability for manufacturers and ignore the real problem that would benefit ALL jumpers.

See the USPA should have the backs of the jumpers, not the manufacturers.

Now... If you can't avoid the insults... We are done.

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

Now... If you can't avoid the insults... We are done.

I was attacking your position, not you personally.

Anyway, I'm done regardless. I've made my points, you've made yours. We won't agree on this, clearly.

- Dan G

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

The ultimate reason behind the rule (IMO) was to save lives.

And there is not one shred of evidence to say that it will.

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.

You know what this job pays? Spoken like someone who hasn't hung it out there.... YOu can make said decision having every bit of evidence and faith that it's safe and when Murphy shows up, it goes sideways, there you are left holding the bag.

Point is, before the BSR, USPA, and it's representatives (the S&TA's in this case) had no liability in someone pulling low. Now, it's rests wholly on the USPA and S&TA's who provide waivers. They have actually removed the liability from the jumper themselves.....

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

[billvon 2,396]

>Point is, before the BSR, USPA, and it's representatives (the S&TA's in this case) had
>no liability in someone pulling low.

This claim has been made every single time anything has changed.

"What? You're going to have an ISP in the SIM? If a DZ doesn't have an ISP and someone they trained via standard AFF goes in, they're going to open themselves up to a huge amount of liability!"

"What? D license has to pull at 2000 feet? If there's someone above another jumper, and they pull at 2000 feet to follow the BSR, and both jumpers die - the USPA is going to open themselves up to a huge amount of liability!"

So far that statement has been false every time it's been made in the past.

[DanG 1]

Quote

You know what this job pays? Spoken like someone who hasn't hung it out there....

I've never been an S&TA, but I was a DZ club president (unpaid) for three years. We had two fatalities during that time, both students. believe me, I felt like it was pretty hung out there.

BTW, one of the student's family sued the DZ. They didn't name the S&TA, but did name the instructor. That's only one data point, but it shows that the S&TA is not the only person who takes on liability when they show up to the DZ. Has an S&TA ever been personally named in a lawsuit? I'd be interested to know.

- Dan G

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

So far that statement has been false every time it's been made in the past.

Really? How many court cases have you been privy to? How many times have you had to defend against printed policies and rules?

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Ron,

Quote

ME, I think the USPA should do its job and hold the manufacturers accountable...

Sure, that worked out so well when USPA decided to take on those two guys who ran/run SkyRide.

IMO the USPA has no business in telling a private enterprise how to run their company.

JerryBaumchen

[Zlew 0]

JerryBaumchen

IMO the USPA has no business in telling a private enterprise how to run their company.

JerryBaumchen

And private enterprise, IMO, should not be asking USPA to change BSR's so that they can make changes to their product. They can make the change to 1000ft without the USPA.

Kinda a jacked up circle of logic- People are dying because an optional piece of equipment is firing as designed, but reserves are not getting out in time. The devices are firing when people have failed to pull all together, and when people are fighting mals too long. The trend does not seem to be people are pulling at 2K, or that being a factor in why they are dying after their AAD's fire.

So the people who make the devices want to increase the altitude they fire at and ask USPA to raise the minimum pull altitude.

So the logic jumps somehow to- We are doing this to make things safer... while pulling at 2000 feet isn't what is hurting/killing us, making everyone pull above 2000 feet will then let a maker of an optional piece of equipment raise their firing altitude, and hopefully will save lives when the next one of us chops dirty low, or goes screaming into the single digit altitudes with nothing out. So the BSR of 2500 isn't the "safer" part... it's us saying we will pull higher, to let the AAD's have piece of mind to raise the firing altitude for the guy who may have pulled at 3.5K...or not at all. Kinda screwy.

[billvon 2,396]

>Really? How many court cases have you been privy to?

Three. And the claimants went after everything as usual. The rules on the activity, the qualifying organizations, the owner of the property, the people there . . . the rules were never found to be an issue.

>How many times have you had to defend against printed policies and rules?

Personally? Never. I don't have any printed policies or rules so that wouldn't really apply.

[billvon 2,396]

>So the people who make the devices want to increase the altitude they fire at and ask
>USPA to raise the minimum pull altitude.

Right. They can ask whatever they want. I would hope USPA would do what they think is in skydiver's best interests.

One of the interesting thing I note about this discussion is that it is 90% about WHY USPA did this; only 10% of it is about "will it help solve the problem?" Personally I don't care why they did it; I do care about:

1) whether it will help solve the problem and
2) whether it will restrict skydivers doing stuff that is currently pretty safe.

1) is pretty easy to answer. Raising the minimum deployment altitude will prevent a few fatalities a year IF all problems are simply raised 500 feet higher; the few "cut away too low" or "AAD fired too low" problems may be ameliorated. Too soon to tell 100% but there's not much question that raising minimum deployment altitudes will tend to reduce "ran out of time" problems.

2) is more complex. Even 5 years ago we were seeing outer ring deployment altitudes of 2300 feet, but every organized record I've seen has since moved that up to 2600 or so. Not being able to exit at 2000 feet WILL impact some demo jumpers and fewer fun jumpers, especially in places where 2000 feet ceilings are common. Indeed it would make more sense to me to make freefall minimums 2500 feet and keep H+P altitudes at 2000 feet, since you have the same amount of time both ways.

So does anyone currently jump at a DZ that has outer rings pulling at below 2500 feet? Or any organized dive with built in requirements to pull below 2500 feet?

[Zlew 0]

I think there is a little more to it.

Will higher pulling help save people... maybe. I think most of us have already done that on our own and that has been well discussed here.

To Ron's point- The problem seems to be more about the rigs than the AAD's. So why are we making a rule change that only indirectly increases safety (pulling higher not because we are dying at 2K....but that allows AAD's to bump their firing altitude....to compensate for more time/alt to get reserves out). So let's make things safer, but lets attack the real problem instead of doing this BSR change that takes the scenic route to making us more safe, and does have some negative consequences mentioned in this thread (S&TA waiver risk, Hop-N-Pops, Big Way, Demo Etc.) Edit to add- let's look at the reserves/container issue, and let AAD makers make their own recommendations without holding USPA hostage.

So the "why" does matter to me. Just putting the...higher is safer label on it isn't enough for me to give it my (valueless) stamp of approval.

[yoink 321]

Zlew

So why are we making a rule change that only indirectly increases safety (pulling higher not because we are dying at 2K....but that allows AAD's to bump their firing altitude....to compensate for more time/alt to get reserves out).

Because it's a step in the right direction by indirectly addressing a problem that would be an even bigger can of worms to open?


How many people do you think raising the deployment altitude to 2500ft is going to affect on their average skydive? 5%? I suspect even less than that. How many people a year might that extra 250ft feet save? Even 1 or 2 is OK in my book...

Now what happens when we get the data back from PIA that the USPA has asked for and it comes back saying that 20% of the rigs out there don't meet reserve release requirements?
These are expensive bits of kit! Do they have to get alterations made and would they be possible or cost effective? Who pays for them? I can't believe the manufacturers could afford to, so do people start suing the manufacturers?! Bankrupting them doesn't help our sport any... The fallout of that data might be really bad news.

Raising the AAD activation height is picking off the low hanging fruit to help in the meantime while we chew on the much bigger questions of 'do we really want to know if the rigs we're jumping don't conform to published safety standards' because that would put the USPA and DZOs / S&TAs in an even bigger problem. Suddenly it's not a case of denying someone the extra 500ft of a skydive - now they're not going to be allowed to skydive with that equipment at all!

[Ron 7]

Quote

Sure, that worked out so well when USPA decided to take on those two guys who ran/run SkyRide.

IMO the USPA has no business in telling a private enterprise how to run their company.

And the USPA should not be in the business of adjusting BSR's to make manufacturers happy either.

What I would like to see the USPA do is publish in detail the information from each and every accident. I would also like the USPA to push the PIA for the report it asked for in 2010.

And if the USPA see's a particular rig, or canopy, or rig canopy combination that has a high probability of issue. Then the USPA should publish that information, maybe ban that combination or piece of equipments use by USPA members.

ALL of that is TOTALLY in line with what the USPA SHOULD be doing.... But adjusting BSR's to make manufacturers happy is not.

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

[billvon 2,396]

>So why are we making a rule change that only indirectly increases safety

Well, doesn't that sort of answer the question? It indirectly increases safety.

>So let's make things safer, but lets attack the real problem instead

OK great! How do we do that?

[Ron 7]

Quote

1) is pretty easy to answer. Raising the minimum deployment altitude will prevent a few fatalities a year IF all problems are simply raised 500 feet higher; the few "cut away too low" or "AAD fired too low" problems may be ameliorated.

And of the people that died... How many pulled their main below 2.5k feet?

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

[yoink 321]

billvon

>So why are we making a rule change that only indirectly increases safety

Well, doesn't that sort of answer the question? It indirectly increases safety.

>So let's make things safer, but lets attack the real problem instead

OK great! How do we do that?

By getting a timeline for delivery out of the PIA for a question that was asked of them 3 years ago? At least then we can have some expectations - right now we're in limbo.

[Ron 7]

Quote

How many people do you think raising the deployment altitude to 2500ft is going to affect on their average skydive? 5%? I suspect even less than that. How many people a year might that extra 250ft feet save? Even 1 or 2 is OK in my book...

If we raised pull altitudes to 4k for everyone, we might save 1 or two.... Is that worth it?

Quote

Now what happens when we get the data back from PIA that the USPA has asked for and it comes back saying that 20% of the rigs out there don't meet reserve release requirements?
These are expensive bits of kit! Do they have to get alterations made and would they be possible or cost effective?

Then if you own one of those rigs:
1. Buy a new rig.
2. Adjust your personal pull altitudes.

When the Stiletto first came out, the CYPRES already was around as well. If you tried to pull below 2k with a Sabre... Not a big deal and most times the AAD stayed quiet. But once the Stiletto came out, if you tried the same thing you might end up with a two out because of the CYPRES fire.

We didn't need a BSR to fix that. People who owned Stilettos, pulled above 2K on their own.

The issue is not pull altitudes. It is not slow opening mains. It is slow opening RESERVES. 10 years ago if a CYPRES fired we didn't have people bouncing. Look at what changed....

* People pull HIGHER now.
* Mains open slower.

And yet, we don't have a rash of AAD fires... Because people with slow opening mains took that information and started pulling higher. They didn't need an AAD to tell them that.

But now we have people bouncing after an AAD fire..... Since main pull altitudes have gone UP and AAD altitudes have not lowered... that leaves only one possible reason for why an AAD fire ends in a bounce... And that is that either the container, or the parachute or BOTH have issues.

Why not fix the real problem instead of putting a bandaid on it.

For example, lets say you don't have an AAD and you find yourself in the basement..... Or you have an emergency exit at 1k feet. Your main pull altitude of 2.5K feet is not going to help. But a reserve that opens to the TSO standard sure as hell would. And if the USPA did its job and told you that your rig does not meet the standard... You might decide to ride the plane down instead of doing the emergency exit at 1k.

Quote

Raising the AAD activation height is picking off the low hanging fruit to help in the meantime while we chew on the much bigger questions

Raising the AAD activation altitudes is a way to reduce the liability of the manufacturers.... The correct course of action is to make sure the equipment works as intended.

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

[Zlew 0]

Quote

OK great! How do we do that?

If the gear isn't working per guidelines, that should be addressed.
Why is it so taboo to have rig makers show drop tests, and force/pull tests with their current gear...with current recommended sizes? TSO was 3 seconds/300 feet right? Why can't we still test that (even if it is just spot testing?). If it is taking 3-4 times that long...fak me, how is that not getting people up in arms?

Quote

Well, doesn't that sort of answer the question? It indirectly increases safety.

But why change an indirect rule...when the makers of the AAD's can make that recommendation (directly) on their own? Pulling at 2500 vs 2000 isn't the safety issue. The safety issue is how long reserves are taking to deploy and how that relates to the AAD firing alt. Maybe I'm too stuck on being logical...but changing a rule that directly has not had safety issues...for the sake of a product maker...to be the "low hanging fruit" fix for a problem of another product (containers/reserves) that everyone seems too afraid to evaluate is hard to stomach.

And to be clear... I don't pull at 2 (haven't in years and years).

[catfishhunter 1]

Ron

Quote

1) is pretty easy to answer. Raising the minimum deployment altitude will prevent a few fatalities a year IF all problems are simply raised 500 feet higher; the few "cut away too low" or "AAD fired too low" problems may be ameliorated.

And of the people that died... How many pulled their main below 2.5k feet?

I am amazed at how many people don't get it Ron. I bet you feel like you banging your head against a wall. It is right there in plain site, right in front of their face and they refuse to see it.....So my questions is what do "we" do about it? Me I'm going to pull when and where I need to and not worry about a suggestion. I don't have the time or energy to run against these folks but if you decide to run Ron I will do my best to help get you elected and anyone else that is willing to run against the folks that voted for this nonsense.

Last thing to any BOD members reading this. Please tell me 1 just 1 fatality that pulled below 2500' that this BSR would have saved. Anyone can answer that please tell me 1 life that would still be here that died because they pulled at 2000' instead of 500.

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[yoink 321]

Ron

Why not fix the real problem instead of putting a bandaid on it.

No one is saying that the reserve / container situation shouldn't be fixed (although I do think we need to confirm it's the issue first - hence the USPA request to PIA.

Quote

Raising the AAD activation altitudes is a way to reduce the liability of the manufacturers.... The correct course of action is to make sure the equipment works as intended.

Fine. Ban skydiving in its entirety until that PIA data is reviewed.

You're stating as fact that an unknown combination of reserves and harnesses are unsafe as they don't meet the TSO which our safety procedures are based around. If the USPA is really looking out for the jumpers, that would be the only logical recommendation.
'Do not skydive until we know definitively if there is a problem with specific reserves / containers'

No band aid required....

OR
you can put in place a temporary restriction that might help a few people by indirectly addressing the issues caused by that unconfirmed problem.

[yoink 321]

catfishhunter

I am amazed at how many people don't get it Ron.

I'll put my hand up - I may be one of them.

I don't understand if Ron is against the raising of the opening height altogether, whether he's against it because of the way it was implemented (and if that is the case, is it better to remain a danger?), or whether he's for it but objects to the way it came about.


Communication by text is always more difficult and this would be a great discussion to have over a beer.


As far as I can see there's an issue:

There might not be enough height for an AAD to safely get a reserve open at their current settings.
Is that stating the problem in it's simplest terms?

If that is the case then there solutions as I see it are either:

1) Make it so that reserves / harnesses work together to meet the TSO requirements.
2) Give the AAD more time to function.

Doing nothing (advising people) isn't an option if you know there is a specific danger.

2 is MUCH more straightforward than 1 so why not do that first while we try to get our heads around the more complex problem?

[Southern_Man 0]

yoink

***


As far as I can see there's an issue:

There might not be enough height for an AAD to safely get a reserve open at their current settings.
Is that stating the problem in it's simplest terms?

If that is the case then there solutions as I see it are either:

1) Make it so that reserves / harnesses work together to meet the TSO requirements.
2) Give the AAD more time to function.

Doing nothing (advising people) isn't an option if you know there is a specific danger.

2 is MUCH more straightforward than 1 so why not do that first while we try to get our heads around the more complex problem?

Raising the minimum pull altitude does nothing to give the AAD more time to function. It is entirely unrelated.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"