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

[airdvr 197]

DanG

Quote

Everyone here should consider the course of action they are suggesting and ask themselves if paying 2 times the amount they are paying now for equipment is something they want to do. Stop and ponder the absolute firestorm of lawsuits from the families of every person who's gone in since AAD's were widely accepted and in use on their family member's rig.

I know in Virginia, and probably most states, there is a statute of limitations on such claims. In Virginia it is 2 years.

Just a reality check.

I wasn't aware of that.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[skyjumpenfool 2]

jumpwally

"paying 2 times " ...what ? how do you figure that one ?

R&D and Testing are very expensive. Who do you think is going to pay for that?

@Ron... I'm reading all this to learn?
Although I'm a bit of an old schooler, I still don't see the harm in raising the Min. Opening Alt. If the USPA decided to do that to protect the general membership because they can't force the Manufactuers to change, so be it.

It seems to me, this is in the best interest of the membership (at least at this point) weather we like it or not. And, Stratostar, keep pulling low and dirty you old fart! I may join you from time to time. But, that may not be the best of advice for most jumpers.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[topdocker 0]

skyjumpenfool

***"paying 2 times " ...what ? how do you figure that one ?

R&D and Testing are very expensive. Who do you think is going to pay for that?



Apparently, a few people have already paid the ultimate price.

Don't mind the rule, mind the BS!

top

Jump more, post less!

[nigel99 144]

skyjumpenfool

***"paying 2 times " ...what ? how do you figure that one ?

R&D and Testing are very expensive. Who do you think is going to pay for that?

@Ron... I'm reading all this to learn?
Although I'm a bit of an old schooler, I still don't see the harm in raising the Min. Opening Alt. If the USPA decided to do that to protect the general membership because they can't force the Manufactuers to change, so be it.

It seems to me, this is in the best interest of the membership (at least at this point) weather we like it or not. And, Stratostar, keep pulling low and dirty you old fart! I may join you from time to time. But, that may not be the best of advice for most jumpers.

Ron has said a bunch of times that raising the altitude is not a bad thing. His point is that the logic or motivation is wrong.

I feel very strongly that the USPA should be there to protect OUR interests. There is no science to this raise, nobody has done testing and found that 250 feet extra will solve the problem - we just hope so. There is enough evidence that the USPA should be putting significant pressure on the manufacturers to look into the opening times.

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi nigel,

Quote

By the way there is a third option to the scenarios. It could be that with more AADs and jumps happening we have simply uncovered the fact that 750 feet isn't quite enough and it has always been an AAD problem.

I do not believe that has always been an AAD problem per se.

I posted this earlier: "One other thing to give some thought to: When Helmut developed his CYPRES with a firing altitude of 750 ft, most rigs had round reserves in them, not the square reserves that are nearly 100% today."

I sat in the audience at the '01 Symposium when Helmut Cloth introduced his CYPRES AAD. I have no knowledge of when it might have been introduced in Europe.

In his somewhat poor English he explained how he came up with the design. At first I thought he was nuts with a 750 ft altitude, but as he explained it further I tended to agree with him.

We did not have these tiny, tight reserves back in '01.

I have read over & over how most skydivers last 3-5 yrs in the sport. I would venture that most of the posters on this thread have been in the sport 10+ yrs or so. This means that they 'grew up' with 750 ft as the 'norm.' 'Back in the day' it was 1,000 ft that was the 'norm.' I suggest that if the CYPRES had originally came with a 1,000 ft firing altitude, we would not be having this discussion.

Things have changed; it happens.

JerryBaumchen

PS) I picked on you because of your 1 jumps in 1 years.

[billvon 2,400]

>There is no science to this raise, nobody has done testing and found that 250 feet
>extra will solve the problem - we just hope so.

1) There has never been any science or any testing behind ANY USPA BSR. We just guess and hope it works. Water training? Required because of one incident. Third class medical certificate for tandem masters? Heck, the FAA does it, so why not?

200 jumps for a wingsuit? Seems like a nice round number. Wind limits? Educated guesses. Jump numbers for the various licenses? Even less educated guesses.

2) It's 500 feet.

[nigel99 144]

billvon

>There is no science to this raise, nobody has done testing and found that 250 feet
>extra will solve the problem - we just hope so.

1) There has never been any science or any testing behind ANY USPA BSR. We just guess and hope it works. Water training? Required because of one incident. Third class medical certificate for tandem masters? Heck, the FAA does it, so why not?

200 jumps for a wingsuit? Seems like a nice round number. Wind limits? Educated guesses. Jump numbers for the various licenses? Even less educated guesses.

2) It's 500 feet.

So Bill you are saying in 2 that they want to raise the AAD altitude from 750 to 1250 feet? With the addition of the 250 (approximate) that can happen due to body position, that means AAD will be starting to fire at 1500 feet - that is high...

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

[Bignugget 0]

nigel99

***>There is no science to this raise, nobody has done testing and found that 250 feet
>extra will solve the problem - we just hope so.

1) There has never been any science or any testing behind ANY USPA BSR. We just guess and hope it works. Water training? Required because of one incident. Third class medical certificate for tandem masters? Heck, the FAA does it, so why not?

200 jumps for a wingsuit? Seems like a nice round number. Wind limits? Educated guesses. Jump numbers for the various licenses? Even less educated guesses.

2) It's 500 feet.

So Bill you are saying in 2 that they want to raise the AAD altitude from 750 to 1250 feet? With the addition of the 250 (approximate) that can happen due to body position, that means AAD will be starting to fire at 1500 feet - that is high...


They raised the deployment limit 500 feet.

The only things I gathered in this thread is that rigs don't work as advertised, the USPA is trying to save lives however they can...and there is a lot of A.O.M.S (Angry old man syndrome) going around because some old dudes don't like how the USPA went about trying to save lives.

Can't please everyone.

I'm happy the AAD companies plan to raise the activation altitude (if that's even confirmed), sorry you guys have to get an extra piece of paper signed now to do a hop n pop at 2k on a cloudy shitty day.

Life sucks, then you die. Hopefully not because your AAD didnt have time to get your reserve out.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Third class medical certificate for tandem masters? Heck, the FAA does it, so why not?

The FAA does not require it. In fact they don't require it for commercial ballon pilots, light sport flight instructors, or IIRC glider instructors. This is another example of the BOD following the desires of the manufacturers and not the membership. And THAT has been the point of my post(s) all along.

The USPA should represent the jumpers, not the manufacturers.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Life sucks, then you die. Hopefully not because your AAD didnt have time to get your reserve out reserve was too tight and would not deploy in time because both the reserve and the container has been modified way past the TSO standard it was certified to.

Fixed it for you...

As for 'old man'. I am 40.... But I have been skydiving for 20 years come Sept.

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

[grimmie 173]

http://vimeo.com/68934659

Exhibit A of tight reserves being discussed.

[airdvr 197]

Quote

The only things I gathered in this thread is that rigs don't work as advertised, the USPA is trying to save lives however they can...and there is a lot of A.O.M.S (Angry old man syndrome) going around because some old dudes don't like how the USPA went about trying to save lives.

Wow. Good luck getting on anything worth doing.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,400]

>The FAA does not require it.

They require a third class medical for the pilot in command of part 91 flights. Now go and read the BSR and see where USPA got the language.

>The USPA should represent the jumpers, not the manufacturers.

They, in general, do. And this was their way to protect jumpers from death when their rigs do not open fast enough to save their lives. Not the best way (IMO) but certainly A way.

[billvon 2,400]

>So Bill you are saying in 2 that they want to raise the AAD altitude from 750 to 1250 feet?

No, USPA has said nothing about AAD activation altitudes. They are raising _deployment_ altitudes.

[nigel99 144]

billvon

>So Bill you are saying in 2 that they want to raise the AAD altitude from 750 to 1250 feet?

No, USPA has said nothing about AAD activation altitudes. They are raising _deployment_ altitudes.

Well the whole point of this thread is that they want to raise deployment SO that the AAD activation altitude can be raised. That is central to the argument being proposed, to my knowledge there is no other motivator being put forward, USPA has not said it is because rigs are taking longer to open, mains are more snivelly or anything like that.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Well the whole point of this thread is that they want to raise deployment SO that the
>AAD activation altitude can be raised.

Yes, that is the assumption everyone is making. But they are NOT proposing to raise AAD activation altitudes. They have no power to do that. All they are doing is raising the deployment altitudes.

[skypuppy 1]

davelepka

Quote

Like it or not, we're losing too many of our peers.

This is what people seem to be ignoring when they bitch about higher pull altitudes. I don't think it's incorrect to say that every single jumper who went in with a partially deployed reserve will still be alive today if they had another 500 ft.

.

don't believe this for a minute. I believe you could safely say 'some' of these jumpers who went in with a partially deployed reserve might still be alive, but if the bag's trapped in the pack tray, 2 1/2 seconds more freefall isn't necessarily going to bring it out...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Ron 7]

Quote

They require a third class medical for the pilot in command of part 91 flights. Now go and read the BSR and see where USPA got the language.

The FAA does not require a medical for a flight instructor of a light sport plane (less than 1320 pounds, slower than 138MPH).

The FAA does not require a medical for a commercial ballon pilot.

The FAA does not require a medical for glider instructors.

Know why? Because their organizations fought AGAINST the FAA medical because it was worthless and getting rid of it was in the best interest of their members.

In fact the EAA and AOPA are fighting to get rid of the medical for single engine, day, VFR. Why? Because it is in the best interest of the membership.

So why does the BOD require it for TI's? Because the manufacturers want it.... And that is the only reason.

Who is the USPA supposed to work for again?

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

[Ron 7]

billvon

>So Bill you are saying in 2 that they want to raise the AAD altitude from 750 to 1250 feet?

No, USPA has said nothing about AAD activation altitudes. They are raising _deployment_ altitudes.

FALSE

Quote

But the AAD manufacturers had a dilemma: They couldn’t increase their activation altitudes if the BSR allows a 2,000-foot altitude for initiating deployment. If jumpers deployed at 2,000 feet and waited on main canopy inflation or fought a malfunction while going through 1,000 feet, then low-altitude two-canopy-out scenarios or worse, main-reserve entanglements, would become more likely. Raising the minimum altitude for C- and D-licensees to 2,500 feet provides more time for the main to open or for a jumper to enact emergency procedures before the AAD activates and, hopefully, now at an altitude that helps ensure a fully-inflated reserve canopy.

Unless you are now going to claim Ed Scott has nothing to do with the USPA, your claim is false.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>The FAA does not require a medical for a flight instructor of a light sport plane (less than 1320 pounds, slower than 138MPH).

>The FAA does not require a medical for a commercial ballon pilot.

>The FAA does not require a medical for glider instructors.

The USPA does not require a medical for AFF instructors.
The USPA does not require a medical for SL instructors.
The USPA does not require a medical for wingsuit instructors.

You're sort of proving my point here; they just adopted the rule without much science or even much testing. They even applied it the same way the FAA did, to a subclass of skydivers. In fact almost none of the BSR's - BSR's that you have said you support - have much science or testing behind them.

To me, that does not mean that USPA is evil, or that they are in someone's pocket. They try to solve problems without a lot of time/money/effort, and in _general_ they do a good job.

As an example, many years ago me and about a dozen other people went to the USPA and demanded they do something about landing pattern separation. We actually demanded a BSR. They compromised on a group member pledge change.

Was there a lot of science behind that? No, just a lot of skydivers demanding they do something. Was there a lot of testing? Nope. Were they nothing more than "a mouthpiece for some pushy arrogant skygods" rather than an organization dedicated to the safety of skydiving? I guess you could claim that - but that would be a pretty gross misunderstanding of what they were did.

[Ron 7]

Quote

You're sort of proving my point here; they just adopted the rule without much science or even much testing

They adopted the Tandem medical rule because UPT and Strong wanted them to adopt it.

They changed the pull altitudes because the manufacturers wanted it.

See a trend?

Quote

As an example, many years ago me and about a dozen other people went to the USPA and demanded they do something about landing pattern separation. We actually demanded a BSR. They compromised on a group member pledge change.

You kinda just proved MY point. A bunch of jumpers wanted a BSR, you didn't get it. The manufacturers wanted a BSR, they got it. Thanks for proving my point.

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

[popsjumper 2]

skypuppy

don't believe this for a minute. I believe you could safely say 'some' of these jumpers who went in with a partially deployed reserve might still be alive, but if the bag's trapped in the pack tray, 2 1/2 seconds more freefall isn't necessarily going to bring it out...

Yep.
Noble cause trying to save lives. And this action might do that for a small number of instances. All well and good, however....

I'm wondering why they, the BOD, are only interested in saving the small proportion with this change when they could be taking it to the more likely cause and saving a larger number of lives. They have made no indication that they will be doing that.

Kinda like many doctors...treat the symptom, not the cause and let it go at that.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[skyjumpenfool 2]

popsjumper

I'm wondering why they, the BOD, are only interested in saving the small proportion with this change when they could be taking it to the more likely cause and saving a larger number of lives. They have made no indication that they will be doing that.

Kinda like many doctors...treat the symptom, not the cause and let it go at that.

Do we really believe the USPA, the PIA, the manufactuers, and the FAA are not studying this issue? And, do we really think that the manufactuer who solves this problem will not be rewarded with sales $$$$'s by advertising the results?

When you buy gear, do so based on safety results from testing and not "how cool it looks". When we do that in mass, watch the manufactuers change there tune. The bottom line in all of this... $$$$$ Talks!!!

I believe the BOD did "what they could do" to address this issue. Now, it's up to ME (and you)! We vote on this issue everytime we spend a dollar on gear.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[Southern_Man 0]

skyjumpenfool

Do we really believe the USPA, the PIA, the manufactuers, and the FAA are not studying this issue? And, do we really think that the manufactuer who solves this problem will not be rewarded with sales $$$$'s by advertising the results?

When you buy gear, do so based on safety results from testing and not "how cool it looks". When we do that in mass, watch the manufactuers change there tune. The bottom line in all of this... $$$$$ Talks!!!

I believe the BOD did "what they could do" to address this issue. Now, it's up to ME (and you)! We vote on this issue everytime we spend a dollar on gear.

I see no evidence that any of the bodies you mentioned up at the top are doing a thing to study the issue. If they are then they are being awfully quiet about it.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[faulk04 0]

Bignugget

I'm happy the AAD companies plan to raise the activation altitude (if that's even confirmed), sorry you guys have to get an extra piece of paper signed now to do a hop n pop at 2k on a cloudy shitty day.

You can change your activation altitude on certain AAD's already if you want.

You don't need to sign a piece of paper to do a h&p at 2k, all the S&TA needs to do is say it is waived on that specific jump