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

[Southern_Man 0]

billvon

>Actually they could do one more thing--they could actually release in a consolidated
>form all of the information they have about all of the accidents.

They could. However, as odd as it sounds, DZ.com probably has more accurate information about all the accidents than USPA does.

I don't know if that is true or not. USPA certainly had more information about the incidents which they referred to in their Skydiver Advisory then they are willing to disclose.

I have been through the incident reports on DZ.com and believe that I have identified most of the incidents referred to in the advisory. I'm not sure I have them all, or have the right ones. Some of the information is incomplete, speculative, etc. I still believe it is unconscionable that USPA hasn't released what they have (you know, the information they forward to PIA). This is within the scope of USPA's mission and would serve their constituents well.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[yoink 321]

billvon

>OK I will try again I believe that the current rigs have been modified from the original
> TSO'd design that they should be re-inspected to make sure they meet the current
>regulation(TSO)

Do you mean re-test gear certified under TSO C23b to a different standard? (TSO C23d) Or re-test to the same standard it was designed to meet? (TSO C23b)

and why would the manufacturers do it? Because the USPA asked nicely?

They'll say 'no. It meets the TSO - here's the certificate. Why would we test it again?' They will particularly say this is there's even a doubt that the new designs might not meet the standards.

Any sort of retesting must be performed either independently via the USPA, or be forced upon the manufacturers.... and the only people who can do that is the FAA.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi billvon & yoink,

Quote

Do you mean re-test gear certified under TSO C23b to a different standard? (TSO C23d) Or re-test to the same standard it was designed to meet? (TSO C23b)

Anyone thinking along these lines should study the TSO standards; C23b is NAS 804 & C23f is PIA TS 135. Once you see all of the testing called for in TS 135 I cannot imagine any TSO C23b holder that would agree to that.

They might, but I doubt it.

Heck, a couple of guys who used to work at Sunpath just bought Altico. IMO it was a lot less than paying to do all of the testing req'd by the new TSO.

Quote

the only people who can do that is the FAA.

The FAA does not test parachutes.

JerryBaumchen

[billvon 2,400]

>They'll say 'no. It meets the TSO - here's the certificate. Why would we test it again?'

Agreed. Further, they would likely say "and heck we've made 20,000 test jumps on this rig for our own testing and it always passes with flying colors. What's the difference what we call the testing as long as it's all the same?"

[topdocker 0]

Southern_Man

***

Quote

This is not a USPA issue

Have you read anything in this thread? The whole concept is it should be a USPA issue if the organization is there to protect and serve skydivers. If they are there for the benefit of manufacturers, then they might not choose to make it their issue. If it is true that modern equipment does not pass the TCO standard, then USPA should be doing something about it because the organization is funded by the people using that equipment.

I've read, and commented, a number of times in the thread.

The USPA does not issue the TSO.

The USPA has no regulatory authority over the manufacturers.

The USPA does not have either the means nor the expertise to do its own independent equipment testing.

All the USPA can do is what they have already done--alert skydivers that there are concerns about a number of incidents of the reserve not coming out in time. Actually they could do one more thing--they could actually release in a consolidated form all of the information they have about all of the accidents.

So, if USPA has NOTHING to do with gear that skydivers use, it is the job of the FAA (formally) and the PIA informally), the why did the BOD pass the BSR mandating an age limit on each piece of equipment?

http://www.dropzone.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

This near-disaster of a BSR passed last Summer at the request of the same manufacturers. No member asked for this one! USPA is definitely saying it is in the business of telling jumpers what gear they can use, so they must have some expertise in that equipment.

Yes, this BSR was suspended by the BOD later when they realized how much it negatively affected the members.

top

Jump more, post less!

[billvon 2,400]

>Anyone thinking along these lines should study the TSO standards; C23b is NAS 804 &
>C23f is PIA TS 135. Once you see all of the testing called for in TS 135 I cannot
>imagine any TSO C23b holder that would agree to that.

It's been a long time since I looked at those standards. They are really a hodgepodge of varying requirements if I recall. C23b had high speed and low speed categories, with a bunch of requirements for labeling of low speed designs which few designs met. No weight limit, which we took advantage of to build a 'legal' big boy rig about 15 years ago. C23c had the infamous 254lb weight limit IIRC. I believe some C23b rigs are technically not compatible with C23d reserves due to lack of shock loading specs but no one seems to heed that, so maybe I'm wrong there.

Maybe you could post your own summary of those standards? It would probably be a lot more informative than my own (sketchy) memories.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi bill,

Quote

Maybe you could post your own summary of those standards? It would probably be a lot more informative than my own (sketchy) memories.

Actually, not a bad thought.

I'm out of the country for a little while; I'll see what type of matrix I might be able to create when I get back.

However, if anyone might want to take on this task on while I'm gone, go for it.

Terry Urban maybe?????



JerryBaumchen

[billvon 2,400]

>So, if USPA has NOTHING to do with gear that skydivers use . . . .

?? He didn't say that. USPA does not have any authority over what the manufacturers do; that's a bit different. They can lobby, threaten and entice them, but in the end the manufacturer can just send them a nice letter saying "Thanks for your support of our company! We value your input, and look forward to working with you in the future."

[yoink 321]

JerryBaumchen

The FAA does not test parachutes.

JerryBaumchen

I didn't mean to suggest they did. I was trying to say that the FAA might put pressure on the manufacturers to do the testing to prove that their current designs meet TSO requirements (if there is evidence that they might not at the moment).

If the FAA would be completely uninterested in gear being jumped that potentially doesn't meet the TSO, then that's that avenue out of the window and we're back to either doing the testing ourselves, or asking people who have a vested interest in the outcome to do it...

[mark 102]

The standards have stayed essentially the same throughout TSO evolution, even as the language has gotten more exact. Short version: 3 seconds or 300 feet.

For C23f: essentially the same as C23d below.

For C23e: nothing was ever certified under this TSO.

For C23d: manufacturers can choose either 3 seconds or 300 "vertical" feet. I think the intention of "vertical" is what we normally think of as vertical, that is, the trajectory at the end of a 10-second or longer freefall, rather than the vertical component of the trajectory of a load as it is released from an aircraft in flight. 48 drop tests are required, at a variety of airspeeds, some with the main compartment full and some with it empty (no special provision for "overstuffed" or "extremely loose").

Also for C23d: 8 drops, with a maximum of 2 seconds or 300 feet from breakaway to functionally open reserve.

Also for C23d: 5 drops with deliberate line twists. Allowable opening time is 4 seconds.

Finally for C23d: opening times/distances are increased for weights above 250 pounds (to allow particularly for tandem rigs).

For C23c: the phrasing is not exactly the same as for C23d, but the requirements are essentially the same.

For C23b: 12 drops, 170 pounds, 70 mph, opening time 3 seconds. With line twists, 4 seconds.


Mark

[mark 102]

yoink

I didn't mean to suggest they did. I was trying to say that the FAA might put pressure on the manufacturers to do the testing to prove that their current designs meet TSO requirements (if there is evidence that they might not at the moment).

If the FAA would be completely uninterested in gear being jumped that potentially doesn't meet the TSO, then that's that avenue out of the window and we're back to either doing the testing ourselves, or asking people who have a vested interest in the outcome to do it...

What level of statistical certainty would you test to? For example, would you want to be 95% confident that the failure rate of any particular combination of container/main/reserve was less than one in a thousand?

Mark

[SethInMI 145]

billvon

>So, if USPA has NOTHING to do with gear that skydivers use . . . .

?? He didn't say that. USPA does not have any authority over what the manufacturers do; that's a bit different. They can lobby, threaten and entice them, but in the end the manufacturer can just send them a nice letter saying "Thanks for your support of our company! We value your input, and look forward to working with you in the future."

Of course that is true, but in fact the USPA has a great deal to threaten a manufacturer with, up to "you can build and sell that gear, but we can make it very difficult to find a place in the USA where your buyer can use it".

Once something gets into the BSRs, it can be binding on the many DZs that have agreed to follow the BSRs in their airport lease agreements. In effect the BSRs do have some force of law, even if just contract law.

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[billvon 2,400]

>Of course that is true, but in fact the USPA has a great deal to threaten
>a manufacturer with, up to "you can build and sell that gear, but we can make it very
>difficult to find a place in the USA where your buyer can use it".

How would they do that? Ban rigs that are not retested? (I can just see Ron's reaction to _that_!) The end result of that would be that 90% of the DZ's out there would ignore the ban because their instructors/student rigs/coaches/DZO's/S+TA's/sponsored team's rigs would be grounded, and thus they could choose to shut down part of their operation while the next DZ over kept operating. (And while all that business headed down the road.) That's unlikely. I mean, you can barely get BSR's enforced at most DZ's as it is.

>Once something gets into the BSRs, it can be binding on the many DZs that
>have agreed to follow the BSRs in their airport lease agreements.

In my experience that's not much of a binder. Consider how careful DZ's when it comes to cloud clearance requirements, for example. A DZ that can honestly say "all our jumpers were clear of clouds at all times" is doing exceptionally well - and that doesn't even meet the requirements for cloud clearances!

Or consider how many DZ's don't even heed the group member pledge that requires separation of HP and standard landing areas. Heck, how many DZO's even read that thing before they sign it?

[MakeItHappen 15]

topdocker

So, if USPA has NOTHING to do with gear that skydivers use, it is the job of the FAA (formally) and the PIA informally), the why did the BOD pass the BSR mandating an age limit on each piece of equipment?

http://www.dropzone.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

This near-disaster of a BSR passed last Summer at the request of the same manufacturers. No member asked for this one! USPA is definitely saying it is in the business of telling jumpers what gear they can use, so they must have some expertise in that equipment.

Yes, this BSR was suspended by the BOD later when they realized how much it negatively affected the members.

top

Craig,

USPA never passed a BSR ( even temporarily ) about age limit of equipment.
The BSR that you mention was about the age of jumpers.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[topdocker 0]

MakeItHappen

***
So, if USPA has NOTHING to do with gear that skydivers use, it is the job of the FAA (formally) and the PIA informally), the why did the BOD pass the BSR mandating an age limit on each piece of equipment?

http://www.dropzone.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

This near-disaster of a BSR passed last Summer at the request of the same manufacturers. No member asked for this one! USPA is definitely saying it is in the business of telling jumpers what gear they can use, so they must have some expertise in that equipment.

Yes, this BSR was suspended by the BOD later when they realized how much it negatively affected the members.

top

Craig,

USPA never passed a BSR ( even temporarily ) about age limit of equipment.
The BSR that you mention was about the age of jumpers.

.

Correct! Poor wording on my side! It was that a skydiver was responsible for knowing if there were any minimum age of user on each piece of equipment. Sorry. Totally effed that up. But, it was another example of manufacturers coming to the BOD and asking for a specific BSR that had nothing to do with safety. No member asks for it, and it gets enacted.

top

Jump more, post less!

[pchapman 261]

mark

manufacturers can choose either 3 seconds or 300 "vertical" feet.

That's the dirty little secret of TSO certification. To sound conspiratorial, "that's what THEY don't want you to know".

Skydivers mostly think that reserves are supposed to open within 300 ft, imagining it to be in vertical freefall, when really the manufacturers can test it from planes flying horizontally -- so there is plenty more distance for the opening.

Every high speed test video I've seen shows horizontal drops!

And as you said, one can test for 3 seconds OR 300', not BOTH.

The regs mention vertical feet for checking the 300'. Maybe it was intended to mean a vertical drop, but nothing seems to prohibit horizontal high speed drops. The wording is always about "altitude loss" not anything like "opening distance".

[Edit: I have been informed that at least one manufacturer, no longer operating, did do true vertical tests at freefall speeds with an electronic AAD. However, I don't know if those tests were part of the actual TSO paperwork or just to satisfy the designer.]

Each TSO is a little different though.

-- C23b/NAS804 allows 500 ft
[Too simplisitic. Based on Jerry's subsequent post and more additions from NAS804:]

3 seconds are required for the 70 mph test ("Functional test") (and effectively 500 ft too since that's the max test altitude),
while for the high speed strength test, there is no time requirement at all. Presumably that canopy must be open before it hits the ground from 500 ft maximum drop altitude.

-- C23c/AS8015A allows 3 sec for slow and normal speed tests (up to 110 kts) , but has no height or time requirement for the high speed strength tests?!

-- C23d/AS8015B is as you mention

Also, in C23c all the distances and times are until the parachute is "fully open" -- it could still be mushing downward with too much speed to land safely for another second or whatever. That made it easy to calculate on video -- just see when the slider hit the links I suppose. Only in C23d does it start to mention "functionally open", with a descent rate less than the max allowed for certification.


So basically reserves are NOT designed to open within 300'!


If I'm wrong, please correct me and add to our knowledge! It is easy to miss things in the TSO regs.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Peter,

Quote

Each TSO is a little different though.

-- C23b/NAS804 allows 500 ft

That is not correct. NAS 804 has no reference to any loss of altitude ( i.e., xxx ft drop ) as a test req'ment or method.

The 500 ft referred to in NAS 804 says that all Functional Drop Tests shall be conducted at an altitude of no more than 500 ft. The Functional Drop Test in NAS 804 is a 3 second req'ment only.

JerryBaumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Mark,

Thank You for doing that. You have summed it up quite nicely.

I would like to add one thing though ( and to toot my own horn a little ); IMO the most significant change from C23b to all versions that follow is that the same test sample has to be used for all three Strength Tests.

In C23b you could perform the three Strength Tests on three seperate samples. When I suggested this change, my argument was that it might be possible that a canopy and/or harness could be damaged in a test but might not be visible to a rigger in the field. This could result in the rigger in the field putting a component back into to service that might not survive and 2nd and/or a 3rd test; resulting in a component being in service that could not survive a terminal opening by a user.

IMO of the opinion that this one change has made our equipment stronger.

Just some trivia for those who might be interested.

JerryBaumchen

[mark 102]

pchapman

Every high speed test video I've seen shows horizontal drops!

Me too. Although the distance along the actual trajectory has been plausibly 300 feet, especially considering the illusion caused by the airplane moving away from the release point. I don't know if any manufacturers are taking advantage of the ambiguity of "vertical."

pchapman

Each TSO is a little different though.

-- C23b/NAS804 allows 500 ft
-- C23c/AS8015A allows 3 sec for slow and normal speed tests, but has no height or time requirement for the high speed tests?! (Or did I miss something?)
-- C23d/AS8015B is as you mention

Also, in C23c all the distances and times are until the parachute is "fully open" -- it could still be mushing downward with too much speed to land safely for another second or whatever. That made it easy to calculate on video -- just see when the slider hit the links I suppose. Only in C23d does it start to mention "functionally open", with a descent rate less than the max allowed for certification.

-- C23b is silent with respect to the altitude required for opening. For a total malfunction, time to impact from 500 feet is more than 3 seconds.

-- C23c "high speed" tests are strength tests, not functional tests. You're right about the ambiguity of "fully open." The developers of AS8015B agree with you, which is why the term in C23d is "funcitonally open" and has a definition.

Mark

[pchapman 261]

For Jerry:
Ok, I've annotated my post with fixes and clarification -- there's even more to it than you mentioned!

For Mark:
Indeed one has to distinguish between Functional and Strength tests.

Skydivers generally aren't going to care about the difference however:

If they expect a 3 second opening or X feet, they expect that not just at slow and medium speeds (which is what the Functional Tests end up being), but also at the high speed test (which is what the Strength test ends up being too.)

Most of us are used to the idea of having all requirements met at once, that at high speed the parachute will still open quickly and won't blow apart, rather than "it won't blow apart... but who knows how long it will take to open."

Good stuff, delving into the details of what our parachutes really are supposed to be able to handle.

[nigel99 144]

pchapman

For Jerry:
Ok, I've annotated my post with fixes and clarification -- there's even more to it than you mentioned!

For Mark:
Indeed one has to distinguish between Functional and Strength tests.

Skydivers generally aren't going to care about the difference however:

If they expect a 3 second opening or X feet, they expect that not just at slow and medium speeds (which is what the Functional Tests end up being), but also at the high speed test (which is what the Strength test ends up being too.)

Most of us are used to the idea of having all requirements met at once, that at high speed the parachute will still open quickly and won't blow apart, rather than "it won't blow apart... but who knows how long it will take to open."

Good stuff, delving into the details of what our parachutes really are supposed to be able to handle.

Out of interest from a terminal (belly) speed, what is the minimum theoretical deceleration distance, before the G forces injure/kill you?

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

[Krip 2]

billvon

>A thousand feet for a reserve to open?

That would be too long a distance.

Not if you pull high enough

One Jump Wonder

[RiggerLee 61]

It's getting a little bit off topic but I was able to find this...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fftp.rta.nato.int%2Fpublic%2F%2FPubFullText%2FRTO%2FEN%2FRTO-EN-HFM-113%2F%2F%2FEN-HFM-113-03.pdf&ei=vX4EUobhD4PyyAH_yICoDg&usg=AFQjCNHK7DBbNWS_dwDkQo9j_XXSIyi4kw&sig2=JApgHH335k1qsxiVgpyh7Q&bvm=bv.50500085,d.aWc

I think it is a good question but this might be the wrong place for it. I don't see deceleration being a limit or hinderance to meeting TSO standards. That's not to say that you can't build a hard opening canopy. I see this as being more of a problem with deployment time to line stretch not with the "opening speed" of the canopy it self.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[grue 1]

nigel99

***For Jerry:
Ok, I've annotated my post with fixes and clarification -- there's even more to it than you mentioned!

For Mark:
Indeed one has to distinguish between Functional and Strength tests.

Skydivers generally aren't going to care about the difference however:

If they expect a 3 second opening or X feet, they expect that not just at slow and medium speeds (which is what the Functional Tests end up being), but also at the high speed test (which is what the Strength test ends up being too.)

Most of us are used to the idea of having all requirements met at once, that at high speed the parachute will still open quickly and won't blow apart, rather than "it won't blow apart... but who knows how long it will take to open."

Good stuff, delving into the details of what our parachutes really are supposed to be able to handle.

Out of interest from a terminal (belly) speed, what is the minimum theoretical deceleration distance, before the G forces injure/kill you?

The issue isn't absolute g per se but the rate you reach peak g force. Russian ejection seats in some aircraft hit a peak of (if memory serves) 22g but would often result in back injury, just like the Martin-Baker stuff used in the west. If you were in a centrifuge and were spun on your back (to simulate the towards-the-ass force of deployment) you wouldn't necessarily experience the same issues as someone who got to that level of force via a rocket. So if reserves were able to have a linear/gradual increase it might be ok, but that's going to eat altitude and negate the issue.

I don't think that actually answered what you were asking though.

cavete terrae.

[nigel99 144]

grue

******For Jerry:
Ok, I've annotated my post with fixes and clarification -- there's even more to it than you mentioned!

For Mark:
Indeed one has to distinguish between Functional and Strength tests.

Skydivers generally aren't going to care about the difference however:

If they expect a 3 second opening or X feet, they expect that not just at slow and medium speeds (which is what the Functional Tests end up being), but also at the high speed test (which is what the Strength test ends up being too.)

Most of us are used to the idea of having all requirements met at once, that at high speed the parachute will still open quickly and won't blow apart, rather than "it won't blow apart... but who knows how long it will take to open."

Good stuff, delving into the details of what our parachutes really are supposed to be able to handle.

Out of interest from a terminal (belly) speed, what is the minimum theoretical deceleration distance, before the G forces injure/kill you?

The issue isn't absolute g per se but the rate you reach peak g force. Russian ejection seats in some aircraft hit a peak of (if memory serves) 22g but would often result in back injury, just like the Martin-Baker stuff used in the west. If you were in a centrifuge and were spun on your back (to simulate the towards-the-ass force of deployment) you wouldn't necessarily experience the same issues as someone who got to that level of force via a rocket. So if reserves were able to have a linear/gradual increase it might be ok, but that's going to eat altitude and negate the issue.

I don't think that actually answered what you were asking though.

Nobody has answered anybodies questions in this thread. We've all just thrown our thoughts and opinions into the ring

But you got what I was asking anyway. I had a quick play with some online calculators and it appears that a 1 second deceleration from 120Mph is only 3 or 4g, which is less than I thought. Admittedly that assumes a nice linear deceleration.

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