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

[billvon 2,400]

>By getting a timeline for delivery out of the PIA for a question that was asked of them
>3 years ago?

Getting PIA to do stuff for us is pushing on a rope, especially when it is not in their best interests to answer.

>At least then we can have some expectations - right now we're in limbo.

Agreed. So what do we do NOW?

[yoink 321]

Southern_Man

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

How is it unrelated?

Raising the minumum pull altitude allowed the activation altitude of the AAD to be raised in turn...


Look at it this way - if there is a safe distance between pull altitude and AAD activation in order to minimize the chance of a 2-out, then necessarily you must raise the pull height if you raise the AAD activation height in order to keep that distance and chance constant.

[yoink 321]

billvon

>By getting a timeline for delivery out of the PIA for a question that was asked of them
>3 years ago?

Getting PIA to do stuff for us is pushing on a rope, especially when it is not in their best interests to answer.

>At least then we can have some expectations - right now we're in limbo.

Agreed. So what do we do NOW?

Fund our own independent analysis separate to PIA out of USPA funds? I've no idea how feasible that is by the way, but it's one solution.

I'm not convinced asking PIA to investigate something that potentially puts their members at risk was the most sensible idea in the world anyway... talk about a conflict of interests!

[nigel99 144]

First off, I think Ron is right on the money.

AADs are twenty years old and recently the number of jumpers going in after an AAD fire has started to reach critical mass where it is apparent there is a real problem. Did the aad manufacturer's screw up and choose the wrong altitude originally? I don't think so, something else has changed.

The USPA is there to represent us the members, and while someone threw out the skyride example, there is nothing stopping the USPA doing a bunch of tests and publishing the data in parachutist. If a certain brand performs badly we are more informed.

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

[Southern_Man 0]

yoink

***

Raising the minumum pull altitude allowed the activation altitude of the AAD to be raised in turn...


Look at it this way - if there is a safe distance between pull altitude and AAD activation in order to minimize the chance of a 2-out, then necessarily you must raise the pull height if you raise the AAD activation height in order to keep that distance and chance constant.

I totally disagree that the minimum pull altitude had to be raised in order to raise AAD activation. My AAD can already be set to activate above 1000 ft (although I of course could lower it again). No USPA action required.

You cannot even define what the safe minimum difference between pull altitude and AAD activation altitude is. This is no way to make policy.

Again, I don't know of a single two-out incident where the planned pull altitude was lower than 2500 ft. Do you?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,400]

>Fund our own independent analysis separate to PIA out of USPA funds? I've no idea
>how feasible that is by the way, but it's one solution.

OK, that might be doable. What would be the goal of the analysis? (i.e. what would it be trying to prove/disprove?)

[Zlew 0]

yoink

***

How is it unrelated?

Raising the minumum pull altitude allowed the activation altitude of the AAD to be raised in turn...

Why cant cypres/vigil/etc put out a bullitin tomorrow that says- if you use our gear, and you pull below 2500 feet you are outside of the operating parameters of the equipment. If you use our gear, pull above 2500 to insure yadda yadda yadda...

They can change their firing alt. to whatever they want... and recommend whatever they want. It's optional gear...not governed by USPA or by the FAA... they can make these changes on their own without a BSR change.

[Ron 7]

Quote

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

Never said that.

Quote

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

No, I am stating that something has changed and the BOD didn't even bother looking into the problem, they just caved to the manufacturer.

Quote

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

You have information that this is temporary? Because that would be information no one else has.

OR, the USPA could say that they think there may be a problem and suggest that people pull higher. A BSR was not needed.

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

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Ron

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.

I get that. ...and, I agree with most of your ideas about what the USPA should be. What I don't get is; what evidence is there that the USPA changed this because the manufacturers said to? Or, that there is any kind of conspiracy here? Is it possible, (as I believe it is) they just did it because it’s a good idea for the general skydiving community? Maybe not for "everybody", but definetly for the "general community". Two completely different groups IMO.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

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

[stratostar 5]

Well at least I'll have clear airspace when I pull @ 2K, unless Scotty is on the load... , I've been pulling there for years, with a cypres unit on too, I will keep on pulling that low too BSR or no BSR, on this one USPA can stick this BSR where the sun don't shine!

Prove I didn't pull @ 2.5, I'd like to see it, maybe the altitude police can chase me down and pull me over and issue a ticket.

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

[Ron 7]

skyjumpenfool

***
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.

I get that. ...and, I agree with most of your ideas about what the USPA should be. What I don't get is; what evidence is there that the USPA changed this because the manufacturers said to? Or, that there is any kind of conspiracy here? Is it possible, (as I believe it is) they just did it because it’s a good idea for the general skydiving community? Maybe not for "everybody", but definetly for the "general community". Two completely different groups IMO.

All you have to do is listen to the manufacturers. All you have to do is listen to the BOD. The BOD admitted they want to raise the pull altitude so AAD manufacturers could raise the fire altitude.

You think that the BOD told the manufacturers to raise the AAD altitude or do you think the AAD manufacturer told the BOD they will not raise the fire altitude till the main pull altitude was raised?

Seriously, just read the comments from the BOD.

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

[Zlew 0]

skyjumpenfool

What I don't get is; what evidence is there that the USPA changed this because the manufacturers said to?

From the USPA blog post by Ed Scott-
"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. "

http://skydiveuspa.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/uspa-raises-minimum-deployment-altitude/

[catfishhunter 1]

Ill ask again what fatality(s) brought this one? How many people pulled at 2k and burned in? For them to change a BSR they should have data to support it right? I'm not talking hard decks being busted which is the real cause of the bounces but pull altitudes. There is no way in hell they can accurate say what altitude anyone pulled at even if they had an audible and even if it survived the impact. The only reason to raise it is as Ron says. No one can tell you with a straight face that it is about keeping C and D license holders safe thats bogus bullshit and anyone that buys into I've got a bridge to sell you.

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.

[Bignugget 0]

It seems like your beef is with the manufacturers....which I can understand if they are putting out products they know don't conform with the safety standards they are advertising.

I don't understand what power the USPA has over the
manufacturer though..

Does the USPA have the power to order a recall of a product?

Since the AAD manufacturers also have (I assume) no regulatory control over the rig manufacturers...they have come to the conclusion the best way to keep people alive who are jumping poorly manufactured rigs that don't conform to safety standards is to raise the altitude at which their (the AAD manufacturers) product activates....that doesn't seem unreasonable but it appears it wasn't even proposed by the AAD companies, but a canopy company.....

If they don't have some sort of regulatory power over the makers of unsafe, inferior products, isn't the next best thing to work to ensure the unsafe, inferior product is given the best chance for success (in this case a bit more altitude to deploy)?


So unless the USPA, AAD manufacturers, or canopy manufacturers have the authority to force compliance with safety standards for reserve parachute/rig combinations...

I support the rule designed to allow AAD companies to help save lives that would/could be lost due to poor rig construction and false advertisement of safety standard conformance.

[yoink 321]

Ron

All you have to do is listen to the manufacturers. All you have to do is listen to the BOD. The BOD admitted they want to raise the pull altitude so AAD manufacturers could raise the fire altitude.

because they feel the same as you - that the harness and canopy companies have put skydivers in a dangerous position by not conforming to the TSO requirements. They have a product that is reliant on that requirement being met.

I just don't see the AAD manufacturers as the bad guys here, Ron.

If you're right about the tight containers being the cause for people going in after an AAD fires then they're reacting to the harness and canopy guys putting them in an impossible situation. As has been said before, 750ft used to work fine...


It might just be me, but discussing about
1) whether the increase is a good or bad thing / whether is should be a recommendation or BSR,
2) what the root cause is and how to solve it (tight container issue), and
3) whether the USPA are just mouthpieces of manufacturers in a single thread seems to detract from the positives that could be had from all of those discussions because of the overlapping noise... to me, they can be discussed separately more to more value.


I wish I had some evidence that this BSR was temporary. It seems like that would be the simplest solution - it's in place to mitigate a specific situation - the unknown of what canopy / container configurations don't meet TSO standards... but if that was the case, how do you remove it?
"If you have this container configuration with that canopy you must pull at 2500ft if you are jumping with an AAD... "?
That would get unmanageable. Safety rules should be as simple as possible.

So we come back to the simplest answer - make ALL manufacturers meet TSO requirements, which we can't validate without testing....

[Ron 7]

Quote

I don't understand what power the USPA has over the
manufacturer though..

Does the USPA have the power to order a recall of a product?

Flip it. My point is the manufacturers have an undue influence on the BOD.

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

[yoink 321]

billvon

OK, that might be doable. What would be the goal of the analysis? (i.e. what would it be trying to prove/disprove?)

to me, this is the biggest revelation of this thread. That there is circumstantial evidence the harnesses and canopies that we currently jump may not meet the TSO requirements for reserve activation because they are based on an old design which did, but in reality bear little resemblance to that design.

I'm all for shortcuts, but that loophole is a biggie.

The hypothesis that some people have put forward (and I can only go on what I've read here) is that some configurations do not meet that standard.
Riggers have chimed in here saying they've refused to pack tight rigs - OK, that's a starting point. Compile a database of those containers and canopies and see if there's any commonality. Then test those suspect commonalities first, rather than saying 'test everything'...

You're an engineer Bill - you know how this works.


I refer you back to my earlier post though - this could potentially be an even bigger can of worms to open.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I just don't see the AAD manufacturers as the bad guys here, Ron.

Never claimed they were. Maybe you should re-read all my posts. I never said they were the bad guys. Try again.

Quote

3) whether the USPA are just mouthpieces of manufacturers in a single thread seems to detract from the positives that could be had from all of those discussions because of the overlapping noise... to me, they can be discussed separately more to more value.

This is not the first time the BOD has been a mouth piece for manufacturers.... And with your position, it will not be the last.

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

[Bolas 5]

It's quite simple. The AAD manufacturers make AADs user configurable (with a one jump setting option or new permanent setting) certain range and put the new higher setting as the default.

Those who always pull around 3 don't need to change it. If they just do a low jump occasionally they just use the one jump setting.

Included in the instructions is how to set it lower (the current firing height) as well as the pros and cons of doing so.

The USPA does not create a BSR, but does a PR campaign with the AAD manufacturers "Before you go and plan to pull low..." "Like pulling at 2? Here's what you gotta do."
Also an article about the best rigs, canopies, and reserves for 2K pullers as well as some tips/tricks.

[yoink 321]

Ron

This is not the first time the BOD has been a mouth piece for manufacturers.... And with your position, it will not be the last.

MY position?

for christ's sake I'm the one advocating for serious testing and holding the manufacturers to standards!

The axe you have to grind against the USPA is detracting from the more important message. Don't worry - I'll go and talk about safety stuff elsewhere. You might find Speakers corner more amenable to pointless conspiracy theories though.

[Bignugget 0]

yoink

***

This is not the first time the BOD has been a mouth piece for manufacturers.... And with your position, it will not be the last.

MY position?

for christ's sake I'm the one advocating for serious testing and holding the manufacturers to standards!

The axe you have to grind against the USPA is detracting from the more important message. Don't worry - I'll go and talk about safety stuff elsewhere. You might find Speakers corner more amenable to pointless conspiracy theories though.

Sort of what I am getting from this as well.

AAD manufacturers hands are forced because of rig manufacturer failings.

Ron is angry at the BOD because they don't regulate an industry they have no regulatory oversight of....and is claiming they don't regulate it because the BOD is in bed with the rig manufacturers??

They don't even have the power to do anything!

If Ron was the entire BOD, he still has no power to force the rig manufacturers to do anything!

So the AAD companies, and the USPA have worked together to try and keep rig companies from killing people....and he is upset.

I am also upset rig companies are knowingly going around selling $2000-3000 rigs they know aren't compliant. But screaming at the FDA to regulate banking issues isn't gonna be much help. Screaming at the USPA to regulate something they have no direct power over, is about like that.


ETA: TSO's are issued through the FAA, which seems like it would have the power to force the hand of manufacturers. It might be more productive to continually bombard the FAA with reports and anecdotes about this issue. The squeaky wheel only gets the grease if you are squeaking at the right people.

[Ron 7]

Quote

The axe you have to grind against the USPA is detracting from the more important message. Don't worry - I'll go and talk about safety stuff elsewhere. You might find Speakers corner more amenable to pointless conspiracy theories though.

And there your position screams out. You take my position and claim I am being a conspiracy theorist.

Maybe with your personal attacks, YOU should be over in speakers corner.... Seems you have stopped paying attention to the tread *I* started and have been claiming I am a conspiracy theorist quite a long time now.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

So the AAD companies, and the USPA have worked together to try and keep rig companies from killing people....and he is upset.

Nope, try reading again. Start on page 1.

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

[Bignugget 0]

Ron

Quote

So the AAD companies, and the USPA have worked together to try and keep rig companies from killing people....and he is upset.

Nope, try reading again. Start on page 1.

Ron for USPA Chancellor.

Then you can force the rig manufacturers to do all kinds of stuff.

You have my vote brother.

[nigel99 144]

skyjumpenfool

***
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.

I get that. ...and, I agree with most of your ideas about what the USPA should be. What I don't get is; what evidence is there that the USPA changed this because the manufacturers said to? Or, that there is any kind of conspiracy here? Is it possible, (as I believe it is) they just did it because it’s a good idea for the general skydiving community? Maybe not for "everybody", but definetly for the "general community". Two completely different groups IMO.

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.

Personally I don't see it that way, but it should be kept in mind.

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