0
Butters

Raising Minimum Deployment Altitudes

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not an enforcable rule, unless you force them to hand over a Protrack or Neptune. The difference between 2,500 and 2,000 isn't easily determined by sight.



That's not the point.



A rule that's not enforcible is a waste of time.



The discussion isn't about whether the rule is enforceable. That's a different conversation. But since you bring it up....

Based on your assessment we shouldn't have any minimum deployment altitude because it would be impossible to ever conclusively prove whether a person broke the "rule", which is both overly simplistic and incorrect.

What if the proposal was to raise the minimum to 2,800 feet. Would that be enough of a change to tell if someone busted? How about 3,000? 3,300? 3,500?

Some busts are obvious to the naked eye, and more to your point a DZO could indeed tell a jumper to hand over an altitude recording device to prove he/she didn't bust or face being grounded instead. That's the DZO's choice and would certainly prove one way or the other whether a bust occurred.

So to say that a change of any given amount would be unenforceable and therefore a waste of time is simply not true.

The question stands.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is part of the upcoming agenda ...

Quote

3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise
the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet
AGL.



... and I don't like it. What do others think?



May as well mandate AAD use for A/B license holders and the "no more than one GoPro unless you have 500 jumps".

Micromanaging a sport where one can easily kill themselves will only reduce the participants awareness and learning curve.

Surely if one is a C/D license holder they should be competent enough to make the pull altitude decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you wanted to give your reserve a bit more time to open after an AAD fire, you'd need to raise AAD firing altitudes. This puts you at more risk of a two out, unless you raise minimum main deployment altitudes.



They are not really related. You can raise the AAD firing altitudes without a BSR to say everyone (even those without and AAD) have to pull higher.

For example when people would jump a rig with an FXC AAD we would tell them it was set to fire at 1000 feet and they had better be in the saddle by 2500 feet or they risk it firing.

Those individuals that jumped that rig had to pull higher.... But those with a CYPRESS didn't.

Yes, pulling higher is normally safer.... So why not make min pull altitudes 5,000 feet for every jump?

Fact is that the majority of jumpers consider 2.5k-3k to be 'too low' already. I had a guy with 50 jumps ask me where I was pulling and when I said 2.5-3k. He told me, "That is unsafe! You have to pull higher!!!" I thanked him for his concern and told him that I would be fine. He would not let it go and insisted that we both speak to the S&TA.

He didn't mean any harm, but his fear of 2.5-3k does not make his fear real.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Based on your assessment we shouldn't have any minimum deployment altitude because it would be impossible to ever conclusively prove whether a person broke the "rule", which is both overly simplistic and incorrect.



You are missing my point. Raising the minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 ft to 2,500 ft isn't going to be enforcable because there isn't much of a difference between 2,500 and 2,000. But no where did I say that a minimum deployment altitude was not necessary. I do think that changing it is not necessary.

I don't see how changing it will have any real world effect. If someone decides to pull between 2,000 ft and 2,500 how would anyone even notice?


Also ditters don't show when you threw out your pilot chute. They only show an approximation based on decelaration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

If you wanted to give your reserve a bit more time to open after an AAD fire, you'd need to raise AAD firing altitudes. This puts you at more risk of a two out, unless you raise minimum main deployment altitudes.



They are not really related.



Yes they are.

Quote

For example when people would jump a rig with an FXC AAD we would tell them it was set to fire at 1000 feet and they had better be in the saddle by 2500 feet or they risk it firing.



See? Related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>If there is a problem with delayed openings, then regardless of the origin of
>the problem, raising altitudes is a defensible response.

Only if the "delay" is covered by the additional altitude. If, for example, PC's aren't extracting freebags from too-tight containers, raising the minimum altitude to 4000 feet wouldn't solve the problem. (And might cause more fatalities if it makes container manufacturers think that the BSR has solved their problem for them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I don't see low reserve openings as being a result of having a 2k minimum opening altitude.



I think it's to do with the fact that at the current AAD firing altitude you're only a pilot chute hesitation away from bouncing if you're at terminal speed when it fires. If you wanted to give your reserve a bit more time to open after an AAD fire, you'd need to raise AAD firing altitudes. This puts you at more risk of a two out, unless you raise minimum main deployment altitudes. Obviously raising main deployment altitudes and getting it to be the norm has to come first before modifying the AAD's parameters. This is probably ground work for raising AAD firing altitudes.



I don't think an effort to raise AAD firing altitudes has anything to do with any move to raise main deployment altitudes. I believe it is simple math.

If a container opening occurs at 2,000 feet and a sniveling canopy (like my Velo) that typically take 800 feet to open decides to open a little slower than normal - say 1,000 feet - the jumper is in or is getting into the firing range of the AAD.

That said, I disagree with raising minimum deployment altitudes as a BSR. There are numerous scenarios in which a 2,000 foot opening is perfectly safe under certain gear configurations. If an appropriately skilled jumper has a faster opening canopy and no AAD, 2,000 feet is no different than 2,500 for someone with a sniveler and an AAD. Same applies if a jumper is doing a clear and pull from just above 2,000 feet where they will cover a 1,000 foot drop in nearly twice the time as a jumper at terminal.

BSR's are intended to be minimum safe limits, not minimum safe limits under certain conditions. If it is possible to safely open at 2 grand with a given gear configuration, then 2 grand should be what he BSR's reflect. If certain gear configurations necessitate a jumper pull higher than that, it should be addressed outside the BSR's.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes they are.



Nope, you missed the whole point. And omitted the rest of the comment.

Here it is again: "You can raise the AAD firing altitudes without a BSR to say everyone (even those without and AAD) have to pull higher. "

See those WITH the FXC had to do it. But that does not mean those with a CYPRES or no AAD at all had to. So making those with a CYPRES or no AAD is not related.

So if you have an AAD, then you have to pull higher than the min.

We learned this lesson almost 20 years ago.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Some busts are obvious to the naked eye, and more to your point a DZO could indeed tell a jumper to hand over an altitude recording device to prove he/she didn't bust or face being grounded instead. That's the DZO's choice and would certainly prove one way or the other whether a bust occurred.



My N3 (as well as my N2) don't accurately record deployment altitude, they record the attitude I'm in the saddle.

I got a little bit of a chewing by a few people claiming I MUST have busted 2k before I activated, I had VIDEO SHOWING MY ALTITUDE (pointed at my altimeter) at deployment, and they didn't accept that. I trust it over their eyeballs on the ground.
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It's not an enforcable rule, unless you force them to hand over a Protrack or Neptune. The difference between 2,500 and 2,000 isn't easily determined by sight.



Generally true but it would be enforceable on low hop-and-pops. Couldn't get out below 2500. I am against it on that basis.



Good point...I hadn't thought of that.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Some busts are obvious to the naked eye, and more to your point a DZO could indeed tell a jumper to hand over an altitude recording device to prove he/she didn't bust or face being grounded instead. That's the DZO's choice and would certainly prove one way or the other whether a bust occurred.



My N3 (as well as my N2) don't accurately record deployment altitude, they record the attitude I'm in the saddle.

I got a little bit of a chewing by a few people claiming I MUST have busted 2k before I activated, I had VIDEO SHOWING MY ALTITUDE (pointed at my altimeter) at deployment, and they didn't accept that. I trust it over their eyeballs on the ground.


Understood, but if there is a "trouble child" on the DZ, an altitude recording device would be enough proof for a DZO to take action. It's simple, really.

I ran a DZ and I had no problem saying "well little Johnny, your (name your device here) says you "deployed" at 1,500 feet. Now that may mean you pitched at 2,100 or it may mean you pitched at 1,900. Either way, if I see your "deployment altitude" as 1,500 feet again, you're grounded."

Case closed.

Due process never existed on my DZ where jackwads were concerned.;)
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Generally true but it would be enforceable on low hop-and-pops.

So it would only be enforceable on those jumps where it was actually safe to open at 2000 feet.



Exactly. I can be fully open less than 200 ft. after exiting the plane on a hop and pop. My regular pull altitide is 3000 ft. I would have no problem getting out of the plan at 2100 ft. on a hop and pop.

(I've ground crewed for at least one demo which exited at less than 2500' due to low clouds--would have hate to see that one cancelled).
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an interesting string, and I respect the arguments for and against raising the opening altitudes for everyone, including C and D license holders.

I'm inclined to think it's a good thing, mainly because of the reasons already mentioned in the argument -- AAD, higher wing loaded canopies, slower and longer openings, etc.

I might add: one of the main advocates for raising the hard deck by 500 feet is Bill Booth, who knows a thing or two about skydiving safety. If you can find it, he talks about it at last year's equipment manufacturer's enclave in Las Vegas. It's probably on YouTube somewhere. I urge everyone who is against the idea to at least watch the video of Booth's interview. Bill is a smart guy, everyone.
SCR-442, SCS-202, CCR-870, SOS-1353

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is an interesting string, and I respect the arguments for and against raising the opening altitudes for everyone, including C and D license holders.

I'm inclined to think it's a good thing, mainly because of the reasons already mentioned in the argument -- AAD, higher wing loaded canopies, slower and longer openings, etc.

I might add: one of the main advocates for raising the hard deck by 500 feet is Bill Booth, who knows a thing or two about skydiving safety. If you can find it, he talks about it at last year's equipment manufacturer's enclave in Las Vegas. It's probably on YouTube somewhere. I urge everyone who is against the idea to at least watch the video of Booth's interview. Bill is a smart guy, everyone.



No argument Bill's a smart guy...

If 'we' can get the USPA to raise the min. opening altitudes by 500', 'we' then can begin to lobby for raising the AAD firing parameters to say maybe 1000'.

IF one were to be enforcing that 'new' altitude and using the 'higher' AAD setting...then we would conceivably have even more 'cushion' between the two than is currently there...not to mention the reserve 'if' automatically activated would have longer to open.

IMHO from an 'old school' grumpy guy perspective...

~the bottom line is, we're seeing a lot more no pull / low pull scenarios that are firing the battery box...with the smaller tighter line of containers these days we're seeing some problems with tight reserves banging out when the main is still in the tray.

For better or worse an extra 300' is gonna keep some people from reaching room temperature layin' next to a reserve at line stretch, because they're not paying attention.

Might just save some lives, and hey...might just lower the possibility of some liability headaches a manufacturer might anticipate if now & then the reserve doesn't open as fast as the TSO requires...

Maybe it's more 'cost effective' to change the culture than it is to retro-fix a boatload of too tight rigs ...;)


Personally I'd like to see them remain as is, of course MY rig isn't in real tight & I try not to sleep in free-fall so I don't use an AAD. . .even despite all that, over-all I see it making more problems than it 'fixes'.


Then again I might not be thinkin' clear, don't get much sleep with all those Black Helicopters flying around here at night! :ph34r:










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>Generally true but it would be enforceable on low hop-and-pops.

So it would only be enforceable on those jumps where it was actually safe to open at 2000 feet.



Exactly. I can be fully open less than 200 ft. after exiting the plane on a hop and pop. My regular pull altitide is 3000 ft. I would have no problem getting out of the plan at 2100 ft. on a hop and pop.

I've ground crewed for at least one demo which exited at less than 2500' due to low clouds--would have hate to see that one cancelled




That is the issue I would have with this. Add in the cloud clearance requirement and you might find yourself without the required ceiling to exit legally. Even though it is perfectly safe.
You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FIFY
Quote


3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise change the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet AGL. the appropriate altitude for the skydive as determined by S&TA ,DZO, pilot in command and jumper. This BSR excludes emergency situations.


There are no dangerous dives
Only dangerous divers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is an interesting string, and I respect the arguments for and against raising the opening altitudes for everyone, including C and D license holders.

I'm inclined to think it's a good thing, mainly because of the reasons already mentioned in the argument -- AAD, higher wing loaded canopies, slower and longer openings, etc.

I might add: one of the main advocates for raising the hard deck by 500 feet is Bill Booth, who knows a thing or two about skydiving safety. If you can find it, he talks about it at last year's equipment manufacturer's enclave in Las Vegas. It's probably on YouTube somewhere. I urge everyone who is against the idea to at least watch the video of Booth's interview. Bill is a smart guy, everyone.



I am one of those against the proposal for a BSR raising the minimum deployment altitude, but a distinction needs to made here.

I am not against higher deployments. I am not against prudence dictating higher deployments when circumstances warrant it, and clearly today's equipment combinations require it in most cases including my own (slow-opening Velo and an AAD).

I am vehemently against mandating a higher deployment altitude for everyone on every jump, because there are many circumstances in which a 2,000 foot deployment is safe and even some circumstances in which it is necessary.

BSR's are supposed to be absolutes, so while a deployment higher than 2,000 is usually needed by the average jumper on the average jump, mandating it would exclude doing 2,000 deployments even when they can be done safely. That's why I believe as posted earlier that the BSR should remain the same and a recommendation should be added to address why higher deployments are usually prudent.

Keep in mind that once something gets BSR status it's no longer just a good idea, it's a "rule".
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think one should Educate themselves about the time needed for their canopy to open and plan accordingly, it is far better than regulating each person's particular canopy/weight/density altitude etc.



I agree. If you don’t know the altitude you should be deploying at, based on your gear and other conditions, more education may very well be appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm inclined to think it's a good thing, mainly because of the reasons already mentioned in the argument -- AAD, higher wing loaded canopies, slower and longer openings, etc.



The point is that there is NOTHING from preventing you or anyone else from pulling HIGHER.

AAD: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude.
Higher WL: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude.
Longer opening: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude.

This is not even about being able to raise the AAD activation altitude... CYPRES or VIGIL can do that whenever they feel like it. In fact, you can do it yourself now.

This is not about Bill Booths (or anyones opinion that higher is safer) I doubt many people would really argue that higher is not safer.

It is about changing a BSR so people with an AAD can feel better about pulling higher.

But the secret is that if you want to pull at 3 or 4k all day everyday.... There is nothing to stop you from doing it. But that does not mean EVERYONE should or that we need a BSR to make that happen.

20 years ago much lower pulls were very common. Modern AAD's changed that.

So, you want an AAD that fires higher? GREAT!!!! But that does not mean the BSR's need to be changed to make that happen.

Airtec can raise the activation altitude whenever they feel like it.... And anyone that knows their gear will know they have to pull higher than BSR says they can.

Again, this is not about AAD activations or anything else.... It is about changing a BSR that really does not have to be changed.

See, if I jump a 69sqft canopy with an FXC on the main.... I had better know my gear enough to know that even turning that canopy under an FXC will fire it... So I better not turn it on at all, or turn if off as soon as my main opens.

I don't need a BSR to tell me that.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in reply to "3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise
the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet
AGL.
"
.............................................

Perhaps the emphasis could be on what height you have an open controllable canopy ... rather than trying to set a deployment altitude.

Extra time is often taken doing tidy-ups on the slider, so perhaps there is a case to raise the open canopy altitude. In Oz we gotta have an open canopy under full control of the pilot by 1800' . giving a deployment altitude of usually 2000' to 2500' but more if you like snivelling mains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I'm inclined to think it's a good thing, mainly because of the reasons already mentioned in the argument -- AAD, higher wing loaded canopies, slower and longer openings, etc.



The point is that there is NOTHING from preventing you or anyone else from pulling HIGHER.

AAD: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude.
Higher WL: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude.
Longer opening: Know your gear and pull at the correct altitude.

This is not even about being able to raise the AAD activation altitude... CYPRES or VIGIL can do that whenever they feel like it. In fact, you can do it yourself now.

This is not about Bill Booths (or anyones opinion that higher is safer) I doubt many people would really argue that higher is not safer.

It is about changing a BSR so people with an AAD can feel better about pulling higher.

But the secret is that if you want to pull at 3 or 4k all day everyday.... There is nothing to stop you from doing it. But that does not mean EVERYONE should or that we need a BSR to make that happen.

20 years ago much lower pulls were very common. Modern AAD's changed that.

So, you want an AAD that fires higher? GREAT!!!! But that does not mean the BSR's need to be changed to make that happen.

Airtec can raise the activation altitude whenever they feel like it.... And anyone that knows their gear will know they have to pull higher than BSR says they can.

Again, this is not about AAD activations or anything else.... It is about changing a BSR that really does not have to be changed.

See, if I jump a 69sqft canopy with an FXC on the main.... I had better know my gear enough to know that even turning that canopy under an FXC will fire it... So I better not turn it on at all, or turn if off as soon as my main opens.

I don't need a BSR to tell me that.



Dead on point, Ron. +1
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys need to read Ron's post above and then write or call the BOD of your choice to have them put their efforts towards something meaningful.

Thanks for spelling it out, Ron.


(I edited my original post because I thought it was too strongly worded but Matt had already copied it. You can see it in his post 51. :P)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0