Raising minimum deployment altitude

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Quote

Fine then. If people go in - fuck 'em - they deserved it.

We are talking about giving people a little more time when things don't do exactly as planned.

I was able to find 31 fatalities from 2004 to 2010 that would fit the scenario “low cutaway/low reserve. That’s about 6% of the total for that time period. I was able to find 133 that would fit the scenario “low turn from 2004 to 2010. That’s about 30% of the total.

You want make a rule (BSR) to save people by making them open higher and have more time before impacts.

You have 200 jumps over a 4 year period of time. But you jump a Katana 135 loaded at 1.56:1. PD states that this canopy is not for novice or intermediate canopy pilots. Even if we stretch it and say you were advanced you are loaded 30+ lbs over published maximums. “Katana is intended for experienced canopy pilots.” PD Do you think we should make a BSR enforcing WL to protect jumpers who have mad skills from killing themselves? I don’t think so.

Sparky

FYI: After reading some of your posts you would probably take less heat if you spent more listening and learning. Less time handing out jewels of wisdom.

Read my post #56.

I had the balls to admit that I was wrong about doing this through regulation.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[ufk22 32]

Quote

I realized that although I have been doing alot of jumping the past year where minimum deployment altitudes are very often around 2500. I haven't once been told that deploying at this altitude may change my EPs. Honestly the thought never really occured to me. No one ever mentioned that if I spend an extra few seconds trying to clear my airspace that I could quickly find myself below my hard deck.

There has been briefings about about break off procedures and what to after opening to avoid collisions etc but not once have I heard a LO talk about how EPs can change when pulling lower. Yes I know that this is basic stuff but I honestly never thought about it when I did a 40 way camp with airspeed last year when I had 180 jumps. I was asked if I was comfortable with pulling at 2500 and say, ya sure why not. No further discussion took place about canopy opening times and what altitude I might find myself under a malfunctioning canopy.

This is correct...
Our sport has evolved considerably over the last years. Back in the day, it was unusual to get to 200 jumps without a chop. It was unusual for someone with less than 300-400 jumps to be doing a 40 way. It was unusual for a canopy to burn over 500' on opening.
The answer isn't regulation, it's education. Sure, it's common sense, but anyone organizing on jumps where pull altitude needs to get down in the basement (big-ways, AFF courses) should be spending a few minutes talking about how this changes your evaluation procedures and EP's.
You didn't think about this with less than 200 jumps.
A lot of people, especially AFF trained, may not have thought about this even if they have 2000 jumps.

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

I realized that although I have been doing alot of jumping the past year where minimum deployment altitudes are very often around 2500. I haven't once been told that deploying at this altitude may change my EPs. Honestly the thought never really occured to me. No one ever mentioned that if I spend an extra few seconds trying to clear my airspace that I could quickly find myself below my hard deck.

You're emergency procedures don't really change. You still have the same decisions to make and the same actions to take. You're just on a shorter timescale, so you have to be prepared to make decisions and act more quickly.

It sounds like you'd like someone to remind you of that. This is fine and not really a bad idea, however, I have chopped twice on 100-way jumps and I was acutely aware of the reduced time scale and the myriad canopies all around me, even if they were something of a blur. I did make decisions more quickly and in one of those cases made a different decision than I might have made on a smaller jump with more altitude remaining. If you're altitude aware, then you'll know you don't have a lot of time/altitude and act accordingly. If you get distracted and lose altitude awareness, I don't think a brief reminder on the ground is likely to make a lot of difference. Also, if you realize that you're low and start to panic, I also don't think a brief ground reminder is going to make much difference. You're best bet is to think about these things before every jump. Visualize it and practise the movements.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Doc Pop: Fine then. If people go in - fuck 'em - they deserved it.
We are talking about giving people a little more time when things don't do exactly as planned.

I'll pile-on against Doc Pop, on top of mojosparky. It has struck me as very out of place that DocPop, with only 200 jumps, feels like he knows what's best for everyone else, and is willing to tell all of us that we should open higher. So, like mojo said, DocPop: try listening and learning more, instead of using limited knowledge to act like a know-it-all. When you were fresh out of medical school, did you go around telling all the more experienced doctors that they were performing their surgeries incorrectly?

[jumpwally 0]

Yeah Baby,,,,,+1

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Quote

Doc Pop: Fine then. If people go in - fuck 'em - they deserved it.
We are talking about giving people a little more time when things don't do exactly as planned.

I'll pile-on against Doc Pop, on top of mojosparky. It has struck me as very out of place that DocPop, with only 200 jumps, feels like he knows what's best for everyone else, and is willing to tell all of us that we should open higher. So, like mojo said, DocPop: try listening and learning more, instead of using limited knowledge to act like a know-it-all. When you were fresh out of medical school, did you go around telling all the more experienced doctors that they were performing their surgeries incorrectly?

Read post #56

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Yeah Baby,,,,,+1

Read post #56

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I am still going to pull at 4,000' when I can and hopefully that won't bother anybody..

Please let everyone know that you'll be pulling high and will be a potential hazard to others at pull time.

if doing RW - tell your camera guy and try not to kill him

FF - you'll need to break at like 5500 - try not to cork out and kill the others

Swooping - good choice, you should have clean air if you hold for the end of the pattern

multi plane dz's - please avoid



Turbine babies (it's a term, not an insult) that can't spot, and are scared of hop and pops, and need to open really high are a completely different form of hazard at modern DZs today. It's one big loss in the self sufficiency from the days of most 182s.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DocPop 1]

Listen people, in case post #56 was mis-interpreted, I will re-state my position.

I have been persuaded by this thread that my previous position of mandating a higher minimum pull altitude was wrong. Yes, I said I was wrong.

I still think sucking it down low is stupid, dangerous and leads to preventable deaths BUT I now believe that education, not regulation is the correct way to deal with it.

If nothing else, that shows I am listening to what is being said here. If there are people that want to slam me AFTER I have admitted to being wrong and learning from the more experienced people on dz.com - then please feel free to go fuck yourselves. Everyone has a right to express an opinion on here, but slamming someone after they have admitted they were wrong just makes you a tool.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[michalm21 0]

you still have bad attitude. that is all. good luck.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Listen people, in case post #56 was mis-interpreted, I will re-state my position.

I have been persuaded by this thread that my previous position of mandating a higher minimum pull altitude was wrong. Yes, I said I was wrong.

I still think sucking it down low is stupid, dangerous and leads to preventable deaths BUT I now believe that education, not regulation is the correct way to deal with it.

If nothing else, that shows I am listening to what is being said here. If there are people that want to slam me AFTER I have admitted to being wrong and learning from the more experienced people on dz.com - then please feel free to go fuck yourselves. Everyone has a right to express an opinion on here, but slamming someone after they have admitted they were wrong just makes you a tool.

Thanks for clarifying your point, keeping an open mind means changing it if/when a logical argument is presented.

Keep in mind when stating an opinion, it's just that...a 'personal' opinion.

What works for one person's experience and style of jumping may not have any bearing on another's...'blanket' statements tend to open you up to criticism.

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

[wmw999 2,114]

No, he doesn't have a bad attitude. We're making this thread about the poster, rather than the issue. That's not a good thing.

The poster has agreed that he was wrong, but how can he really convince himself that he's wrong if he doesn't debate it a little? Sometime people don't just accept things like sheep, they keep asking. It's what professors do in college, it's what people do when they understand part of something, but not all of it.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jsaxton 0]

Too late, you've already blown any credibility you might have once had

Quote

Quote

Quote

Doc Pop: Fine then. If people go in - fuck 'em - they deserved it.
We are talking about giving people a little more time when things don't do exactly as planned.

I'll pile-on against Doc Pop, on top of mojosparky. It has struck me as very out of place that DocPop, with only 200 jumps, feels like he knows what's best for everyone else, and is willing to tell all of us that we should open higher. So, like mojo said, DocPop: try listening and learning more, instead of using limited knowledge to act like a know-it-all. When you were fresh out of medical school, did you go around telling all the more experienced doctors that they were performing their surgeries incorrectly?

Read post #56

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Doc Pop: Fine then. If people go in - fuck 'em - they deserved it.
We are talking about giving people a little more time when things don't do exactly as planned.

I'll pile-on against Doc Pop, on top of mojosparky. It has struck me as very out of place that DocPop, with only 200 jumps, feels like he knows what's best for everyone else, and is willing to tell all of us that we should open higher. So, like mojo said, DocPop: try listening and learning more, instead of using limited knowledge to act like a know-it-all. When you were fresh out of medical school, did you go around telling all the more experienced doctors that they were performing their surgeries incorrectly?

Read post #56

Your post #56 doesn't change anything. Quote:

"I guess it is better to leave people to make their own stupid mistakes if that's what they're going to do. I am still going to pull at 4,000' when I can and hopefully that won't bother anybody."

So you see, even in that message you still seem to believe that everyone else is wrong, and you are correct. And that anyone who pulls lower is making a "stupid mistake".

You are unrepentant, and don't have the experience to be making such judgments about everyone else. By doing so, you are rapidly making a reputation for yourself here, that is not a good one. Furthermore, hiding behind an anonymous user-ID doesn't make you look very courageous in your convictions. I give more credence to people who are willing to be known for what they say.

You are free to choose to open higher if you wish. But you have no business telling others who choose to open lower that they are stupid and making a mistake.

[robinheid 0]

Apologies up front if what I'm about to say has already been discussed, but I didn't see it anywhere, so here goes:

1. The "minimum deployment altitude" is a misnomer because deployment starts with the pilot chute throw. The USPA SIM, Section 2.1(g) reads:
"Minimum container opening altitudes above the ground for skydivers are:
1. Tandem jumps–4,500 feet AGL
2. All students and A-license holders–3,000 feet AGL
3. B-license holders–2,500 feet AGL
4. C- and D-license holders–2,000 feet AGL"

Note the key words: minimum container opening altitude. Deployment altitude is 175-300 feet higher because it takes one second or more from the time you toss your pilot chute until the closing pin is extracted, thereby achieving CONTAINER OPENING.

Refigure the numbers based on this FACT and suddenly a bunch of the discussions on this thread become moot.

2. When the 2,000-foot container opening altitude (COA) was first instituted in the 1970s (they used the word "pack" then), pretty much everyone jumped parachutes that opened in 200 feet, thereby leaving you with 1800 feet to deal with a malfunction -- and there was no delay from ripcord pull to container opening because they were one and the same. Nowadays, canopies can take from 200 feet to 1,000 feet to open, so the MINIMUM COA becomes a true MINIMUM and nothing else.


There are a number of things in the SIM and among the BSRs that are questionable in design, focus and even intent, but the minimum COA BSR is not among them. It is soundly written and allows for all of the variations voiced by those posters who object to tinkering with it.

I can't find it in the SIM but I recall that USPA recommends that you initiate emergency procedures by 1,800 feet. Okay then, if you choose to go by that recommendation, then figure out how long it takes your particular parachute to open and adjust your COA so that you do indeed have at least 1,800 feet left by the time your canopy has finished opening -- and of course, don't forget to add the pre-COA deployment time/distance into your equation.

Bottom line: I concur with everyone who thinks that:

* the current BSR should be left as is,
* we should know enough about our own gear and personal capabilities to choose a personal COA that works for us,
* we should coordinate with the DZ when our personal COA is outside the bell curve, and
* we should generally refrain from dissing people who choose personal COAs different from our own.



P.S. Kudos indeed to the lady who not only scratched off a big-way because her COA didn't match that required by the big-way, but apparently didn't even snivel about it.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[BMichaeli 1]

personally i think that knowledge of your gear and knowing how long it takes for it to open is very important. also you can't control what people do however you can recommend what to do through experience. I know my personal canopy takes around 1000 feet to open (icarus omega) and knowing this i like to wave off at around 4000 feet knowing that i will probably have my pilot chute out around 3500'. i have also created a hard deck for my self at 2000' giving me 1500' to make a decision to keep my canopy or to get rid of it. now i am just over 100 jumps so i feel comfort know my limits. Limits is something that should be stressed more then min deployment alts. i know my personal limits and abiding by them keeps me safe.

now this is not to say that i will not go lower. for my 100th jump i led a tracking dive and deployed around 3000' but i knew that i was going to deploy that low and i understood and was prepared for a malfunction but personally i don't do that often because i know my personal gear skill level and i know my limits and i plan on jumping for years to come so i live by these guidelines and those should be stressed more then trying to tell people when and where that are allowed to pull

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

I still think sucking it down low is stupid, dangerous and leads to preventable deaths BUT I now believe that education, not regulation is the correct way to deal with it.

It is not the act of taking it low that kills people. It is not understanding exactly how your gear work and then losing track of where you are. We are a terrestrial animal and much of our spatial awareness has to do with having our feet on the ground. If you have ever flown a plane “under the hood” you know how easy it is to lose it. Just because you don’t feel comfortable doing it does not make it stupid. I have not researched it but I think you will find that a greater number of fatalities started their deployment at or above 3,000 feet but that is because very few people take it below 2,000 feet.
It is far more “stupid, dangerous” to jump a main loaded at 1.5+ without the experience to handle it.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You are unrepentant,

are we looking for newbies to learn, or to crush them into submission,

it was a better acknowledment of what most newbies do - that little ego self save kick in the post after the fact is harmless

to gig him on that too after his clarification will just make him less receptive

good followup comments on the post afterwards though, good info

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 7]

Quote

I was able to find 31 fatalities from 2004 to 2010 that would fit the scenario “low cutaway/low reserve. That’s about 6% of the total for that time period. I was able to find 133 that would fit the scenario “low turn from 2004 to 2010. That’s about 30% of the total.

Ding, ding, ding.... We have a winner!!!!

You want to save lives? Make a BSR about exp and what canopy/size you can fly.

You would save more lives that way.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

I still think sucking it down low is stupid, dangerous and leads to preventable deaths

More stupid deaths happen due to high WL's than lowpulls.

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

[Divalent 89]

Are AAD's user-configurable so that, for example, if you wanted your Cypres to fire at, say, 1000ft rather than 700ft, that it can easily be changed? (but that it otherwise behaves the same in terms of speed thresholds, etc).

[Ron 7]

Quote

Are AAD's user-configurable so that, for example, if you wanted your Cypres to fire at, say, 1000ft rather than 700ft, that it can easily be changed? (but that it otherwise behaves the same in terms of speed thresholds, etc).

Yep..... But you really need to read the manual since they are all different.

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

[brettski74 0]

Quote

Are AAD's user-configurable so that, for example, if you wanted your Cypres to fire at, say, 1000ft rather than 700ft, that it can easily be changed? (but that it otherwise behaves the same in terms of speed thresholds, etc).

Short answer, not really.

Longer answer...

Grab your user manual for your AAD and look up offsets. It's not really intended to be used to make the device fire at a higher altitude AGL, but could be used for this. Personally, I wouldn't recommend it, for several reasons. If you mess it up, you could create new problems for yourself, like a two-out, or effectively disable your AAD if you set the offset in the wrong direction. For now, I think you are better off trusting the decisions of much more experienced people who designed the device until such time as you have a little more experience and understanding of the risks and benefits of such things.

[Divalent 89]

Thanks Ron and brettski74. I asked because Bill Booth's suggestion that the minumum deployment altitude be increased (which sparked this thread) seems to be motivated mostly by the desire to allow AADs to fire a bit higher, saving the small number how had bad outcomes when it fired too low, and to provide more time for a safer emergency landing even for those that fire and deploy as currently expected.

The 500 ft increase he is suggesting seems fairly small relative to the wide range of minimum deployment altitudes that various jumpers are comfortable with (as the many posts above show). So (it seems to me) if the AAD could be easily set by the user to a different level (one they might be more comfortable with), the fact that some people use 700ft (or 820 in the Vigil?) and some might be using 1000 or 1200 wouldn't be a safety concern.

IOW, I'm trying to figure out the logic of his recommendation, why is it necessary to have USPA recommend a higher level for all jumpers in order to allow AADs to fire higher? It sounds like it is not a simple straight forward thing to do. (But why not?)

[davelepka 4]

Quote

why is it necessary to have USPA recommend a higher level for all jumpers in order to allow AADs to fire higher? It sounds like it is not a simple straight forward thing to do. (But why not?)

The idea is not to make AADs user adjustable, just to shift everything up in relation to the increase in AAD firing altitude. If AADs were easily user-adjustable, you would have each jumper using a different setting, and thus having a different set of requirements for their jump. What happens when two people with very different requirements end up on the same jump? What happens when a jumper switches from one type of jump to one not compatible with their AAD settings? What happens when people borrow rigs from each other?

The only way it would work is of the AAD was designed to be programmed before every jump. It would literally have to turn off in order to prevent it being jumped with the setting from the previous jump, when those settings might not be compatible with the upcoming jump. Part of the reason the Cypres was such a success is that you turned it on once, and that was it for the day. Previous AADs needed to be calibrated before each jump, which was a pain in the ass.

If the AADs were designed to fire 400 or 500ft higher across the board, there would be a better chance of it actualyl working a deploying your reserve in time. According to Bill Booth, it would afford you the luxury of a reserve PC hesitation, and still probably save your ass.

As for the USPA thing, unless you make it a rule, nobody will ever stick to it. If the AADs change without a rule, you'll just see more two-outs from main canopy deployments that snivel down into AAD firing territory.

If you make it a rule, most DZOs will enforce it, just to keep things 'by the book'. It's never good for a DZO when a jumper goes in, and if it turns out there were BSR violations involved in the incident, that's even worse. It doesn't look good to the USPA, and if a lawsuit ensues, it doesn't look good to the jury.

So you're left with either the full package, that being make the rule change and the equipment change, or nothing at all (except for more education, I guess, but nobody ever listens to that). The idea of making AADs more complicated and more invovled to use just seems like a bad idea. The more steps there are in the process, the more chances there are for something to be set wrong, or not set, or for the jumper to think the settings are something other than what they are.