Raising minimum deployment altitude

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

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?)

Last April (2010), USPA and PIA published their "Skydiver Advisory", asking for input regarding a disturbing fact that we seem to have rigs that are not performing to spec with regard to deploying the reserve. They cited incidents of containers being open, but not deploying fast enough to save the jumper. They were particularly interested in rigs that were extremely tight that might possibly delay extraction of the freebag.

If we addressed this problem more directly, maybe we wouldn't need to adjust the AADs or the minimum deployment altitudes.

TSOs and other certifications require certain performance milestones with regard to the time and altitude needed to deploy a reserve.

If we have systems that are not meeting these milestones, we need to fix that, not adjust everything else to accommodate rigs that aren't performing to spec.

The AADs we have now were designed with these performance goals in mind. If it is not working properly, it isn't the AADs that are at fault. So raising the firing altitude, either by design or by using altitude offsets, is just fixing a symptom, and not addressing the root problem.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

TSOs and other certifications require certain performance milestones with regard to the time and altitude needed to deploy a reserve.

One of the problems as I see it is that the tests do not take into consideration the variety of containers the canopy may be packed into in the real world. The tests are not even required to be done with a TSO’d container/harness. When testing a container/harness there is no requirement to use a TSO’d canopy or define max. pack volume of the tested item. These are just some of the problem with AS-8015B that need to be addressed.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[tbrown 26]

I think in practice most people have raised their pull altitudes to 3 grand without being told to, usually because today's canopies take longer to get their nice soft openings. I also came up in the days of rounds and early generation squares that opened faster - and harder, when pulling at 2000 - 2500 was common. Even in those days I was pulling just under 3 grand and people used to ask me what my problem was, that I was maybe being just a little "paranoid". We didn't have AADs or RSLs in those days, nevertheless in 1980 I chopped a streamer malfunction and was still under an open reserve by around 1800.

Nowadays I pull a little higher. My pull alarm is set for 3 grand and usually goes off as I'm hitting line stretch. On larger formations (anything larger than 8 or so), I'm perfectly happy staying in my track down to 3 grand before even clearing myself and I'm still sitting in above 2 grand. I recently posted about a pilot chute in tow mal that I had. I was tossing my p/c right at 3 grand, and was still under my reserve a foot or two above 2 grand, even with that high speed problem.

There is no question that the lower you go, the quicker you need to be on making a decision to keep or chop a canopy. I don't think anyone has a problem with an opening that's an obvious piece of shit, we're usually grateful to be rid of the thing and under a reserve just as fast as we can. The malfunctions that seductively LURE us down are the "low speed" mals; the hung up brakeline, spun up canopy, the misfired brake. We're fooling ourselves when we think they're "easy" to fix. I've been there, I've been STUPID with a spinner, which I managed to clear at a lower altitude than I had any business being. It happens a lot faster than we'd like to think. I think the phrase is "spending the rest of your life" trying to fix something, when you should be giving it ONE try and then going to your handles. From what I've heard from people at Perris, that poor woman took her problem down too low and simply ran herself out of options, and NOT because she'd been instructed to pull below 3 grand.

On another subject, we used to have AADs that fired at a grand (I'm thinking of the Sentinel). The reason the activation altitude was lowered was to give us all the freedom - and the responsibility - to save ourselves. AADs fire as an INTERVENTION, after we have clearly failed to save ourselves. That's how it should be.

Our sport is NEVER going to be completely safe and anyone who thinks it should be is in the wrong game. We CANNOT make the sport any safer by endlessly raising the minimums, because gravity, the ground, and human error will never go away. Be smart, be safe, and leave it be.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[davelepka 4]

Quote

We CANNOT make the sport any safer by endlessly raising the minimums,

I don't think anyone is suggesting endless raising of anything.

The old argument that, 'If 3000ft is safer, why not make it 4000ft or 5000ft' doesn't apply here because there's more to involved than just the pull altitude itself.

As many have mentioned, the canopies take longer to open, and due to that, there's no way to have your container open at 2k and be ready to make a decision at 1800ft. Even in the days when mains opened quicker, at 2k pull and 1800ft decision wasn't entirely realistic.

Like most things in skydiving, the min pull altitudes were probably loudly objected to in the beginning, and so the C and D license altitude fo 2k was probably a comprimise to keep the more experienced jumpers happy. This was in the days where the canopies did open faster, and fly and spin slower, and even then 2k was the bottom of bottom lines.

Fast forward to where the canopies open slower, and fly and spin faster, the comprimise of 2k becomes completely rediculous if you still want to call 1800ft a decision altitude, which by the way, is probably a good place to start.

If you figure on 1800ft as the desicion altitude, and you do that with the idea of getting under a reserve by at least 1000ft, you can reverse engineer your deployment sequence by adding the distance you need for deployment, plus a buffer to allow you to identify and react to a problem.

Then, consider that some mals like broken lines, stuck brakes, or tears it the canopy, can produce normal-ish openeings, and not reveal themselves until after you unstow (or attempt) your brakes, you can see that you need even more time to factor in a controlability check by 1800ft.

The 2k min pack opening altitude was a comprirmise to make some grumpy old men happy back it the day when canopies opened fast, flew slow, and most DZs flew Cessnas that couldn't reach the high side of 10k. Look at where we are now, with slow opening canopies, the fly, spin, and mal at high speeds, while jumping out of turbines that make 20+ trips per day to 13k or 14k, the idea that people are still clinging to 2k as a reasonable pack opening altitude is absurd.

I don't know there should be a BSR change just for the sake of avoiding the huge project that changing a BSR always turns into. I do know that Bill Booth is right on the money, that things have changed, and when it comes to altitude and working time under canopy, they have not changed for the better if you intend to take it right down to the letter of the law (BSR).

[tbrown 26]

I don't know there should be a BSR change just for the sake of avoiding the huge project that changing a BSR always turns into. I do know that Bill Booth is right on the money, that things have changed, and when it comes to altitude and working time under canopy, they have not changed for the better if you intend to take it right down to the letter of the law (BSR).

[davelepka 4]

Quote

But I have a major pain in the butt when a good friend, who has over 300 jumps, WHINES about wanting to break off a 4 Way at 5 grand, because she's not comfy with 4500.
But I do think a whole generation of AFF kids (young & old) have been BRAINWASHED into an unreasoning fear of being in freefall below 5 grand

I don't think AFF is to blame for that type of attitude towards pull altitudes. Most AFF programs I know of (or ISP, or whatever) steadily lower the pull altitude to 3500' or so by the time the jumper is done with their A license card.

The problem lies in the fact that skydiving has become more accessible to more people over the years. It's not the physical challenge it used to be to become a skydiver. No round canopies, no belly-mounts, sometimes never cramped into a Cessna for 35 min, no packing in the sun, just paid packers, air conditioned hang-out areas, and roomy, quick rides to altitude all day long.

So what you end up with is a segment of jumpers who never would have made the cut in years past, but since everything has gone all touchy-feely, and everyone can (supposedly) be trained, you have some different types of people who make it through the ranks.

The caveat to that is that your friend is right. If she is not confident in her ability to react swiftly and without fail at pull time, and whatever follows, then intiating the pull higher will buy her more time to deal with whatever comes.

Just because you (and me) and others see no problem with the alloted time a lower pull altitude offers you to get a good canopy over your head, doesn't mean that others share that opinion, and the simple fact is that pulling higher does result in more time to deal with it.

So while I share your frustration that skydiving has allowed it's ranks to be joined by those who maybe shouldn't be there, I won't fault those people when the make a sound decision like being realistic about their abilities, and not being pressured into pushing themselves beyond their comfort zone. It's true that I'm of the opinion that those people are making a mistake by jumping in the first place, but that doesn't make following one mistake with another a good idea.

[e.a.hernandez 0]

Maybe BASE jumping will have a similar trend (or is already having it) where as the sport gets "safer" more people participate in it and this causes more regulation and the frustration of the more experienced BASE jumping community.

While jumping a round parachute wouldn't a high pull put the jumper for a longer period of time at the mercy of the winds (making an outside landing more likely)? I wonder if this was also one of the contributing factors for low pulls back in the days?

Either way I still think whoever feels confortable pulling higher should do so and whoever doesn't then go ahead and pull lower. If I have to jump in a big way and have to pull way lower than I am confortable for my skill level then I will just abstain from making that jump in the first place.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

I'd love to find the LIFE Magazine cover shot of the World Record 24 Way round star completed at Perris in 1971. That baby broke off at 3 grand ! Talk about old school, yeah baby !!

Hey Tom, is this the one you were thinking of? It was in Jan. 1972

Sparky

http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/star24.jpg

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

While jumping a round parachute wouldn't a high pull put the jumper for a longer period of time at the mercy of the winds (making an outside landing more likely)? I wonder if this was also one of the contributing factors for low pulls back in the days?

Skydivers learned to spot back in the day. Hell they even packed their own shit.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Ron 7]

Quote

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.

But you have to balance the higher number of two outs that will happen.

The end result is the AAD is a LAST ditch effort if you failed to do anything correctly. I'd venture that the number of people that died because the AAD didn't fire in time is pretty small. And never forget that the jumper had to already screw up several times to get an AAD fire.

You can't make skydiving perfectly safe. The very nature of the sport will not let that happen.

Quote

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?

Because if the USPA mandated a higher pull altitude then AAD makers could raise the AAD firing altitude. This would save a small number of people that would not already be saved with the current configurations.

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

[randompoints 0]

to add,
one thing no one is talking about (cypress as its the one I know the best) the 750ft activation is for belly to earth with the unit in your burble, if you back to earth that activation can easily be 1000 to 1100. If you raise the min's of the activation by 500ft, and your unstable you could have an activation by 1600ft. That's pretty damn high for automatic control when you could be still dealing with something.

I agree leave the min's alone, jump the right gear for what you are doing.

sorry Ron didn't really mean it as a reply to you ur just last on the list

[jsaxton 0]

Woah, meby I'm missing something. Did AADs suddenly become mandatory?

Quote

I know that Bill Booth is an advocate for this so that the AAD's can be programed to fire at 1100-1200 agl.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

and your unstable you could have an activation by 1600ft. That's pretty damn high for automatic control when you could be still dealing with something.

If you are still dealing with a problem at 1600 feet there’s a good chance we will read about you here sooner or later.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Butters 0]

You're all forgetting something ... the visuals of ground track below 3,000 feet is way better than above 3,000 feet.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[randompoints 0]

I was thinking more on the lines of an entanglement, sorry I want my aad to be the last option when all hope is gone, the hail Mary as Ron said. Before that I want to be in charge. Believe me I hope never to deploy and have the main wrapped stuck on my camera helmet. That's 3 seconds to cut away the helmet and get the reserve out vs aad fire into mess. It's also why I deploy high enough to fix before 1600, I'm just talking worse case

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

and your unstable you could have an activation by 1600ft. That's pretty damn high for automatic control when you could be still dealing with something.

If you are still dealing with a problem at 1600 feet there’s a good chance we will read about you here sooner or later.

Sparky

Yeah, even a slow/low puller like me can run through all the standard EP stuff by 1600', still havin' problems below that is when ya start to get creative!

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

[billvon 2,396]

>. 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.

This would be a bad idea for cypreses. Cypreses disarm at 130 feet. If you raise the "ground level" they disarm higher. You could cut away at 1500 feet, not be able to find your reserve, and reach activation speed at 600 feet - just as the cypres disarmed. Given that AAD's are bad at doing this to begin with, and given the number of cutaway/no reserve pull fatalities, it seems like a mistake.

[tbrown 26]

The Cross Keys fatality last week would seem a good reason to give this thread a bump. If just a 500 ft increase would give the AAD makers a reason for bumping deployment altitude to 1000 ft, would most dropzones really have a problem with flying 500 ft higher for jump run ?

I AM old school, so before you denounce my manhood or call me a sky socialist, I would like to point out that most people are already pulling higher anyway and that an extra 250 ft on an AAD MIGHT have made a difference at Cross Keys, even though the guy may have already been dead in the air.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Ron 7]

There is nothing to prevent the AAD makers from raising the firing altitudes.

There is nothing to prevent DZ's from raising their min pull altitudes.

There is nothing to prevent individuals from raising their personal pull altitudes.

Someone already mentioned CYPRES can adjust your altitude for you if you ask.

So everything you want could be done without forcing everyone else to change.

And the point still stands... When do you stop? Having AAD's fire at 1500 feet just has to be safer than 1000 feet. I mean you could fly a normal pattern right? And most people are pulling at 3k anyway right?

An AAD is a backup, yet more and more I see people wanting to change how they skydive to make the AAD happier.

Some do it, like you, to try to make things safer.... Others do it so they can do more dangerous things.

AAD's are a last ditch hail Mary. They seem to be working pretty well for that. No, they will not save everyone, but they have been saving MOST people.

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

[firemedic 7]

Quote

The Cross Keys fatality last week would seem a good reason to give this thread a bump. If just a 500 ft increase would give the AAD makers a reason for bumping deployment altitude to 1000 ft, would most dropzones really have a problem with flying 500 ft higher for jump run ?
___________________________________________________

I think they would have a problem because of added cost. There is also a resistance to change so there is always going to be a reason given for not doing it.


I AM old school, so before you denounce my manhood or call me a sky socialist, I would like to point out that most people are already pulling higher anyway and that an extra 250 ft on an AAD MIGHT have made a difference at Cross Keys, even though the guy may have already been dead in the air.

___________________________________________________
I agree
There have been some that have impacted the ground before their canopy had time to fully deploy and it sounds as if this may be one as well. I believe that raising the AAD activation altitude another 250' is reasonable and called for. I would like those who are adamantly against this to propose a better solution. So far all I hear is why this is a bad idea, status quo blah blah blah.

[billvon 2,396]

>I believe that raising the AAD activation altitude another 250' is
>reasonable and called for.

Sure, might make sense for some people.

>I would like those who are adamantly against this to propose a better solution.

Keep it like it is and use an AAD as a last ditch backup instead of an alternate method of deployment. Since many AAD's are adjustable, each person can decide on their own.

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

The Cross Keys fatality last week would seem a good reason to give this thread a bump. If just a 500 ft increase would give the AAD makers a reason for bumping deployment altitude to 1000 ft, would most dropzones really have a problem with flying 500 ft higher for jump run ?

I AM old school, so before you denounce my manhood or call me a sky socialist, I would like to point out that most people are already pulling higher anyway and that an extra 250 ft on an AAD MIGHT have made a difference at Cross Keys, even though the guy may have already been dead in the air.

Sure, if the ADD firing hirer would be the only reason for the reserve to deploy in time and any hesitation was not do to body position, rig design or canopy design.

Personally, I don't think we need to mandate this, individuals can raise their pull altitudes and communicate with the other jumpers on the load and AAD Manufacturers can meet the Industry half way here.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

There have been some that have impacted the ground before their canopy had time to fully deploy and it sounds as if this may be one as well. I believe that raising the AAD activation altitude another 250' is reasonable and called for. I would like those who are adamantly against this to propose a better solution. So far all I hear is why this is a bad idea, status quo blah blah blah.

I just want to fix what is broken first.

If this is a case of a reserve that should have opened because it was deployed at sufficient altitude with sufficient time, I want us to address that problem.

If this was a rig that could tow the reserve pilot chute to the ground even though it was opened with sufficient time and altitude available, then raising the AAD altitude might not help.

That is a lot of "ifs", I know.

And I don't really know that these "ifs" are pertinent to this incident.

But in the case that they are, that's where I want the first focus.

Because we all expect and deserve that the reserves on our backs should perform according to the requirements set forth for them.

If they are not, we need to fix that first.

If, after establishing that we have gear that meets the specs, we are still left with cases where an extra second would have made a difference, then by all means, let's look at that too.

[firemedic 7]

>I would like those who are adamantly against this to propose a better solution.

Keep it like it is and use an AAD as a last ditch backup instead of an alternate method of deployment. Since many AAD's are adjustable, each person can decide on their own.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

There have been some that have impacted the ground before their canopy had time to fully deploy and it sounds as if this may be one as well. I believe that raising the AAD activation altitude another 250' is reasonable and called for. I would like those who are adamantly against this to propose a better solution. So far all I hear is why this is a bad idea, status quo blah blah blah.

I just want to fix what is broken first.
.
.
.

If, after establishing that we have gear that meets the specs, we are still left with cases where an extra second would have made a difference, then by all means, let's look at that too.

Dang it. Every time I have a sensible post, you beat me to it.


Some are already blaming activation altitude when, in fact, we don't know that yet, do we?

Can anyone point to incidents that the AAD did NOT activate when the parameters were met?
Now compare that number to how many times it DID.
Always keep in mind that what happens after activation is independent.

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