0
Communications

USPA and PIA Issue Joint Skydiver Advisory

Recommended Posts

USPA and the Parachute Industry Association (PIA) have issued a joint “Skydiver Advisory” to advise skydivers and riggers of concerns about some yet-unexplained fatalities in recent years. While the exact causes are not fully known, there are actions every skydiver and rigger can take to reduce the chances of a similar occurrence while PIA gathers more data for an in-depth review by equipment and rigging experts. See the Skydiver Advisory.
www.uspa.org

Read the USPA blog!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From: John B. Sherman

To: USPA & PIA

Subject: Skydiver Advisory dated April 1, 2010 (We are all the April fools)

I have just read the subject advisory and find it to be a complete “Cop Out” and cave-in to the special interests of the manufacturers who have had these failures/fatalities. It is a Pablum-laced document that fails to identify the problems, their frequency and where they were found. It falls way short of fulfilling your fiduciary responsibility to warn the skydiving public. It paints the complete industry with the same brush and is a reflection on all manufacturers, even those of us who were not on the list. You have damaged the reputation of manufacturers who have taken great care to avoid these specific kinds of failures, and shattered the confidence of users of non-offending rigs. Why?

Paragraph 2 instructs the rigger to remove the rig from the wearers back and lay it on a table for bag extraction evaluation. This is poor advice, as it changes (releases) the tension of the riser covers and changes the whole dynamic of the retention system. The bag should be extracted while on the wearers back. Additionally, this evaluation process will not reveal the root cause failure on most of the rigs, as it makes no provision or allowance to evaluate the pilot chute drag.

I call for the immediate complete disclosure of any and all data known to USPA & PIA concerning failures of the reserve system after confirmed AAD firings at the correct altitude. I understand there are eight such occurrences. Additionally, I understand there have been 7 deaths where the reserve pull or RSL activation was characterized as “Too low”. This information too should be released. The owners of rigs similar to those, which have failed, have a right to know the facts. By not revealing that information you are depriving them of their right to be warned, which is the responsibility of your organizations. As you know, you are liable for such actions. If we have another fatality of the type described above, on a rig that appears on the list, a good lawyer will clean us out. Some might say this data is already in the public domain. This is probably true but it is fragmented and not in a consolidated form that would connect it to its own AAD report.

Furthermore, sending data to the PIA technical committee, whose chairman is an employee of one of the companies on the list, is certainly a conflict of interest. While I personally don’t believe this specific individual would violate a trust, it is an appearance of a conflict of interest that must be avoided.

This breach of trust and the exposure to liability of our organizations, in the production of the subject document, is so serious that the individuals responsible for its generation should resign or be fired. I notice that the documents don’t identify the writers, I wonder why… and who they are.

John Sherman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be curious to see a list of the container types and canopy sizes that have been involved in the fatalities. As containers get smaller and smaller, I have seen some really tight pack jobs, and especially for container types with lots of flaps and tight corners, I can't help but wonder if the tight tiny containers that everyone wants these days contributes to hesitations.

Also was just thinking - wonder if any of these incidents were on older - say 10 years or more - containers or they all were newer. Modern containers are certainly having tighter flaps and covers in attempts to be freefly-friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the advisory they refer to about 1 problem per year for the last 10 years. In actuality there has been 8 fatilities where the AAD fired correctly. There have been an additional 7 w/o AADs where a "Low Pull" was reported. This is refered to the list of 8 and the list of 7 Total 15 not included is the 2 last weekend (stay tuned I have advance info).
As to the non-affending rigs. This is what we don't know as USPA has not released the list. All I know is that my rig was not on the list.

John Sherman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks John!!

You have the stature to say things that might be ignored if others were to say them.

I absolutely support your call for full and immediate disclosure of all the information that is available.

Skydivers have a right to see if these problems relate to particular gear or not. Disclosing the facts would give the members the information they need to make informed decisions about the whole mess.

Personally, I found other things equally troubling as the things that you mention.

For example, reading between the lines, it is clear that USPA is admitting that our current training and testing strategies are failing to produce competent skydivers.

Were that not true, how could be have people who prefer to wait for the AAD to fire instead of executing emergency procedures in the first place?

USPA has been placing a lot of emphasis on how the membership numbers are growing.

I don't see that as necessarily a good thing if the participants are unable to perform as required for safe skydiving.

Furthermore, I feel it speaks of a disastrous future for the sport if it is not addressed forthwith.

The excellent numbers in 2009 were a fluke if skydivers are not able to address the situations that will arise in the course of their jumping careers.

Again, thanks for your post!

-paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

For example, reading between the lines, it is clear that USPA is admitting that our current training and testing strategies are failing to produce competent skydivers.

Were that not true, how could be have people who prefer to wait for the AAD to fire instead of executing emergency procedures in the first place?



This "cause" was stated as one of the first CYPRES saves back almost 20 years ago (see CYPRES save list). This "issue" has been going on for a long time around the globe so don't try to paint this as just a current issue with the USPA. This issue has been occurring since the first AOD's were given to students.

For the most part the data is out there in the reports I've listed on the database on here if you want container info.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



For example, reading between the lines, it is clear that USPA is admitting that our current training and testing strategies are failing to produce competent skydivers.

Were that not true, how could be have people who prefer to wait for the AAD to fire instead of executing emergency procedures in the first place?

USPA has been placing a lot of emphasis on how the membership numbers are growing.

I don't see that as necessarily a good thing if the participants are unable to perform as required for safe skydiving.

Furthermore, I feel it speaks of a disastrous future for the sport if it is not addressed forthwith.

-paul



Reading between the lines and then adding these posts, it's clear as mud at a number of levels.
It's an advisory, saying "Check your gear."

The bulletin says this to me....
A-PIA has tasked its Technical Committee to collect and review relevant data, to work within the industry in order to identify any trends or specific causes and to make any relevant recommendations.

Why get defensive or worried about said collection of data? It's just data. Can't hurt you, but might "identify trends or specific causes" which could hurt you. Is there something a manufacturer should be worried about and would like hidden? Collecting data is far from deriving conclusions about what the data may indicate.

B-Review the BSR's. Seems reasonable enough?

C-Pull your own handle on a repack. Again, reasonable. You'll know what it feels like if you haven't done it before.
Then have a rigger check the deploying parts, either on your back or on a flat table. I see equal issue with either method. Maybe standing on a ladder above the container when extracting the freebag will tell a more accurate story?

D-RTFM for your gear. All of it. Know your gear, know what it does. Be informed.

Reading between the lines, all I get is "Refresh yourself on the rules, check your gear, know your gear. I also read (between the lines) that maybe someone at USPA or PIA could stand a few less cups of coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USPA and PIA need to do a MUCH better job releasing the hard data behind these issues. Advisories that only speak in generalities are worthless.

Details please.


Andrew Metcalfe,
Senior Rigger
AFF-I
TM-I
PRO.
__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Collecting data and forming a committee is the action of a bureaucracy. Concealing information already collected it the action of people who are fearful of the truth. There is already data, 15 deaths which paint a horible picture about the lack of performance of the gear out there. You should demand the immediate release of data already in evidence.
I am for studying the situation but believe the apparant conflict of interest between the chair of the committee collecting the data and his employer (as I mentioned in my open letter) must be resolved inorder to provide assurance of no "hanki-panki"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RE: the "list"

Are the details of these incidents hidden or in some way shrouded in secrecy?

Could the average jumper comb past issues of Parachutist and DZ.com and make thier own list?

Does it really matter which rigs it happened to or is it just important for everyone to know which rig it did NOT happen to?

Is it really a conspiracy?

Have you requested the information from the PIA directly?

If you've been collecting this information, why not disseminate it yourself?

Again, is it really a conspiracy or is the information in the public scope available for anyone who wants to find it?

(Pablum-laced, by the way, is great. Thanks for adding it to my vocabulary)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USPA has the details but won't release them.
The average jumper wont be able to find the correlation between the incident and the AAD report as they are seperated. USPA has done the correlation. I was consulted on this problem and I do know some information but not all. We must demand the release of all the data. You can't know the good rigs from the bad without the details which are being concieled by USPA. Is is a conspiracy? I wouldn't go that far but I do believe the guilty are being protected by our membership orginazition.
No I haven't requested it directly. They came to me and offered it to me for my comments, I do know what 7 of the 8 rigs equipped with AAD's are but I can't relate them to specific incidents even though I have tried. When they asked me for my help they said all data would be released. This proved to be not true. I believe they were talked out of it by PIA. PIA has no fiduciary responsibility to warn anybody whereas USPA does have such a responsibility to it's members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

RE: the "list"

Are the details of these incidents hidden or in some way shrouded in secrecy?

Could the average jumper comb past issues of Parachutist and DZ.com and make thier own list?

Does it really matter which rigs it happened to or is it just important for everyone to know which rig it did NOT happen to?

Is it really a conspiracy?

Have you requested the information from the PIA directly?

If you've been collecting this information, why not disseminate it yourself?

Again, is it really a conspiracy or is the information in the public scope available for anyone who wants to find it?

(Pablum-laced, by the way, is great. Thanks for adding it to my vocabulary)



Even if the information is available, why should we have to work to get at it?

If it was time to publish a "Skydiver Advisory", why not just include the data for all to see? USPA has it all together, or there wouldn't be a "Skydiver Advisory" in the first place. They didn't have to draw any conclusions, just present the data with the advisory. Let us all have the tools to make the decisions we need to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your vitriolic reaction suggests you're worried about what might be found.

Releasing raw data without conclusive information is more likely to generate unmerited panic than to provide useful information.

Collection of data without drawing conclusions means exactly that. Collection. Until all resources are utilized and analyzed, there is little that can be done with the information.

Most of what you're seemingly worried about is already available anyway. It just takes a little work to collect it. Perhaps you dont' want to do that. I'm a member of PIA, I know you are too. We both know their resources are limited, funds non-existent, and the lay skydiver has no right nor power to demand anything of them. I for one, am grateful they're taking time to do this. They owe it to no one.

I think you're spreading fear and panic unnecessarily, much like the BS you spouted about dynamic corners killing people. Sorry, just ain't buying it.

I'll be grateful to the PIA and USPA when they complete their investigation/report and share it with the world. Otherwise, a pithy call for "Check your gear/know your gear" certainly isn't harmful, but it's also not a cover for conspiracy, IMO.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug,
Read my lips. I want the data released. It isn't raw it is conclusive. It identifies the problem. I have been consulted about it and have had the opporitunity to digest it. I want you to have the same opporitunity.
The Racer is not on the list.
BTW: I am not sure what a "Dynamic Corner" is but if it means that the closed corners are excessively holding the bag in the container. It certainly is part of the problem. It is what the Advisory calls to be checked by evaluating the extraction force. The chickens are comming home to roost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John, I'm very confused. I've just had 2 phone calls and one email conversation with 3 different manufacturers.
All are clueless about this "top secret" report-hiding conspiracy to which you allude. Everyone else I spoke with at PIA is equally baffled about the "secret report" you consulted on.

As a PIA member, I was aware of this advisory and it's just that; an advisory.

re;Dynamic corners=cut corners. You had a lot to say about it via one of your sponsored skydivers, who went out of their way to say they're dangerous, and even provided a copy of an email from you saying they're dangerous. Folks that think about em' know they're not.

Whether the Racer is on a list somewhere or not doesn't matter. If it were on the non-existent "top-secret" list, you would have a lot less to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather see the raw data released. It could be months or years before a final report gets written, and more skydivers could die. If the majority of the incidents (I have no idea) were with one or two container brands, people need to be aware of that. If its an issue with small super-tight containers, people should be aware of that. I've seen some super-tight rigs that I would be nervous to jump for sure out there. If its an issue with where the AAD cutter is placed, getting the information out there can save lives.

There may be more informal reports out there in the field too - my reserve seemed to take a little time to launch - or I had a reserve PC hesitation - or similar things that have never been reported.

Its the beginning of the skydiving season - most people have already had their reserves repacked for the summer and aren't going to be doing those recommended tests till next fall or spring. That may be too late for some people if they have a rig with an issue.

Maybe some folks with some time can start combing through old dz.com reports and see if some info is there. I doubt most of them list the rig type or size however.

I did email [email protected] and ask them to release the info they had. I encourage others to do the same.

Wendy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the absence of Racers on the "list" an indication of superior design, or is it a reflection of a smaller proportion of rigs in service? For example, if there is a problem with rig design, it may be just that Racers (or other designs not on the "list") are not being jumped in sufficient numbers for the problem to manifest itself. Similarly, if there is a underlying problem and the problem is with AAD firing algorithms, we would expect there to be more incidents involving Vectors and Javelins simply because there are more Vectors and Javelins being jumped.

Speaking of AADs, how do we know the problem (if there is a problem) is with harness/container systems and not with the AADs? Is there corroborating information from other data loggers such as Protracs, Neptunes, etc.?

Mark

edited: I'm not responding to Wendy; just happened to be there when I clicked to make my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is the absence of Racers on the "list" an indication of superior design, or is it a reflection of a smaller proportion of rigs in service? For example, if there is a problem with rig design, it may be just that Racers (or other designs not on the "list") are not being jumped in sufficient numbers for the problem to manifest itself. Similarly, if there is a underlying problem and the problem is with AAD firing algorithms, we would expect there to be more incidents involving Vectors and Javelins simply because there are more Vectors and Javelins being jumped.

Speaking of AADs, how do we know the problem (if there is a problem) is with harness/container systems and not with the AADs? Is there corroborating information from other data loggers such as Protracs, Neptunes, etc.?

Mark



From the Skydiver Advisory

Quote


One example is low reserve deployments. Research shows that in the past 10 years there has been about one fatality per year in the U.S. in which, for uncertain reasons, the jumpers struck the ground without a fully functional reserve parachute after apparent reserve activation at a sufficient altitude. Although most of these incidents occurred after the automatic activation device (AAD) initiated reserve deployment, others occurred after a manual reserve ripcord pull or activation by a reserve static line (RSL).



So, we have instances where a reserve pin was extracted (ripcord pull and/or RSL) at a sufficient altitude, and a reserve failed to deploy.

Sure, we can agree that the AAD question makes things a lot less certain, but if a ripcord was pulled, a deployment should occur.

Even if it is related to the relative popularity of rigs, why not just be clear about what we are seeing these things on?

As Wendy said, it is likely a bit late to tell people to pull the handle for their next repack, since a lot of rigs won't get another inspection until 6 months from now.

Telling us what rigs are involved might encourage someone to pull a handle even though the rig was recently repacked.

If the problem is somehow related to rigging, knowing which rigs are involved might encourage a rigger to be extra careful with rigs of those types.

How does it hurt anyone to publish the raw data for all to see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So, we have instances where a reserve pin was extracted (ripcord pull and/or RSL) at a sufficient altitude, and a reserve failed to deploy.



We have reports of instances were a reserve pin was pulled at a sufficient altitude, etc., but we do not have a way to verify the reports. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. For airplane crashes, for example, there is always an eyewitness who reports an in-flight fire, one who reports and explosion, and one who reports that the "engine sounded funny."

A large number of skydivers who have experienced AAD fires report their AADs fired high. Do the AADs really fire high? Is the explanation by the AAD manufacturers correct? Are the jumpers reluctant to admit they went low? Some combination of these?

If a jumper disappears behind the trees, plenty of folks will estimate altitude based on the angle to the tree tops, without considering how far away the jumper might be.

On a clear day, objects appear to be much closer than they do on a hazy day.

What we have are anecdotes, and the plural of anecdotes is not "data."

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hell I just want to know if Mirage is on the "list" if you know so much....just post it. The details. You seems to know what rigs ARE on the list.....if so why aren't you posting that?
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what all of the rigs are. I know 7 of the 8 with AAD's and none of the 7 without AAD's. It is not my job to warn the membership it is the Legal responsibility of USPA. You can help by contacting your USPA represenative and demanding they do what is right. Of the ones I know (which is less than half the total) there are no Mirages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your vitriolic reaction suggests you're worried about what might be found.:P



If he was worried about what might be found; why would he be calling for release of the information? That doesn't make sense.

It is more logical that those that do not want the information released are worried about what might be there.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

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