0
Douggarr

Hard Deck for C's and D's

Recommended Posts

billvon

>Then this rule if for you. It may save your life.

If you think that 2500 feet is a safe pull altitude after a freefall, then 2000 feet is a safe H+P altitude. Same working time.



Right, this is simple arithmetic.

Exiting at 2000 feet you're about 16 seconds from impact with a high speed malfunction, not all usable.

At terminal velocity it takes 2700 feet to have the same 16 seconds.

Reality is a bit more complicated with accommodations for what you'll be doing both when everything goes right and when everything goes wrong. If you're content flying a pattern starting at 300 feet and ending some place on the grassy DZ you need less starting altitude than when your last turn starts at a specific three dimensional coordinate 600 feet off the ground. If you have wingsuit parts to unzip and stow out of the way you need to open higher to allow time for that. A high performance canopy which looses 100 feet/second in a spinning malfunction calls for more altitude than something big and square.

That said it's still arithmetic. Some combinations of factors sum to a 2000' pack opening or below being relatively sensible, some add to 4000' or above.

If you accept that USPA's 1800 foot cutaway decision altitude is reasonable and have a modern canopy that "takes 800 feet to open" 1800 + 800 = 2600 which is above 2500' before you add other factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dorbie

******Who seriously thinks 2k is good hop and pop altitude?



I do.

Then this rule if for you. It may save your life.

That seems a highly opinionated and uneducated post.
Did you even look at Drew's post in the proper context, and factor in his experience and equipment choices?

Use the right tools for the job. We are talking about PLANNED jumps after all. Emergency type exit, is a whole different ball of wax.

I've exited at 470' agl before, it was perfectly safe (as far as the jump part).

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I really don't see that this was a problem of such urgency that there was no time to discuss it with the membership. The Board should be ashamed of itself for doing something as far-reaching as this in virtual secrecy, and right before the new SIM goes to press, no less.

2. Did the Board even discuss the implications to the AFF program? To give students the same oversight from their Instructors, we'll have to move all their altitudes up by 500 feet, including the minimum exit altitude.

3. I really can't imagine that either this change or an AAD change will suddenly impart altitude awareness to those who lack it. Cutting away at 200 feet will still kill you, BSRs and AADs notwithstanding.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> I really can't imagine that either this change or an AAD change will suddenly impart
>altitude awareness to those who lack it. Cutting away at 200 feet will still kill you,
>BSRs and AADs notwithstanding.

?? Right. I don't think anyone is claiming that this will prevent cutaways at 200 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few corrections to several posts.

The Airtec manual already includes a chapter that says you parachute should be open 1000' above the activation altitude.

"Always plan your main container opening altitude
and skydive to have your main canopy functionally
open (fully open, flying, controllable, even landable)
a minimum of 1000 ft. above your CYPRES activa
-
tion altitude. For example, if your CYPRES activa
-
tion altitude is 750 ft above ground level then your
minimum functionally open altitude is 1,750 ft. above
ground level; if your CYPRES activation altitude is
850 ft. above ground level then your minimum func
-
tionally open altitude is 1,850 ft. above ground level,
etc. Take into consideration your altitude loss during
main canopy deployment (opening characteristics of
main canopy, main container opening characteristics,
type of skydive, reaction time, etc.)"

For many newer design canopies that take 700-1000' to open this already as the effect of "putting it in the manual". 700+750+1000=2450' I thought A.A.D. had a similar statement but I couldn't find it so I may be wrong. With older gear that opened in 200-300' the calculation was 300+750+1000= 2050'. All makes sense to me.

Airtec changed the opening altitudes available to the user on Jan 1 2013, well before this action.

PIA actually asked for this at the March USPA board meeting. Some of us supported changing pack opening to functionally open and staying with 2000'. This was frankly seen as too confusing for USPA to discuss and asking for a simple number change easier. I don't think any PIA reps, as PIA reps were at this meeting but I may be wrong about that.

Airtec's resistance to raising the opening altitude has been that their device still works as always. The cause of impact before opening happening with proper AAD activation must be the fault of the other equipment. Why should they change their product? The reality is that containers have changed since 1991, canopies have changed since 1991, jumpers expectations and demands for their gear have changed in aesthetics and in size combinations, tolerance of gear to rigger variation with smaller rigs may have decreased, etc, etc.

PIA Risk Management committee agreed that other things had changed but they weren't likely to change back. With that an increase of the AAD activation altitudes were appropriate. ALSO that with all of these issues as well as smaller canopies making malfunctions much more violent that an increase in the BSR pack opening altitudes was appropriate. We lobbied for both. I wasn't at the PIA meeting completed today so I don't know the reaction to this USPA change.

Airtec's first answer was to make it changeable at service to 850 or 950. Their ultimate answer in Jan was to make it user settable up to 1650' (actually 750 + 900 meters.)

I'm perfectly happy to get out at 2000' with my sabre or triathlon. Not with the Spectre I demoed that took 700' to open even on a hop and pop whether a hop and pop or terminal deployment.

So, at least one aad manuf. raised altitudes before action and had it in the manual.

And if aad's opening altitudes are no longer appropriate for today's gear, then raising them, along with the minimum pack opening (or minimally functionally open main) altitudes makes sense to me. Along with the waver available for old farts willing to get out at 2000', like me.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all thanks for the detailed post. At face value it appears that Airtek are getting the heat for something that is essentially not their problem.

Airtek appear to be doing what nobody else (including your PIA risk committee) are willing to do and that is address the elephant in the living room. That is reserves are simply no longer opening in less than 750ft.

Without reading too much into what you've said it appears that the PIA risk management committee acknowledge that for whatever reason modern reserve/harness combinations simply aren't opening in time.

I have no problem with progress, and if the experts decide that the trade-off between free-fly friendly soft opening reserves is worth requiring an extra nnn feet to open, I'm happy with that.

What I'm not happy with is some screwed up abuse of a TSO loop-hole, were everything allegedly meets the TSO requirements and therefore performs the same as it did 20 years ago. The implications are huge, right through to a revision of what is taught for hard-decks. I was taught you don't chop below 1000ft, you go straight to reserve, does this performance creep now mean the reality is that should be even higher? The honest answer is we don't know! Added to the mix, we now have people being taught/told don't worry you've got a Skyhook, you can chop at 300ft.

So now we are in a situation where if you have a brand x harness with brand y reserve you can safely perform EP's at one altitude, and another system has a different set of EP's. The catch is that other than anecdotal evidence we the user are blind to what to choose.

I suspect we are going to see the number of people dying due to so called 'low' cutaways gradually exceed canopy deaths over the next few years.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davelepka

Quote

the percieved rights of those that want to pull low.



Hold your breath (figuratively) for a few months, and the whining from those people will fade away. Wait a year, and you won't hear a peep. Wait 5 years, and pulling at 2k will be a story 'old timers' tell around the bonfire.

Anyone remember when they upped the D license requirements to 500 jumps? There was an uproar from anyone within 50 jumps of the old requirement (200 jumps), and the rest of the sport sort of looked at it and said, 'Probably a good idea'.

When was the last time you heard anyone complain about needing 500 jumps for a D license? Years for me, and I'm sure the same for everyone. This too, will pass.

Like it or not, the sport and the gear is constantly changing, and if you take a 20 year break, you'll see a lot of changes. I know that 2k has been the D lic pack opening altitude for at least 20 years, and look at the differences in that time. Smaller faster canopies that open much slower. Freefly friendly rigs (meaning tight and secure) with more tightly packed reserves. Like it or not, these are the facts of what the vast majority of skydiving rigs looks like today, and we need rules that reflect those realities.

So you jump an older rig, with an older canopy, and you can dump at 2k all day with no problems? Good for you, you're in the minority and can't reasonably expect the USPA to cater to you when there are 14 other people on the plane with you DON"T match that description, but more closely match the description of the rig/jumper I described in the previous paragraph.




Not that you are not correct about the ebb of change, which is universal, not related to only skydiving.

But in particular contradiction to your theorem, the minimum opening altitude (say, 2000') isn't a required opening altitude.

As has already been mentioned, if you choose to open at 2500', or 3000', go ahead! Inform those who will be in the sky with you and have at it.

Or shouldn't one be able to choose a lower opening altitude because you (or another) chooses to jump a slow opening parachute?

Generally speaking, who's being the dick in this equation? Those who want the ability to choose or those who insist on denying the right of choice to another?
"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Generally speaking, who's being the dick in this equation? Those who want the ability to choose or those who insist on denying the right of choice to another?



That's obviously worded as a "loaded" question. You have the "right of choice" to assume the risk of a hazardous activity by skydiving. And the DZOs & gear mfgrs have a co-existent "right of choice" to limit their liability as a condition for staying in business and providing you with the venue, aircraft and gear with which to jump. DZOs or mfgrs who take too harsh an approach run the risk of losing customers. But by the same token, those jumpers who fail to recognize that the two agendas do, in fact, co-exist are always welcome to build their own gear, secure their own venue and hire their own aircraft.

All in balance, Grasshopper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Then this rule if for you. It may save your life.

If you think that 2500 feet is a safe pull altitude after a freefall, then 2000 feet is a safe H+P altitude. Same working time.



Define safe. As a base jumper your definition is probably a bit more flexible than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matthewcline

*********Who seriously thinks 2k is good hop and pop altitude?



I do.

Then this rule if for you. It may save your life.

That seems a highly opinionated and uneducated post.


I'm sorry my degree is not in skydiving:S, but I'm happy with the company I keep, on this issue, after all it was not made a rule by neophytes? Your reply seems to be ad hominem and therefore suffers more profoundly from the issue you take with my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dorbie

******Who seriously thinks 2k is good hop and pop altitude?



I do.

Then this rule if for you. It may save your life.

I have no issue with a hop n pop from 2k.... Further, I have no issue with a terminal deployment from 2k.
"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
So you're a manufacturer? Since that is who made the rule happen, it needed not be made by USPA. It shows who runs the "industry", as skydiving has long left being a sport. Your post was pure opinion, without logic applied in any manner.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matthewcline

So you're a manufacturer? Since that is who made the rule happen, it needed not be made by USPA. It shows who runs the "industry", as skydiving has long left being a sport. Your post was pure opinion, without logic applied in any manner.

Matt



Your idea of logic seems to be to insult when you disagree with a post. Now you're promoting some bizarre conspiracy theory. Manufacturers are typically passionate skydivers who know a lot about equipment and failures. Should we ignore their advice because you choose to ignore risks? We elect the BoD and they take their responsibilities seriously, if you don't like it you have a vote like the rest of us, you can even run for a seat if you care enough.

The arguments have already been presented and are clear. This is about skydivers getting injured or dying after AAD activation where 700 ft is not enough. This is not to protect gear manufacturers dying in sewing machine incidents, it's to save OUR lives. Raise the AAD activation to 1000ft and you risk two-out incidents unless you get skydivers to pull higher.

It doesn't take a conspiracy to understand this, it was made clear on page 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dorbie

***So you're a manufacturer? Since that is who made the rule happen, it needed not be made by USPA. It shows who runs the "industry", as skydiving has long left being a sport. Your post was pure opinion, without logic applied in any manner.

Matt



Your idea of logic seems to be to insult when you disagree with a post. Now you're promoting some bizarre conspiracy theory. Manufacturers are typically passionate skydivers who know a lot about equipment and failures. Should we ignore their advice because you choose to ignore risks? We elect the BoD and they take their responsibilities seriously, if you don't like it you have a vote like the rest of us, you can even run for a seat if you care enough.

The arguments have already been presented and are clear. This is about skydivers getting injured or dying after AAD activation where 700 ft is not enough. This is not to protect gear manufacturers dying in sewing machine incidents, it's to save OUR lives. Raise the AAD activation to 1000ft and you risk two-out incidents unless you get skydivers to pull higher.

It doesn't take a conspiracy to understand this, it was made clear on page 1.

I don't think it is a conspiracy, however I do believe the current system that is in place guiding the choices in gear design is fundamentally broken.

The following quote is taken directly from the PD reserve manual, and yet despite this quote they openly sell a 99 reserve.

Quote

Performance Designs advises all jumpers, regardless of experience, that it
is safer to choose a lower wing loading than this level. However, Performance Designs recognizes that
there are a few individuals that have a great deal of experience and skill flying a main parachutes in this
wing loading, and are determined to use reserves in the same wing loading



I am using PD as a random example that $$ trumps safety in the skydiving business, and the pressure to deliver what people are asking for is intense.

At this point the only way I can see this being fixed (especially in the USA) is for the FAA to step in with both feet and take a firm grip of regulation. Self regulation has clearly failed, and a huge part of the problem is that your average skydiver now selects gear on features unrelated to reliability or safety. Average Joe jumper hasn't got a clue how gear works, and actually has no interest in how gear works.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

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