Bad news for UK skydivers

[fatmarl 0]

The first topic has been briefly discussed in the Gear and Rigging forum but I believe that it deserves a wider audience. it has been taken from the minutes of the STC meeting on February 5th.

A great deal of discussion ensued, after which it was proposed by Karen Farr and seconded by Dave Hickling, that from the 1st July 2004, all parachutists below FAI ‘B’ Certificate, excluding parachutists jumping Traditional (front & back) static line equipment, must use equipment fitted with an operational AAD which must be switched on prior to any descent.

For: 10 Against: 1 Abstentions: 1
Carried

Following further discussion, it was proposed by Andy Guest and seconded by Ian Cashman that from the 1st July 2004 all parachutists taking part in display jumps must use equipment fitted with an operational AAD which must be switched on prior to any descent.

For: 8 Against: 0 Abstentions: 4
Carried

Note: The above two decisions will be worded as Operations Manual amendments for presentation at the STC meeting of the 8th April 2004.

Does this mean that the BPA will refund the membership of any jumpers it has now effectively stopped from jumping?

The second piece of bad news is taken from the BPA website.

The Insurance Committee does not expect such variations, once formally approved by the BPA Council, to result in a lowering or even pegging of the insurance premium at the next renewal. The Committee advises all BPA Members to be prepared for further increases, although it hopes these will be lower than this year’s unprecedented 150% increase.


Not only have we paid through the nose for this years membership but we are being told to brace ourselves for further increases. This, to me, doesn't seem to be doing much to encourage and promote skydiving in the UK.

[vt1977 0]

Quote

This, to me, doesn't seem to be doing much to encourage and promote skydiving in the UK.

But then... since when have the BPA ever done anything to encourage and promote skydiving in the UK?

If they don't want to completely destroy skydiving in the UK they need to take a SERIOUS look at restructuring the insurance before next year. Either that or we, the membership, need to VOTE NO at next year's AGM.

Vicki

[fatmarl 0]

Thats another thing I don't understand - why do you have to attend the AGM in order to vote? I don't particularly want to spend a night in a hotel in Leicester, even if there is a mega piss up involved. Surely it is not beyond the capabilities of the BPA to arrange a proxy vote for members.

[cpoxon 0]

Quote

But then... since when have the BPA ever done anything to encourage and promote skydiving in the UK?

What, like the Roadshows, the AGM, the magazine, the Starter Mag, the website, funding the National teams, the Nationals, the Grand Prixs?

Quote

If they don't want to completely destroy skydiving in the UK they need to take a SERIOUS look at restructuring the insurance before next year.

Maybe if Ian had quoted everything rather than just the shocking bit, or if you'd read it on the website you would see that they are proposing to reduce cover to BPA Affiliated DZs only and further withdraw insurance from displays.

Quote

The BPA Insurance Committee held its first meeting on 30 March 2004 to consider the BPA public liability insurance policy that covers all BPA Members. The annual BPA Membership subscription includes the premium for this policy. The insurance premium component of the BPA annual subscription increased by a massive 150% at the annual renewal on 1 April 2004. The Insurance Committee, chaired by David Hickling and reporting to the Development Committee, has as its brief to review the scope and value of the policy to seek to contain future increases in premiums.

Recommendations

The Committee identified a number of aspects of the policy for further consideration and possible review. The first was the current worldwide cover, excepting the USA. The Committee considered this to be unnecessarily wide and represent exposure to risk over and above that which the BPA might reasonably be expected to cover. Therefore, the Insurance Committee is to recommend to the Development Committee, and thence to the BPA Council, that the scope of the policy should be changed from "worldwide cover except for the USA", to "BPA Affiliated Drop Zones and UK parachute displays notified by BPA Registered Display Teams".

The Committee is planning to make a further recommendation that the current coverage by BPA insurance of display parachute landing areas should not be renewed from 1 April 2005. This would mean that it would be prudent for Display Teams to ensure that events of which their displays are a part are themselves protected by adequate insurance cover.

Future premiums

The Insurance Committee does not expect such variations, once formally approved by the BPA Council, to result in a lowering or even pegging of the insurance premium at the next renewal. The Committee advises all BPA Members to be prepared for further increases, although it hopes these will be lower than this year’s unprecedented 150% increase.

What the Committee is seeking is to put in place is a package of measures that, over time, should help to reduce the number of claims and potential claims. Only this, when reviewed by the insurers as a claims history, may reasonably be expected to affect the bottom line - the premium the insurers charge for their cover. The BPA has to demonstrate that it has actually reduced the risk to which the insurers are exposed. Promises will not do that: we have to prove it by reducing claims, and the reduction has to show as an identifiable trend in the claims history. Other possible measures to help to do this, which are under consideration by the Insurance Committee, will be announced in due course.

Quote

Either that or we, the membership, need to VOTE NO at next year's AGM.

And what good would that do? No insurance, no skydiving.

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[vt1977 0]

Quote

Surely it is not beyond the capabilities of the BPA to arrange a proxy vote for members.

Wanna bet... Personally I wouldn't trust the BPA to organise a piss up in a brewery.

The AGM is worth it for the sheer drunken-ness - but yeah, I do know what you're saying.

Vicki

[fatmarl 0]

Quote

Maybe if Ian had quoted everything rather than just the shocking bit, or if you'd read it on the website you would see that they are proposing to reduce cover to BPA Affiliated DZs only and further withdraw insurance from displays.

Craig, I read the whole of the text that you have quoted before posting. The way that I read it, we will actually be paying more for a reduced level of cover.

Quote

And what good would that do? No insurance, no skydiving.

I don't know the answer to this, but is there a legal obligation to have 3rd. party insurance?

[vt1977 0]

Quote

Maybe if Ian had quoted everything rather than just the shocking bit, or if you'd read it on the website you would see that they are proposing to reduce cover to BPA Affiliated DZs only and further withdraw insurance from displays.

That is good news - it makes me so to have to cover demo insurance through my membership when I don't actually do them. That is a step in the right direction...

Don't worry Craig - when my life calms down a bit, I will be sure to take the time to read the whole thing fully. Right now, I'm afraid I have other priorities.

Quote

Either that or we, the membership, need to VOTE NO at next year's AGM.

And what good would that do? No insurance, no skydiving.

[meatbomb 0]

Quote

the average weekend skydiver would have been saddled with a slightly less ridiculous amount to shell out for their BPA membership.

My insurance to jump out of a plane, which is far more dangerous than driving a car, is currently over 20 times cheaper than my third party car insurance. We just don't realise how lucky we are to get year round insurance for £50!!!

---
Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii!
Piccies

[fatmarl 0]

Any views on the first part of my thread regarding mandatory AADs for certain jumpers?

[meatbomb 0]

I don't think the BPA has stopped anybody jumping, to be fair...how many jumpers do you know with less than 50 jumps, that aren't students, who jump their own gear without an AAD?
I think the display rule is silly though...how many display jumpers a) do high-risk freefall collison jumps, or b) are stupid enough not to pull?

---
Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii!
Piccies

[gus 1]

Quote

Any views on the first part of my thread regarding mandatory AADs for certain jumpers?

How are the majority of people dying/maiming themselves in our sport? Under a functioning canopy. Where does the BPA appear to be concentrating its efforts? Mandatory aads, when the vast majority of people have one anyway. It doesn't make much sense to me.

Gus

OutpatientsOnline.com

[fudd 0]

Is it really bad?
A cypres isn't that expensive viewed from a TCO point of view. If you can't afford one maybe skydiving isn't for you.

Here in norway it's mandatory to have either a cypres or rsl.

In a perfect world, skydivining would be free!

There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[vt1977 0]

Gus, I couldn't agree more. I would much rather see the BPA put their energies into canopy education and safety than making us all use AADs.

(Don't get me wrong, I have an AAD in each of my rigs, but that is my choice and I still would rather they took a long, hard serious look at the issue of people dying under a functioning canopy)

Vicki

[cpoxon 0]

Quote

How are the majority of people dying/maiming themselves in our sport? Under a functioning canopy. Where does the BPA appear to be concentrating its efforts?

There is a working group looking into this also.

From Item 2. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE STC MEETING OF THE 4 DECEMBER 2003 of the minutes of the Safety and Training Committee meeting, 5th February 2004

Quote

Item 6 – Panels of Inquiry – d. The Chairman also stated that the Low Turn Panel Report is at this time still not ready for presentation to STC.

Quote

Mandatory aads, when the vast majority of people have one anyway. It doesn't make much sense to me.

From Item 6 at the same meeting,

Quote

The Chairman stated that mandatory fitting of AADs was an agenda item because the Board of Inquiry into the death of Esmond Liggitt made the following recommendation:

‘That STC considers the mandatory fitting of Automatic Activation Devices (AADs) to the equipment of all categories of parachutists.’

This recommendation along with the Board Report was accepted at the STC meeting of the 4th December 2003.

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[meatbomb 0]

Quote

would much rather see the BPA put their energies into canopy education and safety than making us all use AADs.

They are. The AAD recommendation came about after the Panel of Enquiry into Esmond Liggett's death. The Low Turns Panel has been going for some time, and I would say that it is that, as well as the RAPS Working Group and the Insurance Working Group, that are the main focuses of the BPA right now.

edit - for spelling
Also...We are the BPA. Each one of us that pays our money, becomes part of the Association. You don't like something about your Association? Change it!

---
Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii!
Piccies

[gus 1]

Quote

Item 6 – Panels of Inquiry – d. The Chairman also stated that the Low Turn Panel Report is at this time still not ready for presentation to STC.

This is what I'm talking about. The Low Turn Panel was started (I believe) about a year ago and they're still not ready for presentation to STC?

Quote

The Chairman stated that mandatory fitting of AADs was an agenda item because the Board of Inquiry into the death of Esmond Liggitt.....

I'm not saying I don't see why they'd introduce mandatory aads (I know people that would be dead had they not had one) just that their priorities seem to be wrong.

Gus

OutpatientsOnline.com

[vt1977 0]

Quote

They are. The AAD recommendation came about after the Panel of Enquiry into Esmond Liggett's death. The Low Turns Panel has been going for some time, and I would say that it is that, as well as the RAPS Working Group and the Insurance Working Group, that are the main focuses of the BPA right now.

Genuine question... does anyone have any idea when each of these panels/working groups was set up and when they expect to report their findings? Do they produce interim reports, say every six months?

Vicki

[fatmarl 0]

Quote

I don't think the BPA has stopped anybody jumping, to be fair...how many jumpers do you know with less than 50 jumps, that aren't students, who jump their own gear without an AAD?

You need 200 jumps to get your C, and yes, I do know people who this will affect.

[meatbomb 0]

Read the rule again....my emphasis added

Quote

A great deal of discussion ensued, after which it was proposed by Karen Farr and seconded by Dave Hickling, that from the 1st July 2004, all parachutists below FAI ‘B’ Certificate, excluding parachutists jumping Traditional (front & back) static line equipment, must use equipment fitted with an operational AAD which must be switched on prior to any descent.

---
Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii!
Piccies

[fatmarl 0]

My mistake, I thought it was B license and below. Thanks for pointing that out.

[TrickyDicky 0]

The only problem with mandatory AADs is that most AADs out there are cypres's. Should for some reason (I know very remote) Airtec find a fault and have to ground all cypreses, you are gonna ground the whole of the UK (and many other countries). Not good.

Also, if you go back to old STC minutes you will find out when these different panels were set up. I think The RAPS working group was set up in 2001 after a death at Tilstock and another centre. Dont quote me though.

UK Skydiver for all your UK skydiving needs.

[riggerrob 558]

As for insurance ... welcome to the real world!
This planet's insurance industry is still struggling to recover from the damage that Al Queda did to the World Trade Center 3 years ago. Everyone is paying more for insurance.

Secondly, the question of whether AADs should be mandatory is just a case of BPA bureaucrats catching up with fashion. Seeing as how 90% of serious skydivers already own AADs, this is more of a "crossing all the T and dotting all the Is" than economic issue.
Also remember that before Cypres was invented, "low pull/no pull" consistently accounted for 1/3 of fatalities.
As for worrying about some surprising new fault on Cypres ..Hee! Hee! Hee!
After 13 years of production, we unlikely to see surprises. If we do see surprises, you can easily buy an Astra or Vigil.

As for the Low Turn Panel taking their time ... I suspect that is more of a NIH syndrome. The Australian Parachute Federation or Skydive University or a half dozen other coaching organizations will cheerfully sell BPA a canopy control syllabus and even host short courses on how to teach the new "How to hook turn & survive" program.

[billvon 2,426]

>The only problem with mandatory AADs is that most AADs out there are cypres's.

Buy an Astra and just leave it turned off. Not a good solution from a money point of view, I know, but it's an alternative to a cypres.

[Zeemax 0]

not possible...

Quote

must use equipment fitted with an operational AAD which must be switched on prior to any descent.

Phoenix Fly - High performance wingsuits for skydiving and BASE
Performance Designs - Simply brilliant canopies

[Zenister 0]

Quote

not possible...

Quote

must use equipment fitted with an operational AAD which must be switched on prior to any descent.

.

of course with that wording you could simply switch it on and then switch it back off and be in full compliance..

bureaucracy sucks

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.