Bad news for UK skydivers

[Andrewwhyte 1]

This new rule excludes front and back gear; why is this? It's quite amazing that anyone out there is still willing to subject trusting members of the public to antiques that have been banned in civilized countries for at least ten years. To then say that because the gear is out of date that justifies not using an otherwise mandatory piece of safety gear is very strange logic to me.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

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!!!

__________________________________________________

How much time do you actually spend in the air jumping per year/vs. how much time do you spend in a car... Here in Canada I do about 40,000 km/year and my wife another 40,000km./year.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

Do we know that 90% of serious jumpers use Cypres'? Any stats on it? I find it really hard to believe that. Maybe at some dropzones or in some jurisdictions where they're really strongly encouraged, but 9 out of ten jumpers? I'd have to see the figures...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

This new rule excludes front and back gear; why is this? It's quite amazing that anyone out there is still willing to subject trusting members of the public to antiques that have been banned in civilized countries for at least ten years. To then say that because the gear is out of date that justifies not using an otherwise mandatory piece of safety gear is very strange logic to me.

__________________________________________________
I could be wrong but I've never seen anything to lead me to believe that this 'antique' gear has been BANNED anywhere, let alone here in Canada. Certainly students are mandated to jump squares on CSPA dz's, but experienced jumpers can jump anything they want.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[meatbomb 0]

Quote

This new rule excludes front and back gear; why is this?

Why should we equip our front and back first time static liners with an automatic activation device (which by the way would have to be an FXC12000J) when we have not had a malfunction on that kit in it's 20 years of use? (Touching a huge piece of wood) The kit simply doesn't malfunction. We have done over 10,000 jumps with no problems, and now you want to put an extra piece of kit on there???? Why?

Oh and quoting from the proposed rule (My emphasis added):

Quote

excluding parachutists jumping Traditional (front & back) static line equipment,

I agree that it should be used for freefall front and back kits...and we already do so.

[rant]
As for the comments about bans, civilized countries and antiques... How many people died on front and back static line kit in the last 10 years...and how many on piggyback kit?

Our front and back kit is designed for use by students, particularly on static line, whereas all piggyback static line kit is bastardised freefall kit, distinctly not suited for static line, which has led to many deaths...which is the one that should be banned?
[/rant]

And breathe...

---
Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii!
Piccies

[Adriandavies 0]

Having read the comments in this thread I was left wondering whether A) if the BPA board and/or committee members had asked ordinary members what they think and B) if any regular BPA members had bothered to talk to any DZO's or committee members to express their opinions about the issue? Its all very well discussing it here but your points should also be addressed to the BPA.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

__________________________________________________
I could be wrong but I've never seen anything to lead me to believe that this 'antique' gear has been BANNED anywhere, let alone here in Canada. Certainly students are mandated to jump squares on CSPA dz's, but experienced jumpers can jump anything they want.

It never occurred to me that anyone but a student would use front and back static line gear. And no you may not use that junk at Pitt Meadows.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

I agree that it should be used for freefall front and back kits...and we already do so.

No wonder the French make fun of you.

Quote

[rant]
As for the comments about bans, civilized countries and antiques... How many people died on front and back static line kit in the last 10 years...and how many on piggyback kit?

Our front and back kit is designed for use by students, particularly on static line, whereas all piggyback static line kit is bastardised freefall kit, distinctly not suited for static line, which has led to many deaths...which is the one that should be banned?
[/rant]

Just so you don't go making assumptions about my opinions:
You are a bunch of anti-diluvian, thick headed, backward thinking neanderthals. (and I mean that in the nicest way)
The BPA seems insistent on making skydiving as difficult and miserable as possible for everyone, especially for newbies. When I started skydiving nineteen years ago we were at least using piggyback gear although we still had round canopies. There weren't a lot of students over twenty five who could stick with it back then. There is no way I would start skydiving today at my age (42) with fourty pound kit and round openings and landings. Skydiving is a sport; it is supposed to be fun. It is not supposed to be some masochistic test of character like English boarding school.
BTW the fatality rates for horse drawn carriages are much, much lower than for cars. Do you force your new drivers to parade around in Cartwright Specials for a couple of years until they get the hang of it? The only thing is you should have them so the driver's legs hang right by the spokes so you can have an outrageous lower leg injury rate commensurate with that of round parachutes.

[welshKat 0]

I was wondering why B-licence was chosen as the level for not requiring an AAD?

Just a given number of jumps I can understand, but B-licence = 50 jumps + IC1 right? What part of IC1 (landing accuracy, knowing how to spot etc) makes you less likely to need an AAD? Just curious.

Well I'm gonna have to get that IC1 before my old cypres expires..

[mr2mk1g 10]

I have a feeling it's got as much to do with keeping the insurance market happy as it has to do with skydiver safety.

[damion75 0]

Quote

I have a feeling it's got as much to do with keeping the insurance market happy as it has to do with skydiver safety.

I was about to say "whatever it takes", but fortunately I have a slow internet connection and time to think.

If this IS the case... just how far do you think they (the BPA) would go to reduce our insurance? How many more requirements could they put in?

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"How many more requirements could they put in?"


Formalised wing loading limits and downsize progression similar to the Dutch system?


Individual display team insurance, and increased insurance on students?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Individual display team insurance

Thats already firmly on the cards for next year.

[meatbomb 0]

>>Individual display team insurance
>
>Thats already firmly on the cards for next year

And this has already happened (All our 1st Time Jumps just went up £5):

Quote

and increased insurance on students?

---
Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii!
Piccies

[darrenspooner 0]

Do you agree with seatbelts in cars?

I personally agree with the BPS wholeheatedly,and would actually advocate AADs for all jumpers. If someone doesn't have one and goes in, skydiving suffers because it makes the news and puts newbies off, and DZs are the ones that suffer because they are trying to run a business. I think the sport needs to be as safe as it can without impairing enjoyment. Fatalities that could be prevented with AADs are completely unnecessary and only serve to cause damage.

As for insurance, well, £50 a year sounds like the BPS have done a good deal to me. For anyone that can afford to skydive, £50 is not a lot of money. I got no problem with that.

[damion75 0]

Quote

Formalised wing loading limits and downsize progression similar to the Dutch system?

Thats ok - it will take me a while to save up for that Velocity 38 anyway!

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[fatmarl 0]

Quote

As for insurance, well, £50 a year sounds like the BPS have done a good deal to me. For anyone that can afford to skydive, £50 is not a lot of money. I got no problem with that.

I presume that you mean the BPA, not BPS. If the cost of membership was only £50, nobody would be whinging. I paid just short of £200 (joint membership) this year.

I agree that fatalities that could be prevented with AADs are unnecessary, but don't lose sight of the fact that the majority of people who die in this sport have a perfectly good canopy above their head.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

don't lose sight of the fact that the majority of people who die in this sport have a perfectly good canopy above their head.

We should also not lose sight of the fact that the majority of deaths in this sport in England do not cost the insurers anything. Whilst they may be concerned about the possability of a big lawsuit stemming from one, their own statistics will show that the majority of claims stem from minor incidents involving students and non-jumpers.

It is these actual claims which will do far more to drive up the cost of insurance than the simple possability of a fatality claim.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"the majority of deaths in this sport in England do not cost the insurers anything."

Its Britain!

I'm not sure the industry's actuaries have a full understanding of the risks either.
EG I was filling out forms a while back for life insurance quotes, and the questions were along the lines of...
Do you participate in record attempts?
Do you take part in competitions? (Duh, its a sport!)
Are you a mamber of a recognised organisation. (again Duh!)
etc.
It seemed also that they were loading it along the lines of the more jumps you do each year, the more likely you are to burn in. When we all know the reverse is more accurate.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[d604 0]

Quote

***, but don't lose sight of the fact that the majority of people who die in this sport have a perfectly good canopy above their head.

Actually the number of individuals that killed from hook turning or other landing problem and those that get killed either from malfunctions or not pulling is about the same.

Although for jumpers with less than 200 jumps over 26% of the deaths are from not dealing with malfunctions correctly. They either cut away too low or do the procedure incorrectly. The second biggest killer at this experience level No Pulls, over 14%.

Canopy deaths at this same experience level are 10% for low turns and just under 10% for other canopy problems (line twists below 1000’, canopy collapse from turbulence. Lost toggles, landing in obstacles).

To sum up ~40% (that get killed) of jumpers under 200 skydives will die by not getting a functioning parachute above their head at pull time; and ~20 % will die after getting a functioning canopy above their head.

Would ADD’s lower this number, sure. What is a greater way to change these numbers, education. Spend, 15 minutes this weekend (before jumping): practicing emergency procedures for your self and if you're are an instructor (or similar) find a novice and have them practice as well, and reviewing canopy flight theory.


Note fatality numbers were collected between 1996 – 2000 in the US.

Sean

CSPA ratings C1, C2, IA, IB, QE, RA, and EJR

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

To sum up ~40% (that get killed) of jumpers under 200 skydives will die by not getting a functioning parachute above their head at pull time; and ~20 % will die after getting a functioning canopy above their head.

So 40% die without a viable canopy and 20% with a viable canopy. How do the other 40% die? I might be being a bit thick here but I can't see where the rest of those fatalities come from.
Could you post the source of those stats?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[d604 0]

The other causes of death (separated into categories)

Bizarre (falling out of harness, hard opening on main), suicide, canopy collision (that good be placed under functioning parachute), double malfunction (only one in total were packed), Medical (Heart Attack), free fall collision, exceptional (demos, stunts this is the number one killer for skydivers over 2000 jumps), Aircraft (hitting AC in flight), CREW (wrap on exit).

The data was collected some time ago, and I have no idea where it is know, I also re-categorized and re-grouped some of the events so that producing graphs were easier. I use the data on Safety Days, to remind skydivers of what can kill them. I just caught some FAI stats that may show similar numbers if I ever have time to go through it.

Almost everyone is surprised to see that the biggest single category is malfunctions. Even for jumpers between 701 – 2000 jumps, that were killed skydiving, over 37% were from not dealing with malfunctions properly.

Sean

CSPA ratings C1, C2, IA, IB, QE, RA, and EJR

[jakee 1,257]

OK thanks, I get it now.
I'd kinda assumed that double mals and canopy collisions were already included in what you posted.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?