New Tandem BSR's (March 2015)

[PhreeZone 14]

From the latest USPA meeting minutes:

The board created a new Basic Safety Requirement as follows: “Any person making a tandem jump is not permitted to make turns greater than 90 degrees below 500 feet.” The new BSR is effective immediately.


The board created a new Basic Safety Requirement as follows: “Any person making a tandem jump acting as pilot in command is required to conduct system-handles checks immediately after deployment of the drogue.” The new BSR is effective immediately.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[skydived19006 4]

I'll start by saying that I know that most if not all of the tandem system manufacturers have required handle checks since day one. My understanding is that with the original systems and the potential for floating release handles, that handle checks were really pretty important.

In today's world, other than just maintaining the status quo, what is the standard argument for requiring handle checks in free fall. Depending on the reasoning, why not require handle checks once under canopy? I can come up with more logical reasoning for requiring a handle check once the main is open than I can for the freefall checks.

I'm not saying at all that I won't do it, I will and I'll require that our staff also comply. I have always done handle checks within 5 seconds of drogue deployment, though that was and will be 5 seconds before drogue deployment while still on the aircraft.

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[normiss 619]

One of my favorite reason for outside video, see me doing my handle checks.
My thoughts are this is for all the Youtube handycam videos out there.
One-handed almost the entire jump. :(

I agree with both new tandem BSR's.

[justme12001 0]

I'm a little OCD when it comes to handle checks, i usually do 4/5 in the last minute or so leading up to exit, one in the door, one right after the drogue, and if outside video is there and wasn't close enough to see the first one, i will do another just so it's on video.

[pchapman 261]

Interesting to see that those new USPA BSR's pretty much mirror a couple of those Tandem Commandments, which are considered generally good practice. The actual wording isn't exactly the same though.

But I've never quite understood the antagonism against greater than 90 degree turns.

A turn of 180 degrees can be a slow, gradual turn, and doesn't imply a "hook" turn or "steep diving turn", or a lack of any straight final approach. (Where a straight final of some seconds provides an allowance for error in judgement during the turn.)

It makes it sound like a gradual turn of 180 and a long final is more dangerous than a low 90 hook...

[skydived19006 4]

justme12001

I'm a little OCD when it comes to handle checks, i usually do 4/5 in the last minute or so leading up to exit, one in the door, one right after the drogue, and if outside video is there and wasn't close enough to see the first one, i will do another just so it's on video.

I have no real problem with it. I just happen to be one of those ass holes who feels the need to understand the reasoning and/or logic. I totally get it with the old floating handle issue. I understand that the rule indicates "immediately...", I've been complying all along by doing a handle check above 6,000', and if the first one is there, I pull it at or just above 6,000'. If the first one isn't there, I'd check the 2nd, etc. Somehow, I'm guessing that my current/former system will not be found to comply with this new BSR.

Riddle me this Batman!
Does the same logic for freefall checks, whatever that is, not apply or remain once the main is open??? In my experience the muscle memory that is built with the pre-loading, in airplane, and free fall checks will lead a Tandem Pilot In Command to first look/feel/reach for handles where they were in freefall, as opposed to where they are once suspended under a canopy, and especially if that canopy is spinning.

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[riggerrob 558]

Good point!
When training new TIs, I insist on 4 separate handles checks: the first handles check before they board the airplane, the second handles check after hook-up, the third handles check shortly after drogue deployment and the last handles check after opening.
As for the logic ... initially we did handles checks because of the risk of floating handles (dislodged during exit), but soon found that repeated handles checks helped build muscle memory. The more times (per jump) you do handles checks, the sooner you complete the ten thousand repetitions needed to burn handles checks into long-term memory.

[skydived19006 4]

pchapman

Interesting to see that those new USPA BSR's pretty much mirror a couple of those Tandem Commandments, which are considered generally good practice. The actual wording isn't exactly the same though.

But I've never quite understood the antagonism against greater than 90 degree turns.

A turn of 180 degrees can be a slow, gradual turn, and doesn't imply a "hook" turn or "steep diving turn", or a lack of any straight final approach. (Where a straight final of some seconds provides an allowance for error in judgement during the turn.)

It makes it sound like a gradual turn of 180 and a long final is more dangerous than a low 90 hook...

I won't argue with that logic!

Why not go with the FAA's definition as they define it with regard to demonstration jumps?
"A hook turn is a maneuver in any maneuver sequence that causes the canopy to roll at an angle in excess of 45 degrees from vertical and/or to pitch up or down at an angle in excess of 45 degrees from horizontal while executing a turn in excess of 60 degrees."

Maybe the answer to that is that it's easier to quantify a turn in excess of 90 degrees than to measure roll angle from the vertical or horizontal.

I'm going to see how hard I can get a tandem to turn in 90 degrees next weekend! Though well in excess of 500' AGL. I'd be willing to bet that it'll go better than 45 degrees pitch angle.

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[skydived19006 4]

riggerrob

Good point!
When training new TIs, I insist on 4 separate handles checks: the first handles check before they board the airplane, the second handles check after hook-up, the third handles check shortly after drogue deployment and the last handles check after opening.
As for the logic ... initially we did handles checks because of the risk of floating handles (dislodged during exit), but soon found that repeated handles checks helped build muscle memory. The more times (per jump) you do handles checks, the sooner you complete the ten thousand repetitions needed to burn handles checks into long-term memory.

But ironically you'll have 10,000 checks in a harness that's not suspended under a canopy, with something way less than that while suspended. In my experience that muscle memory will lead you to look in the wrong location for those handles. I was in a fairly "wild" spinning mal and spent in excess of 15 seconds locating handles. Twisted, spinning, offset load, arms and clothing in the way, a direct line of sight isn't always available. Not really a problem as it turns out since we were high, and I deploy higher than required.

I generally do one just after putting the rig on, one while walking to the airplane, one when I get up and before hookup, one after hook up, one in the door, though at that typically just the drogue, but have never been in the habit of doing a handle check in freefall since my handles are all sewn to the main container harness. I was certified on Eclipse tandem gear in 1999. Eclipse had both handles on the main harness from day one, and at that time the other guys still had handles that were attached to the student harness. Eclipse had/has right and left side drogue releases, when at least one of the other guys had/has only one and it could be found floating. On that rig, a handle check was no doubt a hell of a good idea at that time!

My point is that we're requiring a handle check because handles used to have the potential to float. When in reality something else would be more useful.

I have no doubt that the reason for requiring a handle check in freefall was discussed, I have to wonder if it went any further than "The manufacturers require it, we should add it to the BSRs. Next topic."

Martin

Edit to add:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3ENMl4R2b0

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[DougH 270]

normiss

One of my favorite reason for outside video, see me doing my handle checks.
My thoughts are this is for all the Youtube handycam videos out there.
One-handed almost the entire jump. :(

I agree with both new tandem BSR's.

You can get a cool shot of the deployed drogue when you check the reserve handle

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[skydived19006 4]

DougH

***One of my favorite reason for outside video, see me doing my handle checks.
My thoughts are this is for all the Youtube handycam videos out there.
One-handed almost the entire jump. :(

I agree with both new tandem BSR's.

You can get a cool shot of the deployed drogue when you check the reserve handle

Well shit! I never even considered using the handle checks as an alternative prospective. Theoretically, a guy could simply bring the camera in for an "armpit drogue shot" and back. Handle's check, check!

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[riggerrob 558]

DougH

***One of my favorite reason for outside video, see me doing my handle checks.
My thoughts are this is for all the Youtube handycam videos out there.
One-handed almost the entire jump. :(

I agree with both new tandem BSR's.

You can get a cool shot of the deployed drogue when you check the reserve handle

.....................................................................................

Hand-cams are not limited to "mug shots." If hand-cam video only details nostril hairs, it is boring!
If the TI/videographer has any imagination, he can catch 3 seconds of the plane receding I to the distance, the student's initial reaction to free fall, the student's legs in a proper "banana" position, a few seconds of the drogue, the student waking up in freefall, a panorama of the horizon, the full deployment sequence and some footage under canopy.

The best footage results in loud and rowdy debates between students as to which one of them did the best "banana."
Hah!
Hah!

Oh!
While I was videoing the drogue, I was watching my left thumb hook the reserve ripcord handle.

[brianmoler 0]

Why was the reserve deployed before the canopy was cutaway?

[skydived19006 4]

brianmoler

Why was the reserve deployed before the canopy was cutaway?

That was covered in another thread specifically about that malfunction.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4543704;#4543704

skydived19006

******Did you pull the reserve prior to cutting away? (attached).

Or just a fast acting RSL? I couldn't tell either. Nice screen grab, BTW.Thanks.

Boy, that sure looked like bad packing to me, but I'm no expert. Sometimes $hit does happen, and that was $HIT!

I noticed you stayed with it for a while. Were you pumping the toggles a couple of times?

I think that it was a fast acting RSL. I analyzed that shot as well. In my mind, I know that I pulled the handles in order, but was questioning that due to the moment you (skydiverek) grabbed. Eventually, I concluded that since the camera was on my left hand, and that hand had not yet moved, it was proof that I'd pulled in order. Watch it again, and you'll see my left arm extends with the reserve pull, about a second after you see the reserve PC.

Yes, I'd agree that it was a packing error.

Yes, I did stay with it almost 20 seconds after making the decision to get rid of it. I did initially grab risers, but when it "took off" I immediately decided to chop it. With the spin, being thrown around, and the student harness riser, I could not see the cut away handle. The thought that it could be tucked under occurred to me, but it wasn't, I just could not get a line of sight on it. Obviously, pulling that handle was critical! In the end, I could not say if I saw it, or found it by feel.

Edit to add: And free fall handle checks wouldn't have done a damn bit of good under that malfunction. It could easily be argued that handle checks while under a canopy would have helped, especially if they're conducted eyes closed, or looking away. I think that checking handles again while under canopy would be more useful than the drogue fall check. Maybe that'll be the next BSR down the pike.


Now, back to the topic at hand. What's the base reasoning behind the freefall handle checks? Nobody has yet to tread those waters. And is "Because the manufacturers require it." Then, what's the base reasoning to why the manufacturers require a freefall handle check?

It seems like it should be such a simple question to answer, there seems to be no debate that we should be doing these "system handle checks". Are we all simply lemmings, or is there a real honest modern gear reason????

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[brianmoler 0]

I think they are a good idea because the handles on a tandem rig are different then they are on a sport rig, to me it is a totally different motion to grab the handles on a sport rig then on a tandem rig. On my sport rig my elbows are close to my body and my motion would be down towards my inner thighs, with a tandem my elbows are higher, my shoulders are shrugged up a bit and the motion is down towards my outer thigh. Yes the handles could be in a different location under a spinning mal then they would be in freefall but all those checks do make a difference, I can't remember looking at my handles during my EPs but my hands always seem to go to the right place. I had 3000 tandems before my first mal, so I had a ton of handle checks before I had to do it for real.

[skydived19006 4]

brianmoler

I think they are a good idea because the handles on a tandem rig are different then they are on a sport rig, to me it is a totally different motion to grab the handles on a sport rig then on a tandem rig. On my sport rig my elbows are close to my body and my motion would be down towards my inner thighs, with a tandem my elbows are higher, my shoulders are shrugged up a bit and the motion is down towards my outer thigh. Yes the handles could be in a different location under a spinning mal then they would be in freefall but all those checks do make a difference, I can't remember looking at my handles during my EPs but my hands always seem to go to the right place. I had 3000 tandems before my first mal, so I had a ton of handle checks before I had to do it for real.

I totally agree that handle checks for tandem are a good idea, and do them a bunch on every jump. I've simply not been doing them in drogue fall. I could stop doing the ones that make real logic and safety enhancing sense, like checking that the drogue is well seated in the BOC just before exit (that should be a BSR before the drogue fall check). So, you make a good argument for handle checks, but none as to why specifically the one conducted in freefall is the one that's "important", and since it was added to the BSRs, it must be the preeminent handle check above and beyond, and potentially supplanting all others.

I don't want rote responses, I want to understand the reasoning and argument that went into this rule change.

I did email Jim Crouch this morning asking him. I'll pass along his response. I'll go back and send it to the S&T Chair as well.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[skytribe 16]

I really don't see a problem with the change. Its what I was trained to do and what I do with/without handcam for the past 18 years. Is this simply clarifying what the manufacturers have been training.

I have had a discussion numerous times about what the manufacturers state in there training and what happens in real life. Are the manufacturers training "the definitive word" on what should be happening or do people just use it as a general guide ?. Example - who jumps with tandems. The manufacturers state something but people seem to often disregard.

So perhaps this is why the USPA have added this to the BSR's because they are seeing instructors not following manufacturers training and hence making the amendment.

I don't think it will make any difference as people will continue doing what they do at the moment. Those that do these checks will continue to do so, those that don't wont.

[riggerrob 558]

Circa 1990, a tandem pair impacted - while still in freefall - because the TI was inexperienced and forgot about the drogue release handle on the lower, left corner of Vector 1.5.
I say "Vector 1.5" because the first Vector Tandems were drogue-less. The " Vector 1.5" had a single drogue release, while the "Vector 1.6" had 2 drogue release handles.
After that fatality, manufacturers started insisting on handles checks in free fall.

[TomNoonan 1]

Quote

Now, back to the topic at hand. What's the base reasoning behind the freefall handle checks? Nobody has yet to tread those waters. And is "Because the manufacturers require it." Then, what's the base reasoning to why the manufacturers require a freefall handle check?

It seems like it should be such a simple question to answer, there seems to be no debate that we should be doing these "system handle checks". Are we all simply lemmings, or is there a real honest modern gear reason????

The answer Martin is because instructors involved in tandem free fall incidents are still saying: "I couldn't find the handle" as the root cause of their incidents.

Despite your claim that floating handles are a thing of the past, there continues to be a number or low pulls, AAD activations, and two-out tandem incidents where the tandem instructor either could not find their main handle, even after thousands of tandems, or worse, could not find their reserve handle, even after thousands of jumps. It still happens, more often then you think.

As for HandCams, that adds an even greater risk, as multiple times we have heard: I could see the handle, but I couldn't get my hand in there with the hand cam.

So despite your (accurate assessment) that post deployment handles checks are also important and instructors should be doing that too, the free fall handles checks remain a high speed critical step in the process so that at the bottom end of your tandem jump, where every second counts, your not fumbling around looking for a main handle (some model tandems they can still dislodge) or struggling to either find or pull your reserve handle because you have never reached back in free fall to see if you could touch it.

I have been told that there are actually drop zones out there that tell their instructors to actually NOT do handles checks with hand cam video, because it messes up the video. This BSR will ensure that there is a mechanism of consequence now for ignoring such a critical safety check.

Ted Strong once told me (paraphrased) regarding Tandem SOPs: "When your asked to do something procedurally that you don't necessarily understand, it's because it's not for a reason you can think of, its for a reason you haven't thought of yet, but for a reason someone else already learned from."

Namaste,
Tom Noonan

www.everest-skydive.com

[skydived19006 4]

Thanks Tom.

I said early on in the thread that I'd comply with this BSR, not that you indicated otherwise.

I've always deployed at or above 6,000' agl, rarely intentionally going to 5,500' agl. I do that for multiple reasons, trading 6 seconds of free fall for a minute of canopy, more time to work with line twists, etc. Also, I had that buffer in there for things like a hand in the way or a handle, or for some reason I couldn't find a handle.

So theoretically, I've been doing those handle checks all along starting at 6,000'. I just happened to pull the first one if I happened to find it where my hand expected it!

"Theory and reality are the same... In theory."

Somewhat off topic, my rigs still have real rip cords on the drogue releases (right, left, and one on the cut-away handle). I had one, and another instructor had one where after pulling one rip cord, the drogue didn't release (most likely mis rigged). On the one I had, I was running hand cam. The time between drogue release #1 and drogue release #2 was approximately one second.

I'll paraphrase Bill Booth "Every time we do something to increase safety in the sport, skydivers do something to negate the improvement."

http://www.dropzone.com/safety/Gear_and_Equipment/Do_Skydivers_Care_About_Safety_19.html

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[skytribe 16]

Tom

Is freefall handles check a standard procedure for ALL the tandem manufacturers ?

If so, why is the USPA getting into the tandem training procedure business and not the manufacturers dealing with it. It seems like we have two entities here that are saying the same thing, doing the same thing and ultimately both don't appear to do much to enforce much - unless there is a widely publicized incident.

Without enforcement these are merely words which those that do not do them will probably continue what they have been doing.

[PhreeZone 14]

So here is a question - are we now going to see a flood of complaints to RD's about TI's violating this once a video appears on Youtube or Vimeo? Are RD's actually going to suspend ratings over these BSR violations? Are they going to just give out "warnings" and then ignore it with the flood of complaints that they get? Is this a NW (Non-Waiverable), FB (Full-Board), or RD (Regional Director) waiver-able?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[riggerrob 558]

Yes, handle checks are taught as best-business-practices by all the tandem manufacturers.

You are seeing three processes slowly unfold.

The first process involves the manufacturers figuring out best-business-practices and telling working TIs to update their practices.
One BBP has large DZs telling their TIs to demonstrate handles checks on all videos or look for work elsewhere.

The second process has manufacturers slowing divesting themselves from the process of training and certifying TIs. In the long run, most of us would rather see TI certification handled by national sporting organizations (e.g. USPA).

The third process is USPS reminding TIs of best business practices. USPA will publish new best-business-practices for a year or two. USPA will
also invite all working TIs to refresher training. Three or four years later, USPA S&TAs will quietly take old-school TIs aside to remind them of best-business-practices. In the long run, stubborn, old-school TIs will have difficulty re-newing their USPA ratings without written proof of refresher training.

[douwanto 22]

I have 9000+ tandems and am a UPT examiner. Last Sunday it took me 10 seconds to get my hand firmly on the Reserve handle during my handle check. I personally Dont want that surprise at pull time or during an emergency. Do you? People are different they arch differently and can be positioned differently in the harness every time you enter freefall.

There is no Good reason to NOT do handle checks in freefall after setting the drogue on EVERY TANDEM.

Uncle/GrandPapa Whit
Unico Rodriguez # 245
Muff Brother # 2421

[parachutist 1]

Tom,

Does either UPT or USPA define these handles checks anywhere?

Chris