BMAC615

What led you to believe I suggested anything should be stopped?

Why do you accept that as a reasonable limit? Most participants were willing to accept 2k as reasonable when it was 2k. Then it was raised because nine people died over a ten year period and now anything under 2.5k is unreasonable.

I have experience in terminal BASE and getting my main out at 400’. Opening at that altitude isn’t new to me. Using your logic, I should be able to jump a BASE canopy and open at 400’.

If skydiving is such an adult sport and people can make adult decisions for themselves, then why is a minimum opening altitude BSR necessary?

@chuckakers, I stated, “Meanwhile, USPA endorses canopy piloting competitions that encourage skydivers to land in very unsafe ways.” You then agreed with me that canopy piloting is not safe. I’m not wrong that canopy piloting competitions encourage skydivers to land in very unsafe ways during and outside canopy piloting competitions. I recognize your history with canopy piloting competitions and why you defended them the way you did. However, you must agree that high performance landing approaches on highly loaded canopies increases the risk of injury or death compared to less radical approaches and wing loadings. As for the safety record of canopy piloting competitions, yes, the vast majority of CP incidents happen outside competitions because the vast majority of high performance landings occur outside of CP competitions. They happen at local drop zones - with less experienced skydivers watching - admiring. It’s interpreted as, “That’s the way the best canopy pilots land! The best fly little canopies and land in a very a unsafe way - I want to be the best so I’m gonna do that!” Then they rapidly progress through smaller and smaller canopies with more and more weight until they get way ahead of themselves, and you know the rest. In fact, one of the most recent fatalities was at a canopy piloting competition. I understand that we’re all adults and we’re all capable of making decisions and taking responsibility for those decisions. However, let’s at least recognize that awarding people giving them financial incentives to fly faster and faster in more and more radical ways has some influence and contributes to the number of low turn incidents and fatalities each year.

What’s so hard about it?

Here’s an article & video about a company looking to automate regional cargo transport with Cessna Caravans as drones. Would be interesting if skydiving operations were automated/remotely piloted.

Meanwhile, USPA endorses canopy piloting competitions that encourage skydivers to land in very unsafe ways.

Thank you for this clarity!

I’m just trying to understand how USPA chooses to enact a BSR vs recommendation. @billvon had some great input during the minimum opening altitude discussion. BSR for minimum opening altitude? Yep. BSR for minimum number of jumps to fly a wingsuit? Yep BSR for maximum WL? Nope, skydivers are adults who can make their own decisions. Just seems inconsistent to me.

I’m familiar with the differences in gear. The issue is USPA requires all members abide by all BSRs regardless of jump location. Someone doing a WS heli jump over the Eiger would be required to fly a dual parachute system and have their main container open at 2.5k. Further, anyone doing a WS heli flight with a BASE rig is technically in violation of USPA BSRs.

After reading all the responses to my original question and reading all 484 posts in the thread above, my understanding of why the minimums were raised is that it was in response to nine fatalities over the previous ten years involving AAD activations and insufficient time for reserve deployment or two out situations. 1. It was known back in 2013 that PD had a TSO waiver for their Optimum reserves as in some cases they took more than the required time to deploy. 2. Iterative changes to reserve containers operating under TSOs that may no longer pass TSO requirements may have contributed to the reserve time to deployment. 3. AAD altitude sensors have varying accuracy due to pressure variance depending on jumper orientation. USPA BOD recognized their inability to force manufacturers to fix the problem while giving the equipment more time to deploy the reserve would have potentially solved the problem in the nine cases and in future cases. It was the simplest and quickest way to save lives. If anyone has any other take or if I’m misunderstanding, please chime in.

This is a great discussion, thank you!

I find it interesting that USPA’s stance on wing loading is to only make recommendations and refuse to consider a requirement because “skydivers are grown-ups and capable of making adult decisions, and taking responsibility for those decisions.” But, when it comes to minimum opening altitudes everyone is in line with having a minimum requirement and understands the value of having those requirements.

I remember the ‘90s :)Now, I’m pretty consistently open by 3,500 ft in my wing suit. In terminal BASE, opening at 750’ is “In the stratosphere.” Why wouldn’t USPA consider allowing people jumping BASE canopies in dual harness rigs to open at whatever altitude they want?

What conditions are acceptable to warrant a waiver? Why not allow lower if no AAD is in use?

Just to be clear, this is not an FAA regulation, this is a requirement (not a recommendation) that the USPA Safety & Training Committee enacted in 2012 to reduce risk of injury or death, correct?

Thanks, @wmw999! I started jumping in ‘93 and remember when it was 2k. Hoping @chuckakers or @skypilotA1 or anyone else can fill in the details as to the official justification for the rule change and qualifying reasons for waiver.

I think Dan’s flying a GoPro 360. I fly an Insta 360 X2 that has same capabilities.

Yep, I’m familiar :)

@skypilotA1 or anyone else with knowledge of the subject: Is there a way to understand when and why the minimum opening altitudes were changed? How were they determined for A (3,000) vs B, C &D (2,500)? What are qualifying reasons a waiver would be granted for C & D license holders (2,000)?

There are a lot of companies betting on hydrogen as the future eFuel for aviation. In the near-term, it will outperform batteries in energy density. Some argue hydrogen makes sense for air transportation because the number of required fuel stations is relatively low compared to consumer ground transport.

Here’s what a long WS BASE flight looks like.

Just found this video from Tecnam & Rolls Royce that has an animation of how they are working on battery swap technology

Thanks for the clarification! @skypilotA1 & @chuckakers, what is the history and reasoning of raising minimum opening altitudes? I’ve been away for a while but thought it used to be 2k. Why is a waiver possible for C & D licenses?