Ron

I get that. ...and, I agree with most of your ideas about what the USPA should be. What I don't get is; what evidence is there that the USPA changed this because the manufacturers said to? Or, that there is any kind of conspiracy here? Is it possible, (as I believe it is) they just did it because it’s a good idea for the general skydiving community? Maybe not for "everybody", but definetly for the "general community". Two completely different groups IMO. All you have to do is listen to the manufacturers. All you have to do is listen to the BOD. The BOD admitted they want to raise the pull altitude so AAD manufacturers could raise the fire altitude. You think that the BOD told the manufacturers to raise the AAD altitude or do you think the AAD manufacturer told the BOD they will not raise the fire altitude till the main pull altitude was raised? Seriously, just read the comments from the BOD. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Never said that. No, I am stating that something has changed and the BOD didn't even bother looking into the problem, they just caved to the manufacturer. You have information that this is temporary? Because that would be information no one else has. OR, the USPA could say that they think there may be a problem and suggest that people pull higher. A BSR was not needed. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

If we raised pull altitudes to 4k for everyone, we might save 1 or two.... Is that worth it? Then if you own one of those rigs: 1. Buy a new rig. 2. Adjust your personal pull altitudes. When the Stiletto first came out, the CYPRES already was around as well. If you tried to pull below 2k with a Sabre... Not a big deal and most times the AAD stayed quiet. But once the Stiletto came out, if you tried the same thing you might end up with a two out because of the CYPRES fire. We didn't need a BSR to fix that. People who owned Stilettos, pulled above 2K on their own. The issue is not pull altitudes. It is not slow opening mains. It is slow opening RESERVES. 10 years ago if a CYPRES fired we didn't have people bouncing. Look at what changed.... * People pull HIGHER now. * Mains open slower. And yet, we don't have a rash of AAD fires... Because people with slow opening mains took that information and started pulling higher. They didn't need an AAD to tell them that. But now we have people bouncing after an AAD fire..... Since main pull altitudes have gone UP and AAD altitudes have not lowered... that leaves only one possible reason for why an AAD fire ends in a bounce... And that is that either the container, or the parachute or BOTH have issues. Why not fix the real problem instead of putting a bandaid on it. For example, lets say you don't have an AAD and you find yourself in the basement..... Or you have an emergency exit at 1k feet. Your main pull altitude of 2.5K feet is not going to help. But a reserve that opens to the TSO standard sure as hell would. And if the USPA did its job and told you that your rig does not meet the standard... You might decide to ride the plane down instead of doing the emergency exit at 1k. Raising the AAD activation altitudes is a way to reduce the liability of the manufacturers.... The correct course of action is to make sure the equipment works as intended. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And of the people that died... How many pulled their main below 2.5k feet? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And the USPA should not be in the business of adjusting BSR's to make manufacturers happy either. What I would like to see the USPA do is publish in detail the information from each and every accident. I would also like the USPA to push the PIA for the report it asked for in 2010. And if the USPA see's a particular rig, or canopy, or rig canopy combination that has a high probability of issue. Then the USPA should publish that information, maybe ban that combination or piece of equipments use by USPA members. ALL of that is TOTALLY in line with what the USPA SHOULD be doing.... But adjusting BSR's to make manufacturers happy is not. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Nonsense. I have pulled low to avoid the guy above me, I have pulled high to avoid the guy below me. It may not be a good way to PLAN, but there is in fact safety in vertical separation. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

No. There is life off of a DZ. I am not suicidal, and that is what your request would require. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Its back..... No registration AAA 1st place: 1,000 dollars AA 1st place: 500 dollars A 1st place: 300 dollars Rookie 1st: Prize pack Meeting starts at 8AM, registration starts at 7:30AM. And the DZ will extend the discount jump prices for Sunday as well... 100/jump for 10.5k for any team that competed. So come out on SDR and try and win, and stay on SUN to train! "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Ah yes... Insults. Nice. Cut it out, or we are done. Do you have data that the people that cut away low and bounced pulled their main lower than 2.5k? Cause if not, you are making up data to support your conclusion. Most people pull above 2.5k now.... So making it a rule is not going to change that. Then MAYBE the USPA should look at that problem and not apply a bandaid. I don't hold that position. Again, you are not paying attention to what I have written. That is one way to look at it, not my view... but you are free to take that view. ME, I think the USPA should do its job and hold the manufacturers accountable... Barring that, the USPA should educate jumpers on the most dangerous rigs on the market and list them by name..... THIS would be an example of the USPA doing its job. What the USPA should NOT do is change a rule to protect the manufacturers while doing nothing about the real problem. Again, you are either not reading, or not understanding the position.... I'll try one more time. In fact, I think I already mentioned when the Stiletto came out people started to pull higher without a BSR being needed. The USPA knows there is an issue with certain rigs and certain reserves..... They should do something to fix that problem so that ALL jumpers will benefit, not just those with AAD's. What they should NOT do is change a rule that will reduce liability for manufacturers and ignore the real problem that would benefit ALL jumpers. See the USPA should have the backs of the jumpers, not the manufacturers. Now... If you can't avoid the insults... We are done. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

If you had read the posts, you would see I have already said the rule itself is not terrible. Makes total sense. Is the USPA an organization that is supposed to represent skydivers or the manufacturers? Answer that and you see the logic in my position. Just because the rule is not terrible, the fact the USPA BOD is acting like a lap dog for the AAD manufacturers so not to upset the container manufacturers... THAT is a big deal. In 2010 the USPA asked the PIA to look into the issue.... After that, the USPA did nothing. NOTHING. If the problem is the rig issue, this does not fix it, this just *might* put a bandaid on it. But it is not going to help a single person who who does not have an AAd, and it is not going to help the jumper who cuts away low. Can you not understand the "if-then" logic that if the manufacturer is making rigs that will not work under the TSO standard that the solution is to fix IT and not apply a bandaid? Can you not understand the logic that the USPA is supposed to represent the JUMPERS and not the manufacturers? Because if you can't see that... Then yes, there is no point in a discussion with you on this topic. 1. The USPA is supposed to represent jumpers not PD, not UPT, not VIGIL. 2. If the problem is the rig, then raising AAD altitudes will not save those without an AAD or that chop low. Fix THE problem, do not apply a bandaid. If you can't grasp that simple concept.... Then yes, we have nothing to discuss. No S&TA in their right mind is going to waive a BSR when the BOD has said that the practice is not safe. If there is an accident, the BOD and the USPA will hang that S&TA out to dry. The USPA should not put S&TA's in that position. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I don't see how my position is not very well explained.... It is pretty simple, the USPA should represent the JUMPERS and not the manufacturers or DZO's. But, I'll gladly answer your question if it might help you. 2-1 B. Great idea D. Not bad. E 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 All Good F Great (starting to get the idea?) G (except for the new 4 FOR THE REASONS, not for the rule itself.... Starting to pick up the idea?) H Great I Great J Great K Great L Great Have you picked up the trend yet? I'll explain it one more time. It is not the RULE itself. It is how the BOD made the rule to protect the AAD manufacturers. To remove THEIR liability because of a trend that container manufacturers and canopy companies are making rigs and parachutes that open slower. In the process, they ADDED liability to S&TA's. Do I think 2.5K is a good pull altitude? Yep. Would I be upset if the BOD made the change for any other reason? NO. It is how the BOD is acting like a mouthpiece for the AAD manufacturers to cover up an issue of containers taking longer to deploy that the USPA *knows* about. So once again, it is not the rule... It is how the USPA is acting as an agent of manufacturers not skydivers. I can't explain it any simpler than that. Ask the BOD why they did this. The answer is so AAD manufacturers could raise the firing altitude to 1K. This is the BOD acting FOR the manufactures. Does that answer your question? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Keep reading And there it is. The USPA thinks there is a problem with containers and reserves opening slow, the USPA was concerned enough to ask about it.... And when the PIA and the manufactures ignored the USPA, the AAD makers wanted higher activation altitudes. Instead of pissing them off, or pissing container manufacturers off by making them make rigs that work as the TSO says..... The USPA decided to just do what the AAD manufacturers wanted so not to upset the container manufacturers. And the USPA's solution to people who might want to pull low? Have the S&TA take on all the liability that they AAD manufacturers didn't want to take. So the AAD manufacturers are happy. Container manufacturers are happy. Skydivers are not happy. S&TA's are not happy. The USPA, once again, took action that makes the manufacturers happy and not the jumpers. Even YOU admitted that the USPA thinks there is a problem and did nothing about it to the manufacturers. Add in that the only action the USPA has taken was against jumpers and adds more liability to S&TA's.... And who do you think the BOD was working for here? Then look at FAA medicals for tandems. Ask who wants that and who does not... Can you see who the USPA is working for there? Then look at the 'group member' program. What benefit does that bring jumpers? But look at the benefit it brings DZO's and the USPA itself.... How does the group member program benefit jumpers? The USPA BOD seems to serve the DZO's and manufacturers.... Not regular jumpers. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And yet when you look at the facts... Your position is indefensible. 1. Modern AAD's have been around 20+ years. 2. People pulled lower than 2.5k for years while these AAD's existed. 3. It was not until recently that AAD fires ended up in a bounce What changed? People pull higher, the AAD's have not changed pull altitudes. The only thing that has changed is the rigs and in some cases the reserves. Add in that the USPA has already asked the PIA to look into it.... And nothing has happened. So if people are pulling higher, and AAD's have not changed..... AND the USPA three years ago thought it was the rigs..... What the fuck good is the USPA if they don't actually care about the issues they know about? Instead of doing the right thing, they took the easy path to make the manufacturers happy. I ask again, who is the USPA supposed to represent? You may be fine with laying down to keep the manufacturers happy.... But just because it is easy, that does not make it right. IMO, your thoughts are in line with those who are lazy and see a problem and want to ignore it since the true fix might seem difficult. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

So the official word from the BOD is that they are not even willing to work on the real problem and will instead kick the can down the road by changing the BSR's to benefit one group of manufacturers (AAD) so the USPA will not have to upset another group of manufacturers (rig manufacturers.....). The real issue is not important since it is not easy to fix.... Much better to just pass another rule to make all the manufacturers happy while adding tons of liability to S&TA's So now that we know that the BOD works for manufacturers... Who is supposed to be representing jumpers? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I cannot think of any mfr who would not simply tell the USPA to go pound sand. The USPA has absolutely no authority over any mfr, ever. *** . . . the FAA to look into concerns that the manufacturers are no longer compliant with the TSO? I would tell the FAA to write me a letter directing me to do so. Then I would send them back a letter with the costs and that I will be billing them for those costs. So what do you think the FAA would do then? No one thing. It is the way it is. If anyone thinks there is a problem with a mfr's rig, then don't buy it. It is that simple. JerryBaumchen And there it is.... The USPA does not care about fixing the problem and is unwilling to even think about making sure the manufacturers actually meet the TSO standard they claim. Like I said. The BOD is nothing but a mouth piece for the manufacturers.... In this case the ones that make AAD's "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I have never claimed *I* could do anything. I am not an organization that claims to represent jumpers. The USPA is supposed to be that organization. Are you now claiming the USPA is not that organization? Ah.. And there it is. You can't do anything to the manufacturers, so you pounce on the jumpers. How about the BOD simply tell the manufacturers that they have one year to perform testing to prove they still are within the TSO or the USPA will ask the FAA to look into concerns that the manufacturers are no longer compliant with the TSO? Or is the BOD afraid to piss off the manufacturers? So again, does the BOD represent the manufacturers, or the jumpers? Because the action the BOD has taken has shown they do not represent jumpers. I also see you avoided answering if the BOD is going to raise the altitudes for bailouts and decision altitudes. I don't think you are a bad guy.... I do think the entire BOD as an organization is afraid to upset the manufacturers. Since 2010 the BOD has known about this issue and has asked the PIA to look into it. Nothing happened. So to keep from pissing off the manufacturers while making AAD manufacturers happy.... You have done the only think you think you could do.... More rules in the jumpers while ignoring the real issue. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

It is kicking the can down the road. 10 years ago when people pulled lower than they do today... We didn't have these kinds of issues. So, what changed? The only logical answer is the rig design. So what is going to prevent the manufacturers from making more changes after you already changed the rules once? Fact is that the problem is the rig. But the BOD is unwilling to fix the problem jut to make the manufacturers happy. That is the BOD acting to fix a problem... Fine. But the solution they picked made damn sure not to bother the manufacturers. Again, if the BOD thinks the rigs are the problem , they should not kick the can down the road by changing the rules. Fix THE problem and pull altitudes are not the problem. Act in the best interest of jumpers and hold the manufactures accountable. Otherwise we are going to have to revisit this again in a few years. And if you choose to bow down to the manufacturers.... You had better raise emergency exit altitudes and decision altitudes as well. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

If the USPA suspects that the manufactures are not making rigs that meet the TSO.... Then they should tell the manufacturers to start making them better, not change a rule to make them happy. If a rig is not making the TSO standards.... The solution is not to just change the rule. Are we now going to make min bail out altitude 1300 feet to make up for the slow opening of the rig and reserve? If the USPA thinks part of the problem is the manufacturers (and it seems in 2010 they asked the PIA about it)... Then instead of kicking the can down the road, they should hold them accountable. What happens when in 5-10 years the manufacturers have made a few more 'mods' and now AAD's have to now fire at 1200 feet. Fix the problem, not kick the can down the road to keep the manufacturers happy. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

USPA can't do anything to the rig manufacturers. USPA could pressure PIA, which in turn... USPA could ground any rig at a group member DZ, or prevent any member from jumping that rig. They won't. Not even saying they should, but it goes to show the USPA does not want to piss off the manufacturers. I mean if we didn't have these AAD fire bounces 10 years ago when people were pulling at 2k more often... Then it is not the pull altitude that is the problem. It is the gear. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Maybe the same way we make sure the pilot checks that rigs are in date. The point being that it is not really a gigantic problem and there are FAR's that cover the situation. The USPA could pull the TI's ratings for gross stupidity. No, I don't really give a shit about the drug BSR... I care more about the BOD changing rules that skydivers don't want changed just because manufacturers want them changed. This thread is about how the BOD changed pull altitudes to make AAD makers happy. Nevermind that the actual issue is with the rigs. But the BOD will not take action that makes the manufacturers mad. Why hasn't the USPA demanded the PIA provide the report the USPa asked for three years ago? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And they do not need a BSR for that. The manufacurers could raise the altitude with a manual change. This just shows the BOD is doing the manufacturers bidding. Is the USPA supposed to be for jumpers, or the manufacurers? Fact is that THREE years ago the USPA asked the PIA to look into these slow opening reserves. I have not seen nor heard a thing about it. The manufacturers have been 'modifying' containers using 10-40 year old TSO's. And we act surprised when a new situation pops up? We didn't have people bouncing after their AAD's fired for 15 years after they were invented, and back then people pulled lower. The slow deployments are the fault of the manufacturers, not the AAD heights, not jumpers pulling at 2k. Yet the USPA rolls over for the AAD manufacturers and puts rules on the jumpers instead of putting pressure on rig companies. To me, that sounds like the BOD is in bed with the manufacturers and will do anything to the jumpers to make them happy. If the problem is the rig.... Why has the USPA done jack shit to the manufacturers? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Why should the pilot be punished for the bad actions of the jumper? Without this BSR, there is nothing USPA can do to punish jumpers that try to jump drunk. The drunk jumper only runs afoul of the rules if they manage to succeed in jumping drunk. With the new BSR, jumpers, and more importantly instructors, can have USPA action initiated against them for trying to jump drunk, even if they don't succeed. And, enforcement is no longer limited to the pilot, who's done nothing wrong. And what punishment does the USPA give out for breaking any other BSR? That's right, nothing or close enough to nothing that I'd bet you can't cite five cases in the last 12 months. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Then maybe you should of reminded Mike that there are FAR's that cover this? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"Formally *asked*" Three years later..... Nothing. Once again, the USPA does nothing that the PIA or manufacturers do not want. How about the USPA list the rigs that have had problems and then tell the manufacturer that those rigs are GROUNDED till the manufacturer shows they have done all the testing and the righ has still met the TSO standard? That will never happen, but would also fix the problem. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

FAR 121.575 does not allow a pilot to take up a drunk pax. FAR 91.17 does not allow a pilot to take up a drunk or drugged pax. FAR 91.15 does not allow dropping of objects that creates a hazard to persons or property. We don't need a BSR to cover this, since it is clearly covered by FAR's "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334