topdocker

I can see the S&TA waiver the altitude for PRO level demos without much liability risk. For regular jumps, after a couple years no one is going to ask for a 2,000ft opening altitude anyway. 2,500 will be the new norm, which is fine given the majority of gear out there these days. I think waiving it on a Demo is the worst case scenario. Now I not only have to worry about the jumper getting hurt or killed, but him/her hitting someone on the ground. Plaintiff attorney: "Why did you run into Jane Moveslikeaglacier on your jump?" Skydiver: My exit was so low it left me few options over the landing area." PA: "Why did you get out so low?" SD: "That is where the cloud cover was at." PA: "Is that allowed?" SD: "Not according to USPA or the people that make my equipment, but my S&TA said I had mad skilz and could get out low." PA: "Who is this S&TA and how do we get ahold of him/her?" SD: "Their info is on the USPA website." PA: "Do you think he has any assets?" S&TA left out to hang. Jumper has insurance, USPA and gear manufacturers can hide behind the "We told you not to do this." S&TA at the very minimum gets a couple of depositions, has to hire and attorney, miss a few nights sleep worrying about this, and probably gets his/her name in the news as the person responsible. YAY! Just say no, and those pissed off demo jumpers will let the RD and the National Directors know about it. I doubt they will listen to the membership, but let them know anyway. top Jump more, post less!

Do we really believe the USPA, the PIA, the manufactuers, and the FAA are not studying this issue? And, do we really think that the manufactuer who solves this problem will not be rewarded with sales $$$$'s by advertising the results? When you buy gear, do so based on safety results from testing and not "how cool it looks". When we do that in mass, watch the manufactuers change there tune. The bottom line in all of this... $$$$$ Talks!!! I believe the BOD did "what they could do" to address this issue. Now, it's up to ME (and you)! We vote on this issue everytime we spend a dollar on gear. I believe USPA has a couple of people there occasionally who look into the gear issues when something comes up (or someone goes in). The PIA is dragging its feet because they cannot show that some of the major players (and payers!) in the PIA may have screwed the pooch on this one. Easier to say, "We are studying that," and go about business as usual. Those manufacturers are working to redesign their equipment so they problem doesn't keep coming back to them, but the bad gear and bad gear combinations are still out there. The FAA only cares that the paperwork is in order- they have neither the time, money, nor expertise to do anything in this area. Most jumpers do buy their gear based on safety, and they add more bells and whistles to make it safer. But the underlying premise is that every skydiver believes that when they pull the ir reserve handle, their reserve will be open and flying in just over two seconds. Reality is, people with small containers may be in for the surprise of their life when they are relying on their reserve to open. The rule change per se is a none issue, people were pulling higher anyway. My problem comes with the continued over-indulgence of the manufacturers by the BOD with respect to adding/changing rules and the failure of some equipment. The BOD shifted the burden of performance from the manufacturers to the S&TA's without consulting many of them (I would bet none, or the ones that are on the BOD only). And becoming an Angry Old Man in this sport is a privilege! We have watched a lot of friends die, watched more maim themselves permanently, and dealt with the BS from above for decades. We love this sport and have paid the price to have an opinion on how it should progress. I am not angry, just very disappointed in the "leadership" of USPA. A new BOD was seated, with a new President, and the BS continues. top Jump more, post less!

R&D and Testing are very expensive. Who do you think is going to pay for that? Apparently, a few people have already paid the ultimate price. Don't mind the rule, mind the BS! top Jump more, post less!

Dude, i clicked on it hoping to see Nataly You hoped to see Nataly's nuts! top Jump more, post less!

I usually pull just under 8K. top Jump more, post less!

Probably they are too busy calling USPA BOD members with their next move. USPA does have an interest in what the equipment manufacturers have to say, but it should be it should be filtered by "how does this serve/protect the average member," not "how does this serve/protect the manufacturers from liability and their own shortcomings." The raising of minimum opening altitudes is not really the issue that we have. It's how and why it was done, and the S&TA being asked to make a judgement call on a skydiver and their equipment when people ask to open lower. Interestingly, the S&TA can waiver this, but he/she can't enforce it really. An S&TA can only ground a jumper if the DZO says its okay, and unless the offending jumper has a rating, there is nothing else an S&TA can do immediately. He/she can file a 1-6 disciplinary report and forward it to the RD, who then forwards it to USPA HQ, who then forwards it to the new disciplinary committee. Not a real world deterrent. But this isn't a real world problem, most jumpers pull above 3K today anyway. The fact that we have anecdotal evidence suggesting we have a serious equipment problem (serious enough to warrant changing a BSR), and the two groups who can influence a change are doing essentially nothing. USPA and PIA are just hoping the problem will go away on its own. Heaven forbid something happens and the FAA has to step in. Everyone involved would be so much better off if they just dealt with this quickly and up front. top Jump more, post less!

Yeah, I was trying to see if you were one of those people who think all rules are bad. As far as the gist of your argument, it really makes no sense. So you like the rule (or at least don't dislike it) but you're hung up on why it was implemented. Are lives saved only valuable if they are saved for the "right" reason? Can you not understand the complicated "if...then" structure of the BOD logic? The ultimate reason behind the rule (IMO) was to save lives. There are two ways to do this vis a vis the current problem. One, which you are right to demand, is to fix the slow reserve deployment issues through rig/canopy redesign. Even if everyone involved jumped on that immediately, it would take years to be effective. The second way to fix the problem is to raise deployment altitude, thereby letting the AAD manufacturers raise their firing altitude. Of course they're going to want to limit their liability. Why wouldn't they? Allowing the AAD manufacturers to make the change be liability neutral is not "being a mouthpiece" for anyone. It's addressing a problem in an expeditious way. As far as adding liability to an S&TA, you're right in a gross sense, but the difference is that an S&TA can evaluate each jump/jumper/event/situation individually. If they feel the liability (read risk of injury/death) is too high, then they should refuse the waiver. That's the S&TA's job, using their knowledge to make jumps as safe as possible. If they don't want to do that, they should get out of the S&TA position. The change in pull altitude has already happened for most people. Most jumpers consider a container opening at 2.5K to be way too low. So a change to this rule wasn't really necessary in a practical sense. As an S&TA, it places great liability on me to decide if a jumper is capable of safely going against what USPA and the gear manufacturers recommend (including AAD makers). If something happens to little Johnny Dumpsonhishead, then his family will come looking for me through an attorney. So pretty much I will NEVER approve anyone for a jump below this altitude, and if the jumper doesn't like it, he can complain to the RD, I will even dial my phone for him. My job is a Safety and Training Advisor, not decision-maker. It should be up to the individual jumper to decide if their experience and gear is appropriate for the situation, not me. I will advise him/her as to the dangers involved and if I would make that decision, but ultimately it is up to the individual jumper. USPA just through a bunch of S&TA's under a bus so a few gear manufacturers can dodge their responsibilities. BTW, what is the plan to recalibrate the existing AADs over the next few years, since they are obviously firing too low? Is the individual jumper going to have to pay for that? Now when you buy used gear you have to know the firing altitude of the AAD.... Nice can o'worms gang! top Jump more, post less!

It's not just rigs out there that are the concern. There are some very slow opening reserves that are part of the problem as well. This whole can of worms stinks of a problem some rig manufacturers and some reserve canopy manufacturers are trying to shove off as something the AAD manufacturers want. But the request for this change did not come from an AAD manufacturer or a USPA member. While every BOD member must disclose their relationships with equipment manufacturers and dropzones to USPA, they never disclose that to the rest of us. It would be interesting to know who receives non-monetary compensation (i.e. dealer rates, discounts, sponsorship, etc) from manufacturers. top Jump more, post less!

My understanding from several sources is that the request was read by one member of the BOD, but copies of that request were not available until later. It was not on PIA stationary, but a manufacturer. craig PS. Thanks for the nod, JP. Jump more, post less!

Hi Mike, Thank you for your service on the board. Please do not take this as adversarial but my question is why you think we had to raise minimum opening altitudes to raise AAD deployment altitudes? I see fear of two-outs comes into play. I have seen at least 3 different two outs which came from AAD fires. On all three of them the planned deployment altitude was above 3000 ft. Is there a rash of 2 outs from jumpers deploying below 2500? Because if we raise the AAD activation altitude then we must raise the minimum deployment altitude or we will have two outs. They go hand in hand. I have seen several two outs with a deployment altitude of 2,000'. It is a common misconception that a Vigil fires at 840' and a Cypres at 750'. Those are the activation altitudes if you are on your back. When belly to earth the Vigil activates at 1100' and the Cypres also activates higher but in the case of the Cypres they do not specify how much higher. I tried to get the exact figure for the Cypres but they would only say "higher". It is now very risky to deploy at 2000' if you are going to get an AAD activation at 1100'. It would be virtually guaranteed a AAD activation with an AAD set to 1400' and a deployment altitude of 2000'. Mike Mullins Hi Mike, I agree that it is risky to deploy at 2000' with an AAD, at least at Freefall speeds. As a hop and pop I think you would still be OK. I do understand how orientation affects firing altitude (although I know some jumpers do not). I personally do not believe that is a reason to raise the minimum deployment altitude. Some people do not have AADs (and can safely deploy at 2000' or at least without AAD risk). I do not know anybody with an AAD who deploys at 2000' in freefall. There is some risk now but it appears jumpers have already adjusted to the AAD firing altitude and we do not have a rash of two outs based on people deploying at 2000 and I do not believe anything will change if the AAD manufacturers simply raised the firing altitude. I would still like the option to hop and pop below 2500'. Obviously the board decided otherwise. The BOD has made it waiverable by an S&TA. If you wish to deploy at 2000' then just ask. It can be waived for one jump, a series of jumps, or any way that the S&TA desires to waive it. Mike Mullins And as an S&TA, you have essentially hog tied me. The gear manufacturers and USPA say it is too dangerous to deploy below 2500', so how can I, a lowly S&TA possibly defend my waiving of that BSR if something happens? An S&TA would have to be out of their mind to waive this rule change. top PS. Thanks for your service and for coming here and addressing this issue! Jump more, post less!

Did the AAD manufacturer's ask for this? My understanding is it wasn't Airtek or Vigil begging the BOD. It certainly wasn't multitudes of members..... top Jump more, post less!

My accident happened March 10 of this year. Physically, I healed up enough to jump three weeks later and made a couple of jumps. But psychologically, it took me a lot longer to get back to where I was before the accident. For a few months after, I had real issues I had to deal with sitting in the plane on the ride to altitude. And really, it took up until the 4th of July weekend, where we jumped four days straight for me to really put it out of my mind. I think I handled it pretty well, and have a lot more empathy for those that just quite can't make it back to jumping again. Once that level of trust/belief is broken on a visceral level, you may never get back into the game. top Jump more, post less!

What we dentists put up with on a daily basis..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC8zfqsxu30 No, I didn't make this! top Jump more, post less!

Why would you need a BSR for that if you already have Sec. 105.7 in the SIM for that? I believe this is actually an FAR. top Jump more, post less!

The question is NOT valid. Why require anything of any jumper because it might place them in peril. Night jump, water training, taking a test (they might get a paper cut, or fail and hurt their self esteem!), maybe 25 jumps is too much risk before they get a license, maybe we should cut it to fifteen. This sport is dangerous and as soon as you board the aircraft you are in some peril. The more you understand that and the earlier you grasp that, then you can cope with what can happen in this sport. Being able to exit cleanly and safely at a reasonable altitude is not a difficult task. The AFF students consider it complex because they are not used to it, unlike the static line students who think nothing of it. It comes down to training, not risk. Go train! top Jump more, post less!

I just see this as one more time where "for the good of the manufacturers" has tried to become "good for the sport." First, the "age of legal majority" rule change. No DZO or member asked for this, the manufacturers did. Specifically, the tandem gear manufacturers. This was touted as being the way to save skydiving in this country, not just the manufacturers. Second, the "age limit on equipment" BSR, which is now suspended. No member group ask for this, but it would have been a boon to the manufacturers because a lot of gear would have been BSR'ed out. Now, the "raise minimum altitude" BSR change. This has been defeated at numerous BOD meetings in the past. Essentially leaving it up to the member to decide their minimum opening altitude if they have equipment requiring that extra altitude. Again, no member group came running to the BOD asking for this change..... So, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If this group of Board members insists on walking and talking like the manufacturers, then they should expect to be called "mouthpieces." top PS. I believe Mr. Sherman has been debating the effectiveness of the equipment, not the pull altitudes..... Jump more, post less!

It is really very simple. In some cases a back up device didn't work in time. The AAD manufacturers want to limit their risk and want to raise the firing altitude. They don't want to do that until they get the USPA to raise the limit as well.... Also limiting their risk of a misfire due to a jumper who is not smart enough to know his gear. Currently they don't want to raise the limit, but now they can. So this move benefits AAD manufacturers by limiting their liability by raising firing altitudes. Never mind they could of done it and just like the FXC's of old smart skydivers would just make the adjustment themselves.... Or how PD suggested pulling higher when the Stiletto came out instead of making the USPA change the rules. But you have exposed the S&TA's to more liability in return. If I waive the 2.5K rule for little Johnny Lowpull and he craters in, his family attorney may look to me as a responsible party. I should have known he wasn't ready for such a low opening, yada, yada yada. Even if I get dropped from the lawsuit eventually, it still costs time, money, and effort. So USPA is gonna throw the S&TA's under the bus and leave the manufacturers in the clear. Whee! Just the kind of representation we wanted! BSR votes should be "by name." top Jump more, post less!

Yeah, this is the real rub. "Container opening" won't show on a digital readout. It's pretty unenforceable unless someone is significantly below 2500. Also, while the S&TA can waive this, after the fact the S&TA can only ground the jumper if the DZ backs him/her up. Really the only way to do anything is to inform the RD and have him/her start a disciplinary action (1-6), and go through all the paperwork and time. Wonder what would happen if an RD received 50 requests for 1-6 actions against members in a week..... top Jump more, post less!

The real issue is people performing the wrong actions (eg. pulling and cutting away) too low. IMO there is no need to be pulling at anywhere below 3,000. The risk is too great to get a few more seconds of freefall or another point. I think they should have set container opening at 3,000. Might as well make it 8K, then we would have tons of time to do some in-air rigging, make sure you truly have a malfunction, have time to mentally review your EP's, drop your hook knife, do a few practice touches on your handles, cutaway and turn a style series, deploy your reserve and line up for a hot swoop on the pond. I don't really care about the change of opening altitude, but the reason for that change and implementation seem odd. Unlike issues that have generated lots of comments and were contentious, this one seems to have just slipped in. Wonder if this will get enough negative feedback that the BOD will suspend this BSR. Would it be nice if our "official publication" actually published something official like this so members could discuss it BEFOREHAND!? top Jump more, post less!

No kidding. Ask Topdocker what a couple of balls of crap above you look like! This being said, good job saving your life. Yeah! I had a neat little rebuttal about this last night and opted out. "Two balls of crap" means you are saying your goodbyes, not looking for your freebag.... Nice job and I am jealous. top Jump more, post less!

Anderson, IN- Jim Trantor ran the place, lots of fun and had 5 Cessnas, although not all were working at the same time.... Crazy Creek, CA- near Napa, mostly tandems, but had a few good boogies. Pilots flew gliders so they were always riding thermals to gain more altitude. You had to have a strong stomach... top Jump more, post less!

I name my landing pattern "Sacajawea." Hopefully, she will lead me home..... top Jump more, post less!

Yes, but if you find it at a pawn shop or in a dumpster, then you have a chance to get it back without a confrontation. I doubt the local police will show up when you call them, way too low a priority, but if its a known problem spot, them have "probable cause" to enter the premise may be what they are looking for. Also, if it was sewn in the label of the main canopy, you could use it to retrieve it when you cut away and it would be handy to recharge. Most rigs have places to stow a pull-up cord, so stuffing it in there shouldn't be a problem. The 50 to 150 ft range may be an issue for looking for a lost main but its better than nothing.... top Jump more, post less!

Jan- I am still a big fan of a different canopy course (and requirements) at each level of license. The licenses have all sorts of time and rw requirements, so why not add some canopy requirements that include a class? Most people learn their basic canopy skills in their AFF or SL class, and then never take a class again. Now we have added the B test, but are missing those above that level. Each license level gives us a chance to evaluate and improve jumpers' canopy skills for the safety of all of us. And certainly, the skills necessary at the B license are not the same as the skills necessary at the D license. Most people have downsized and gotten way higher performance canopies. Hey, make any rating require a new canopy skill class specific for that rating. Some of the AFFI's I see out there are the worst offenders! We keep saying we want more education and less regulation, but we are really dropping the ball in the education department when it comes to canopy skills. USPA is over twenty years behind the curve. Have fun at the meeting! Say hi to everyone for me! craig Jump more, post less!

Train on extracting it from the pouch/place the hook knife is stored. If you can't get it out quickly, it may be too late. Also, I once asked a jumper in the plane about the placement of his hook knife on his chest strap, it was just a little odd. He yanked on it a few times and finally got it out, and cut his chest strap! (Yes, he rode the plane down!) So, knowing how to get it out is just as important as knowing when to use it. top Jump more, post less!