riggerpaul

What you say would be absolutely acceptable to me. Way back at the beginning of these threads, my objection was to the strength of USPA's wording. When they say it is an error to have an exit with the tail low, it carries more weight than if they'd said that under most circumstances it would be their recommendation to use a more traditional jump run. When they say it is an error, they imply that a pilot who might allow such a thing is wrong, careless and/or negligent. My objection is that a shrewd lawyer might use that statement to establish an attitude of careless or negligent behavior on the part of a dropzone, even if the particular legal action did not involve a tail strike. The wording in the ad makes it a de facto rule. If USPA had chosen to make it a recommendation, and clearly worded it as such, it would have been acceptable. But my communication with HQ make it clear that they were not interested in changing the wording. All the rest followed from that. It has been suggested that those who wish to could still use the climbing exit, even though the strong wording might put them in legal jeopardy. I don't like that idea at all. The possibiliity of legal jeopardy remains. It would be like "don't ask, don't tell". If it is to be a rule, make it a BSR. If it is not intended to be a rule, the wording should be changed.

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody buy YOU has suggested it. USPA says the aircraft was configured wrong, and the pilot must configure it right. USPA says the tail is too low, USPA says the pilot must raise the tail. You cannot climb in this aircraft without lowering the tail. USPA is saying this aircraft must not be climbing during exits, because this aircraft's tail was too low. How is that NOT a rule? Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck...

Not if you had lost altitude awareness. In your first post you said "not sure of my height". If that meant you'd lost altitude awareness, then pull is the good thing. There are surely things you could have done better, but if you lost altitude awareness, getting something out is a pretty good thing to do. Because maybe you had enough altitude to stabilize, but by that time, maybe you didn't. Work on all the things people mentioned. Make that your priority over other things for a bit. Get your confidence back, and you'll be way better off in the long run for it.

You are wrong. On average the downswings exceed the upswings. The beauty of statistical analysis is that it allows you to separate out the random fluctuations and see the long term trend. I HAVE done this. The long term trend is a reduction in fatality rate of approximately 5% per year. Okay. You're surely better at statistics than I am. Should we rule that all exits are from 5000 AGL or higher if it would get the number down to 15?

USPA does not add plane crash fatality number in with the annual total - that is a different number. Okay, yes, of course. Thanks for pointing that out. My mistake. I'll edit that out of the post if I can. -paul

You don't really want to go here, do you? We'll like as not discover that the recent impressive number for US fatalities is an aberration, as opposed to a trend. I have been following the trend very carefully for many years now. I posted this a few years ago. It is down, and down by quite a lot, even without 2009's low numbers. In fact the long term trend (taking a moving average) is a 5% decline in fatality rate per year since 1986 (the earliest for which I had data). Here are the raw US fatality numbers from "the Good Ole Days", a period when USPA membership was around half of what it is now: Year - Fatalities 1969- 39 1970- 30 1971- 39 1972- 34 1973- 44 1975- 41 1976- 55 1977- 50 1978- 48 1979- 55 1980- 47 1981- 56 1982- 29 1983- 29 1984- 35 1985- 27 1986- 31 1987- 28 1988- 23 1989- 36 I didn't say anything about the good old days. Look at the more recent numbers 1996 39 1997 32 1998 47 1999 27 2000 32 2001 35 2002 33 2003 25 2004 21 2005 27 2006 21 2007 18 2008 30 2009 16 These are all in the "modern" era, with membership numbers of over 32,000. The numbers go up and down. Look at 2007. that was a pretty good year, and was followed by 2008 with 30. The change from year to year goes up or down with about equal probability. I don't believe we are seeing any clear trend. Being too particularly proud of ourselves for 2009 is a bit premature. The February Parachutist has the list back to 1961. The raw numbers don't really change all that much, especially considering the range of memberships involved. I don't know what that really means. The worst was 56 in 1981, when we had only half the members we have today. So, maybe things are getting a bit better. I know for sure that the gear is better. It could be that the modern square parachute is when things really changed, but that's not entirely clear. Maybe AADs helped. But that wasn't really clear based on the numbers from the early 90s when the modern AAD emerged. Sure, there appears to be hope. The numbers could be far worse, especially when you think about the membership numbers. (Edit to remove the paragraph about plane crashes. They don't count in these numbers. Sorry.) Thinking that we have some clear downward trend that we can expect to continue? I don't think that is a sure thing at all. But we digress. I did not intend that post to be so much about the numbers but about the question about how far we should go procedurally to save another life. Regarding the number, I only meant to say we should be cautious about being so proud of ourselves just yet. But I really do want to explore the matter of how far we should go procedurally to save lives. Should we say that all exits are 5000' or higher if it saves a life? If not, why not? Based on my position regarding the climbing exit, I have been accused of not caring about the people who get hurt or killed. I was asked if banning the climbing exit would save one life, wouldn't it be worth it? Okay, maybe it would. Right now I am interested in finding out how far we should take that logic.

You don't really want to go here, do you? We'll like as not discover that the recent impressive number for US fatalities is an aberration, as opposed to a trend. That would be sad, but not wholly unexpected. Did you read the thread where the fellow with 80 jumps couldn't do a stable hop'n'pop from 3500' for a canopy course? Perhaps USPA should mandate no exits below 5000'. Then everybody could get stable for the pull. If it would save one life, it would be well worth it, right?

So, anybody actually know the jumper in the photo that started this? Is he reading the threads? What does he think about all this? Or, was it actually a stunt for the ad in the first place?

Congratulations (and/or condolences ; your choice)!!

Tongue-in-cheek, was it? Instructors should be teaching that stuff already with the A-license hop and pop requirement. Put me on-board with that. It's going to be rowing uphill trying to get that done, though. Too much stuff has been going on that dilutes the quality of training students get. Sheer massive numbers of Instructors and Course Directors is one cause. Not tongue-in-cheek at all. That hop'n'pop is worthless for this as it seems to commonly be done. The student is most likely to get a nice jumprun with a cut and flaps and no special considerations needed. No, not tongue-in-cheek. I'm talking about a climbing low tail exit so they can see how low the tail is and understand that they must take care not to hit it. Make it like "The pilot just said GET OUT NOW. Here's what you've got to deal with. Here's how you do it right."

A clear admission that there is a problem might help some. Considering the ad that started all this discussion, USPA should have been clear that the jumper made at least as big an error as any the pilot made.

Congratulations (and/or condolences; your choice)!!

Fair enough. Will you still talk with me? I have posted that if you want to make this new rule, well, that's fine. I'd like it done with a BSR, but that's another matter. But, much more central to the discussion as it has evolved, is the question of the USPA recognizing that they cannot in any effective way say that they have any confidence in the jumpers that our current training is producing. Don't you feel you have the right to expect that the guy between you and the door knows what he is doing? Don't you think that a USPA license should provide you with some assurance that he does? Are you happy with the notion that you should reasonably expect that someone who has asked for a low pass would hit the tail? These things don't make me happy. I don't think we should be satisfied with them. Again, make the rule change if you want. I'll even stick by it. (Please use the proper channels and get the necessary support.) But aren't you at all concerned that the way we are training people these days produces jumpers who you cannot reasonably expect to know how not to kill you?

Just to reinforce topdocker. Every time we let a poorly qualified jumper on the aircraft, we are putting the rest of the people in jeopardy. If we didn't teach them to exit safely, what makes us think that they won't pitch that pilot chute over the tail, or make some other equally stupid mistake that kills us all? You have no right to endanger me by allowing that person on the airplane in the first place. Fix more problems - require only tailgate aircraft. Oh wait, there are the weight an balance issues. I know, we'll put in pilot-controlled turnstyles to control the exits. Recently, I came to the realization that we are trying to fix this problem absolutely ass backwards. We should make demonstrating a safe climbing low tail side door exit technique an "A" license requirement. That way, we know we have to take special care of students, and we know anybody else on the plane has what it takes to do things properly. We will know that we have prepared the jumper for the type of aircraft he is so likely to encounter. The very best time to teach this skill would be right at the end of the primary training, AFF, IAD, whatever. The jumper will never be more receptive to the message and the learning than at that moment. He will have enough exposure to not be in a panic, yet we can still make it very clear that this is a special survival skill and that he needs to have this skill. Sure, it has a bit more danger associated with it, but it is as dangerous if not more so to not have the skill. Even if USPA bans the climbing exit with a BSR, we should still be making this an "A" license requirement. Because accepting the notion that there are inadequately trained jumpers on the aircraft is just plain stupid. Even without a climbing exit, I don't want that person between me and the door when the pilot tells me to get out NOW. Because that's when the dummy will go into the tail and kill us all. And, yes, I am saying that if USPA wants to ban it, they should use a BSR. That makes it clear, and nobody is going to think that it is okay to slip a quick one past anybody. The BSR is the correct mechanism for such a statement. It is why we have BSRs in the first place. If there is insufficient support for a BSR, then stop trying to say there is. If this is such a problem, fine, take the steps you like to help deal with it. Use the band-aid of banning the climbing exit if you like. But, at the same time, admit that we are not training the jumper adequately, and fix that problem too. Because it is just plain stupid to be allowing poorly qualified jumpers to jeopardize the rest of us.

This couldn't be a better set up if I'd paid the man! This is a great example of why I personally don't like to try to write and post instructions. It is enormously difficult to know that what you write is both accurate and complete enough for someone else to base a life threatening activity upon. Photos help a lot, but that's so much more work that it is only done rarely. As a post mentioned, you do this wrong and you end up with a bag lock. It is pretty silly to let anything get in the way of being absolutely certain that your work has been done correctly. If there is any doubt, find someone who is absolutely certain. Preferably someone who is verifiably so.

By the way, while chatting with Mike, it came to our attention that it might be good to clarify that the Reserve Slink should be wrapped twice through the loops in the end of the bridle before securing in the usual fashion. The devil is always in the details.

In the 2009 SIM, Section 8-2.C.1.d, on page 174

When do you first get the notion that the winds are honking more than you expected? As soon as you know you are keeping the parachute you have, and you know that there are no immediate traffic problems, you should begin to evaluate your landing situation. I am not saying you fixate on it for the entire trip down, but the sooner you give it some consideration, the more time you have to plan your response. If all is well, fine, go have some fun for a while. But if you see that things might get more interesting, you should be coming up with a plan. Don't waste precious altitude before you are sure you don't need it for something more important. As soon as you notice that the wind might be a problem, that's as good a time as any to disconnect the RSL. Make the decision as early as you can. You shouldn't have to wait until you are very low and busy with other things.

I wasn't accusing you of taking shortcuts (wasn't really commenting either way). My engineering brain just couldn't let that one pass! I probably should have added a smiley. Actually, my engineering brain too no offense, just saw the opportunity to elaborate. Thought I had included a smiley too...

No matter what the setup, the bridle must remain securely fastened to the bag. You can test this before you pack the parachute into the newly configured bag/bridle. Hold the bag in one hand, and the bridle in the other. Pull HARD, trying to get the bridle to come free of the bag. If the bridle comes free, so that only the kill line is keeping the two together, your setup failed. It is always best to have a qualified person check your work if there is any doubt whatsoever. In fact, even if you have no doubt, have someone who knows for sure check it! If you have a rigger around, have him check it. If you don't have a rigger to ask, be sure that whoever checks knows and understands what to look for. Having the blind lead the blind does not really work well in rigging.

Thanks Terry!! Having given it even this much thought is all I could have hoped for. That you have, and will continue to do so, speaks very highly of you. -paul

I just though of another option to address this "problem". Place license restrictions on the privilege to exit a climbing low tail side door aircraft. We have ample precedent with night and water jumps. We could easily say that a climbing exit from low tail side door aircraft requires a "C" or even a "D" license. Put questions about this on the license exams to ensure that people who might be doing this will understand the requirements. Wouldn't this ensure that the people who do these exits are amply trained? If not, then you pretty much admitting that our training and licensing systems are failing to do their jobs. Fix what is broken. Too many people drive drunk, but Prohibition (you know, the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution) was not the answer.

Your argument sounds a little bit like "don't ask, don't tell". We can do what we want in the face of the rules (de facto or otherwise, recommendations, whatever), since we won't get caught. You are suggesting that the rules are mostly for appearance, and not actually something to be followed. That's a horrible precedent to set. I much prefer that we be up front about this, and clearly instruct how to handle the situations we deal with. Failure to do so puts USPA themselves in the cross hairs for failing to take appropriate actions against the "violators". If it is as dangerous as some say it is, put it in the BSRs. If USPA cannot get the support to do that, maybe it is not as dangerous as some are claiming. If you cannnot get get support for a BSR change, don't take gratuitous swipes that can do legal damage to people who should not have to protect themselves from the organization to which they belong. As for your assertion that it would be hard to spot, there are often cameras watching from the ground. How hard is it to hear that there was no cut? Not too hard.

If USPA says, as it has, that a climbing low pass is unsafe and should not be used, it does not matter if it is SOP or not. Simply doing it ever, even in the case you describe, is prima facia evidence of carelessness, because USPA has clearly said that it is WRONG for the pilot to let the jumper exit when the tail is low. I do not say that this should be considered a normal jump. Far from it. It is a specialty jump. We make lots of jumps that require a higher level of diligence than a "normal" jump. Night jumps, swooping, CF, skyboards, wingsuits, and skyballs are all examples. And a climbing low pass is not the only one of these that exposes innocents to the danger. Swoopers have gone into crowds. Skyboards and skyballs have been lost. Wingsuits have hit tails. The particularly strong wording that has been applied in this is simply arbitrary, and it did not need to be done this way. Call this what it is, and apply appropriate warnings. Say it is a specialty jump. Say it should not be SOP. Say it requires additional skill and diligence that not every jumper is willing or able to provide. No problem. But to say it is patently unsafe is simply not true. It is done, and done safely, on a regular basis, by those who have the skills and are willing to apply the required diligence. Just like so many other specialty jumps.

The problem with using such strong language is that it can be used even if the lawsuit is not about a tail strike. A plaintiff's lawywer will use that statement any time they feel it might bolster their assertion of carelessness or negligence on the part of a dropzone. There are dzs that offer a climbing low pass, and have never had any problem because they correctly identify jumpers capable of the required exit performance. They teach jumpers what is required before the fact, and they ensure that only those jumpers who are capable are allowed this privilege. At my home dz, we do not regularly offer such a climbing low pass to the random jumper. We don't offer a low pass as a general thing at all. As a privilege, I am allowed a low pass exit on the climb. If my home dz somehow becomes involved in a legal action, the way that USPA has chosen to present itself puts the dropzone at risk of being labeled careless or negligent, by way of "violating" a USPA recommendation. This could happen even if the incident in question has nothing at all to do with the low pass or a tail strike. It is a common tactic for a plaintiff's attorney to attempt to establish that a defendant has demonstrated a careless or negligent attitude beyond the question of the incident at hand by trying to find fault with activities not directly related to the immediate incident. No dz has to offer a climbing low pass if they do not wish to do so. If they do not feel capable of the required self-regulation, they are free to make a general restriction that circumvents the entire question. But with appropriate diligence, a climbing low pass presents no particular additional danger to anyone. If it is done correctly, it is simply not a problem. As Robin mentioned, this is not unlike hot turns, and hot fueling. Both of these require additional diligence to accomplish safely. I have personally stopped people from walking into props during loading. Had I not, we would most certainly have had a fatality. We tolerate and allow this additional risk because most are capable of providing the higher level of diligence required. Putting a dz at risk of being labeled careless or negligent because they safely operate in a manner that does not have USPA *approval* is inappropriate. It is entirely appropriate for USPA to say that they prefer that the practice be significantly restricted. It is appropriate to say that they don't like it. But it is not appropriate to say that the pilot or the dz has made an error simply by allowing such an exit. USPA said that the pilot made an error when they said that the tail was lower than it "should have been" during an exit. This is simply not true. Be clear. Some have likened this to the question of a low pull. It is not even a little like a low pull. In a low pull, there is an element of randomness that cannot be accounted for. As such, it was and is entirely appropriate for USPA to make rules about how low is too low. But in the case of the climbing exit, all the variables can be accounted for so that there is no additional danger to anyone involved. Dave, I proposed a different wording for the message from USPA. What is your opinion of that different wording? Does it say what needs to be said? Does it adequately represent the position you would like USPA to have? Please remember that there was a time when squares for students were against all standing policy. It was also once considered "essential to jumper safety" not to jump one of those dangerous new parachutes until you were considered an expert. Those who chose to go there (squares for students) were placed at serious legal jeopardy even if they exercised all due diligence. As you are well aware, that notion has changed. Am I trying to say that the climbing low pass exit is the same? No, that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that what is or is not "essential to jumper safety" depends entirely on the level of diligence the participants are willing to provide.