michaelmullins

At West Tennessee Skydiving it is $2318 and that is for all jumps from 14,500'.

West Tennessee Skydiving goes to 28,000' on a regular basis. All equipment, training, and reservations are made with Kevin Holbrook of HaloJumper.com. We also offer jumps from 23,000' using onboard only oxygen. Mike Mullins West Tennessee Skydiving

Starts Friday, 23 May, at noon. Jump Mike Mullins Super King Air and Helicopter all 4 days, 23-26 May. Champion barbecue team Pork Q Smokers will be on site with pork, chicken, bbq nachos, etc, all days. Load organizers and coaches available. Coaches are free to student jumpers. Mike Mullins West Tennessee Skydiving http://www.SkydiveKingAir.com 901-759-3483

My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that a few DZs at higher elevations have waivers that allow them to take jumpers higher without oxygen. Reply: I believe you are wrong. I am almost certain that the FAA would never grant such a waiver. However, above 15,000' MSL each occupant must be PROVIDED with oxygen, they need not use it (except the flight crew with the 12,500 & 14,000 ft rules). There are DZs that take occupants higher than 15,000' MSL without providing oxygen, although they claim it is there. One DZ, which will remain unnamed, that advertised 18,000' jumps told those that questioned the oxygen supply that the oxygen "came out of the air vents", which is of course so absurd it is comical. Mike Mullins

West Tennessee Skydiving goes to 14,500' on every load. Also offer oxygen jumps from 23,000' and 28,000'. http://www.SkydiveKingAir.com Mike Mullins

Thanks!

I win.

Actually, not true. There are 11 states that uphold waivers for minors, and 3 more states that are "likely to do so". Mike Mullins I was looking for more info on Mike's reply and found the following: http://www.recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=200611gc03 Reply: This information is more current than the above link: • The act of parents waiving the right of their children to sue a sport, fitness, or recreation service provider for negligence depends upon both the common law and statutory law in that particular state. • States which currently enforce waiver agreements signed by parents- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. • States which are very likely to enforce waiver agreements signed by parents- Georgia, Idaho, and Mississippi. • States which do not currently enforce waiver agreements signed by parents- Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Mike Mullins

Actually, not true. There are 11 states that uphold waivers for minors, and 3 more states that are "likely to do so". Mike Mullins

Too old. Once they hit 16 it is hard to teach them anything.

November 1-2-3, 2013 See: http://www.skydivekingair.com/halloween/

Congratulations to Garlic City Skydiving in this hard-won fight and kudos to USPA and its Director of Government Relations Randy Ottinger. However, I think the name of their DZ stinks :) Mike Mullins

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? ***We have no authority to make them do anything, their rigs are TSOed and legal. 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. Altitudes for bailout decisions and decision heights are not BSRs, they are recommendations that Instructors are free to use or change as they see fit for their students and the same goes for all jumpers. Do you wish a BSR for this? I think not. You can keep your rant on the BOD all you wish, it does not solve the problem. What we have done will probably prevent a few fatalities. An FAA investigation, supposing they would even do an investigation, would take years so how many are we willing to lose while that may be in progress. They would simply ask the manufacturers to make sure their rigs met the TSO and he manufacturers would say yes, they do. Do you really think the FAA could test dozens of rigs in all the different main/reserve configurations to see if there is a problem? Not going to happen. Meanwhile, I am sure that all who need a waiver for this can receive one. I am really done on this. We will just have to agree to disagree. Mike

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! It is not dangerous to do hop and pops at 2,000' and it is not dangerous to pull at 2000' if you do not have an AAD (as far a two outs go). That is primarily what the waiver is for and that is why it was put in place. I would have no hesitation to issue a waiver for those 2 scenarios. What I would not issue a waiver for is a 2,000' terminal deployment with AAD. Mike

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. The BOD cannot make the manufacturers do anything and I have no idea why you think that we can. We are acting to do what is in the best interest of safety to try and prevent a few deaths. Since you obviously think you can make them do something then I highly suggest that you make them do as you wish. On one hand you do not want the BOD to make any new rule or BSR and on the other hand you want us to force the manufactures to do what we say. So, no rules for you but new rules for the manufacturers. We have no authority to make them do anything, their rigs are TSOed and legal. Mike

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

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

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. We are exactly NOT kicking the can down the road. We are doing NOW what we can to keep the "fails" from dying. We can make demands that will be ignored or we can do now what we can to save a few people. The manufacturers simply say there is nothing wrong with their rigs, will continue to say that, and say that their rigs meet the TSO Standard. So we can keep telling them there is a problem, do study after study, and waste more time. Or, we can take a practical approach and do something that will help the problem now. Further, what do we do with the 50,000 (or more) rigs that are out there that may have a problem with slow reserve deployments that the manufacturers assert meet all TSO requirements? It has nothing whatsoever to do with "pleasing" the manufacturers. Mike Mullins

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. ***This is a tempest in a teapot over 4 words. No, I don't really give a shit about this... 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? It is USPA's primary responsibility to promote safety. Fact is, regardless of where the fault lies, some skydivers are hitting the ground and dying after AAD activation. We must take the course of action that will help this problem and do it in a practical manner. For argument sake, let us just assume that the fault lies with the containers becoming too tight after manufacturers gave the skydivers what they demanded: smaller, better looking rigs. What should we do? Recall thousands of rigs for testing or compatibility checks? Not practical and would take a FAA AD to accomplish this. Not going to happen. What is practical is to raise the AAD activation altitude by about 300' to give more time for deployment. If the AAD altitude is changed up 300', then we need to raise the minimum container opening altitude to avoid a two out scenario. For those that need/want a 2,000' altitude, the waiver process was made as easy as possible and can be waived for one jump, a series of jumps, for one person, for a group of persons, etc., by an S&TA. There are "fails" out there. These are the jumpers for lack of awareness, poor training, not following their training, or a million other reasons are getting a AAD activation but are not getting a fully deployed reserve. The quickest approach to help with this is to raise the AAD activation altitude 300'. As for your statement that "the BOD will not take action that makes the manufacturers mad" I can tell you that is pure bullshit. I promise you that I and others on the board have taken actions that did not please the manufacturers. This is not about pleasing or displeasing someone. This is about a practical solution to a real problem. Mike Mullins

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 There is a BSR that states that USPA Members must follow all FARs. So, all FARs are already "de facto" BSRs The FAR that concerns alcohol, drugs, and skydiving is: § 105.7 Use of alcohol and drugs. No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft, if that person is or appears to be under the influence of— (a) Alcohol, or (b) Any drug that affects that person's faculties in any way contrary to safety. The BOD added 4 words to the FAR: § 105.7 Use of alcohol and drugs. No person may conduct, or attempt to conduct, a parachute operation............. As we cannot change a FAR the only way we could make this effective was to state it as a BSR. This change was made as a direct result of a situation that arose where a Tandem Instructor was stopped from making a jump after a DZO observed him smoking dope and then attempting to make a Tandem Jump. The DZO banned him from the DZ but no action could be taken against him by USPA as he had not actually jumped (there were other issues involved but this is the gist of the situation). In your above post you state that the pilot is not allowed to take someone up under the influence as your justification that we do not need this BSR. Does anyone out there even vaguely believe that the pilot can police this? I suppose the pilot could shut the aircraft down after every load and interview each jumper before going up on the next load. I am sure that would be popular. This was done to plug a hole in the rules. I am sure that most skydivers do not want someone attempting to jump under the influence and want the option of some way to discourage and/or discipline them if they attempt to do so. Under Part 121 and 135 rules, pilots are not allowed to be under the influence when they start duty time prior to flight. That is how they handle it and that is how we are now handling it. I see no downside to publish this FAR with this 4 word change. Again, it was already a BSR as there is a BSR to follow all FARs. If we did not have the BSR that you must follow all FARs then we would have to put all the FARs in the BSRs. This is a tempest in a teapot over 4 words. Mike Mullins

Skydivers will continue to be killed or injured as long as they are given the opportunity to exit before the aircraft is in a safe jump configuration. In most cases, that means level with reduced power with whatever flap setting is used for normal exits for that particular aircraft. I do not let jumpers even open the door before the aircraft is in exit configuration and safe for exit. Then they are allowed to open the door, check the spot, and look for traffic, all which should not take more than about 5 seconds. If DZOs and/or pilots keep allowing skydivers to exit while in a climb configuration we will still keep having the same results time and again. There is no amount of fuel or cycles saved to compensate for this totally preventable loss of life and injuries. Sure, you can just blame the jumper. "I told him not to get big, I told him to dive out, I briefed him, etc". Fact is, jumpers get excited (especially low timers) and do not do what they should do or what they were briefed to do. Should there be a death penalty for this? Should we just say we are culling the skydiving herd of the inattentive or just plain stupid? I really don't want to hear how many "successful" exits have been made from non-configured climbing aircraft. The convenience to the DZO/pilot and the few dollars saved in no way equal the carnage that results. Mike Mullins (Door Police)

Zero goes to liability insurance as there is no liability insurance available (at least in the USA) that covers anyone from bodily injury that a skydiver incurs.

The organizer will have zero liability if he has zero assets. The more assets he has, the more likely he will be sued. The plaintiff's lawyer will always go after the deep pockets, waivers mean little as they will always claim gross negligence and force you into a settlement to avoid a very costly trial. Judges nowadays are reluctant to not give the decision to the jury. Lawyers know that and that is what drives the settlement. If you have money and do not wish to be sued, stay out of the money end of skydiving. Just to get released from a lawsuit with no merit will cost you many thousands of dollars.

The harness was not designed to fit the human body in that way. So, The safety margins are compromised too much. So, It's against the rules. Because, It's not safe. Actually, I have seen it done several times. The passenger doesn't put the harness on backwards, the passenger puts the harness on the normal way and simply faces the instructor, hooks up the same way. Although I don't recommend it, I see no particular danger in doing it. Mike

False, my experimental aircraft specifically forbids skydiving in its operational limitation letter. Many planes do not allow flight with the door removed... So it is not "immaterial" and the FAA cares. Never said otherwise. But you threatened to call the police on Rico and, as you have stated, there is no LAW to prevent him from selling a rifle to a minor. The poster I replied to said it was a litigious issue why kids could not skydive, but then tried to claim someone under 18 could buy an AK47. Fact is that you CAN skydive under 18 (as your children have proven), and while you can buy a rifle under the age of 18, you can't from a dealer and the kids parents might call the cops on you for it. To the OP... You heard him, take your kid to WTS. Mike will let him jump there. I am fully aware that you cannot make a jump from an experimental aircraft and have made many posts specifically stating that. I was only making the point that the FAA does not care about the AGE of the person making the jump. I do not take tandems at my DZ under 16. Mike