Southern_Man

Mine's this week, only 4 years in but hopefully with many, many more to come! "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Aerodyne does not recommend pushing the nose into the center of the pack job or split rolling the nose. Nor do most modern canopies need this. If you are getting hard openings I would look elsewhere in your packing or body position for the culprit--fix that first instead of looking to band-aid over the problem. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Actually something very similar happened to me. Had a trip to the ER after a hard landing. Found out one of my ER nurses had an A license and had made ~30 jumps 5 years ago or so. Lying in the examining room I am trying to convince her to get current. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

From cutaway handle pull? He did not pull his reserve. (oh, sorry you are looking at the other video on this one) Anyway, I agree with what Jerry said earlier in the thread--time of deployment from an AAD fire is not a TSO standard. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Not quite! You really need to look at some recent cutaway videos. I think you might just get a wakeup call. There are several that are in the 4-6 second range and some even a little longer. MEL Hi MEL, can you post a few of those videos? Thanks, Ken "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Ok. Check my math, please: 30 tests have a 95% chance of detecting a problem if the underlying failure rate is at least 1 in 500. Mark It's been a while since I've done statistics, so I could be remembering something wrong, but unless the expected n>= 5 then you are not going to be able to generate a confidence interval with any accuracy (I think I remember that right). You have to quadruple your sample to halve the confidence interval. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

If the FAA was petitioned and the equipment was questioned by the FAA; the it would be the manufacturer. I do believe a third party needs to also witness all testing in the future though. Who that would be is a good question though. MEL Hi MEL, So you are not proposing USPA ban gear without additional substantial data. You are not proposing that USPA conduct their own testing. I fail to see any difference in what I posted above. I guess USPA can take their concerns to the FAA if they want. As you are well aware that is a big can of worms to open. Ken "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Hi MEL, Who would do the testing and where would the money come from? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You are missing one thing that USPA can do. They can dis-allow any members from using gear that is questionable or unsafe at group member DZs. The previous Argus issue comes to mind..... MEL Hi MEL, Yes, that is theoretically an option. I don't think USPA ever banned the argus. Individual drop zones did. Container manufacturer's did. Not USPA. I don't think that is a practical path for the USPA. It would open the USPA for litigation. If USPA was going to ban gear on the basis that it does not meet the TSO (or was unsafe, which would amount to the same thing) then they had better be damn sure they have testing data that shows that. I do not think USPA has either the money or the expertise to do gear testing. If USPA would release the details of the incidents than jumpers could see for themselves if there was gear which featured consistently in such incidents, whether specific AADs, Containers, sizes, or reserve types. That would allow jumpers to make decisions on the basis of safety and put market pressure on the manufacturers, which is IMHO, the most likely way to increase safety. If people won't buy it the manufacturers will change. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I don't know if that is true or not. USPA certainly had more information about the incidents which they referred to in their Skydiver Advisory then they are willing to disclose. I have been through the incident reports on DZ.com and believe that I have identified most of the incidents referred to in the advisory. I'm not sure I have them all, or have the right ones. Some of the information is incomplete, speculative, etc. I still believe it is unconscionable that USPA hasn't released what they have (you know, the information they forward to PIA). This is within the scope of USPA's mission and would serve their constituents well. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Have you read anything in this thread? The whole concept is it should be a USPA issue if the organization is there to protect and serve skydivers. If they are there for the benefit of manufacturers, then they might not choose to make it their issue. If it is true that modern equipment does not pass the TCO standard, then USPA should be doing something about it because the organization is funded by the people using that equipment. I've read, and commented, a number of times in the thread. The USPA does not issue the TSO. The USPA has no regulatory authority over the manufacturers. The USPA does not have either the means nor the expertise to do its own independent equipment testing. All the USPA can do is what they have already done--alert skydivers that there are concerns about a number of incidents of the reserve not coming out in time. Actually they could do one more thing--they could actually release in a consolidated form all of the information they have about all of the accidents. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Bill, the fundamental issue is the suspicion that modern equipment no longer opens as quickly as it used to. Regardless of what teeth the TSO actually has, the USPA as a member organisation should really be fighting hard on OUR behalf to address the root cause. BTW I would be happy with the outcome being that a TSO rev x appeared that required a 5 second deployment or 500ft/1000ft for a reserve to open. At least then we would know what we are dealing with. This is not a USPA issue "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I see no evidence that any of the bodies you mentioned up at the top are doing a thing to study the issue. If they are then they are being awfully quiet about it. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

The AWOS at your airport is the most accurate and best for current conditions (if your airport has AWOS). There are various aviation sites which give relevant forecasts (including winds and clouds) which I think are better than the generic weather.gov or weather underground. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

so you don't actually skydive? Do you think all skydivers are drunks and potheads? It was a joke, but I now feel the need to draw a Venn diagram... "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Depending on the state you are in "social host liability" is already a reality for many people who would host a party in their own home. It does not necessarily require that the host be the one that bought the alcohol either. A little different circumstances than this but a similar idea. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

so you don't actually skydive? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I totally disagree that the minimum pull altitude had to be raised in order to raise AAD activation. My AAD can already be set to activate above 1000 ft (although I of course could lower it again). No USPA action required. You cannot even define what the safe minimum difference between pull altitude and AAD activation altitude is. This is no way to make policy. Again, I don't know of a single two-out incident where the planned pull altitude was lower than 2500 ft. Do you? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Raising the minimum pull altitude does nothing to give the AAD more time to function. It is entirely unrelated. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

It takes time. Video is a great tool Many times it is not just the flare height. I have seen many new jumpers insist they completed their flare when they had not. Are you jumping the same canopy each jump? That is another variable even if they are the same make and size. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

The risk of a two-out will go up. Two-outs are not as dangerous as no-outs, but the frequency of potential two-out situations is a lot higher than the frequency of no pulls. One of the main reasons people give for not using an AAD is that they don't want a safety device that could increase their risk in certain cimcumstances. Raising the AAD deployment altitude without adjusting general behavior regarding activation altitudes and hard decks will increase the risk that a safety device will kill someone. My position is that there has already been an adjustment in general behavior regarding activation altitudes and hard decks. I am unaware of a rash of problems happening because people are pulling so low (intentionally) that their AAD fires anyway. All the two outs I am aware of happened because of a general loss of altitude awareness, which is exactly when you want them to fire because there is no way to know if the jumper will regain such awareness before impact. All those cases the planned deployment altitude was above 3000 feet. Honestly I know a few jumpers, but only a few, who pull below ~3000. The rule is, IMHO, totally unnecessary because jumpers have already modified their behavior and takes away one option which I would like to avail myself of (low hop and pop on cloudy days) when its purported intent is not in play. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I'm not Ron, but I don't like the rule. I favor higher AAD firing altitudes (~1000 ft) but see no reason to have to raise deployment minimums to do that. If the manufacturers won't do that, well that is fine but I don't think very highly of that decision and won't support such manufactures in that action. If manufacturers already know that that firing altitudes are too low to operate with acceptable reliability (and there is a pretty considerable body of evidence that suggests that they do) than they are already exposing themselves to considerable extra liability by not acting. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

A semi-stowless has been on my wish list (but not at the top, obviously) for a while now. Haven't decided if I will go for the Wings bag of something else. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Also, the most recent paragear catalog states that magnetic riser covers are an option on Wings now. I don't see that on the order form on the website, although it may be somewhere else. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

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. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"