USPA actions: Was: Tandem instructor missing in lebanon

The S&TA writes the report after facts are gathered and sends it into the USPA. Nothing says that the original findings written by the S&TA along with local FAA admin will be published in its original form by the USPA. I can verify that the USPA can and has changed reports in the past. How do I know? I wrote the reports. I was quite surprised to read the report published by the USPA that removed pertinent details that most certainly save a number of lives of USPA members. I can only imagine that the details omitted in the report were to protect the interests of a particular manufacturer for a known issue when the details that were submitted didn't line up with the narrative they wanted to put out.

BarryWilliams

I was quite surprised to read the report published by the USPA that removed pertinent details that most certainly save a number of lives of USPA members. I can only imagine that the details omitted in the report were to protect the interests of a particular manufacturer for a known issue when the details that were submitted didn't line up with the narrative they wanted to put out.

Yep.... The USPA protecting manufacturers over members.

Ron

***I was quite surprised to read the report published by the USPA that removed pertinent details that most certainly save a number of lives of USPA members. I can only imagine that the details omitted in the report were to protect the interests of a particular manufacturer for a known issue when the details that were submitted didn't line up with the narrative they wanted to put out.

Yep.... The USPA protecting manufacturers over members.

I have been on the board for the past 3 years and have yet to see a single example of the organization protecting (or favoring) manufacturers or GM's over members. Additionally, I sent a PM to BarryWilliams requesting that he provide the details of the case he posted about so I could get some clarification. He has not yet responded.

You could start here: /forum/Skydiving_C1/General_Skydiving_Discussions_F18/USPA_and_PIA_Issue_Joint_Skydiver_Advisory_P3833943

In particular, John Sherman's response (post #2)

One of the things asked for in the advisory was for the PIA to "to collect and review relevant data, to work within the industry in order to identify any trends or specific causes and to make any relevant recommendations. "


Read post #11...

From the advisory "Research shows that in the past 10 years there has been about one fatality per year in the U.S. in which, for uncertain reasons, the jumpers struck the ground without a fully functional reserve parachute after apparent reserve activation at a sufficient altitude. Although most of these incidents occurred after the automatic activation device (AAD) initiated reserve deployment, others occurred after a manual reserve ripcord pull or activation by a reserve static line (RSL)."

From John, "The AAD's all show firing at 750+/- and the reserve didn't work. "

And might want to read post #70.

This might provide some reading: https://skydiveuspa.wordpress.com/category/uspa/

"Finally, USPA isn’t ignoring the tight-rig issue. Back in 2010, USPA formally asked the Parachute Industry Association to research the accidents in which the container design may have infringed on reserve deployment. The PIA committee tasked to do so is also setting up testing protocols to try to identify rig designs and components that have the potential to inhibit reserve deployment. We continue to monitor PIA’s progress and look forward to seeing continued improvement in rig design."

So, ever see that report?

"And yes, there had been discussions with the AAD manufacturers about a series of too-low (i.e. fatal) reserve deployments following proper AAD activations. With a BSR allowing a 2,000-foot main deployment, the AAD manufacturers did not feel that enough buffer existed for them to raise their baseline activation altitude. Now, a 2,500-foot main deployment BSR provides them that opportunity."

So some rigs were now having a problem opening after an AAD fire. Instead of really looking at the rigs, the USPA caved to the manufacturers and raised pull altitudes so AAD's could fire higher and help cover up the problem with tight rigs.

You see any higher AAD activation standards?

Again, I ask... Ever see that report from the PIA? The USPA asked for it in 2010. This was released in 2016 https://www.pia.com/images/rocketlauncher/PDF/TECHNICAL_REPORTS/PIA-TR-401LowReserveOpeningInvestigationReport91316.pdf

In it, the PIA basically said it could not find anything, but instead just asked for higher pull altitudes so AAD's could fire higher.

It also states, "Over the last six (6) years of discussion, committee deliberation, bench testing,
development of customized load sensors, live
testing and the combined efforts of some of
the brightest contributors to our industry in
modern times, the Committee Members have
yet to locate evidence that supports or indicates a systemic or specific equipment design
issue."

So we had a rash of "new" rigs changed under the same TSO they were originally certified under over time (rumor is that the Vector Micron is STILL under the old Wonderhog TSO) that before didn't have low activation issues... But now do. The USPA asked the PIA to look into it, and before the PIA report came out, the USPA raised pull altitudes.... Just like the PIA suggested, but two or three YEARS before they suggested it.

You see anything in that report about looking into container design some more? I mean it goes on about body position and training, but NOT rig design?

USPA changing rules to make AAD and rig makers happy and not actually holding the rig manufactures to the standard.

Ron,

As I stated, I have been on the board for 3 years and in that time I have not seen an example of the organization favoring or protecting manufacturers over members. I can not speak to how things operated prior to that.

Take note that the person making claims in that thread is (or was) a manufacturer, and thus can not be expected to be impartial when opining.

By the way, anyone can ask the board to change a BSR. I have seen several changes in my time on the board that originated from a member's idea. If you disagree with a 2,500 foot opening altitude requirement, ask for a change. The board will debate and consider it like any other request.

Raising the minimum was long overdue without respect to any problems with rigs. The 2k minimum was established in the days of 400-foot openings and almost no use of AAD's. Pitching at 2k with today's long-sniveling canopies and AAD's isn't exactly a best practice, IMO.

Also consider that the 2,500 foot minimum opening altitude BSR can be waived by an S&TA or an I/E for C and D license holders. For A and B license holders, I doubt too many people would advocate for them to be deploying at 2k anyway. I certainly wouldn't.

If you want to dump at 2k, just get a waiver.

Quote

As I stated, I have been on the board for 3 years and in that time I have not seen an example of the organization favoring or protecting manufacturers over members

Well, you didn't add IN THAT TIME till now. But in any case, I have provided an example that I knew about, and I was not even on the BOD... I'll mention that YOU also posted in that very thread. So you knew about the issue at one time... I think you were post #39.

Quote

Take note that the person making claims in that thread is (or was) a manufacturer, and thus can not be expected to be impartial when opining.

Should I also take note that you are on the BOD, and thus can not be expected to be impartial when opining?

Quote

Raising the minimum was long overdue without respect to any problems with rigs.

And yet we still have not solved the rig issue. And like I said, you see any older AAD's now made with higher opening altitudes?

Quote

Also consider that the 2,500 foot minimum opening altitude BSR can be waived.....

Strawman. My point was the USPA instead of really looking into the issue of TSO'd rigs no longer working as the original TSO required, just caved and raised pull altitudes.... Claiming it was to allow higher AAD activation, yet I have not seen CYPRES or VIGIL raise activation altitudes.

I see no reason to believe that the USPA has not put other interests over the general membership... Another example?

https://skydiveuspa.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/refocusing-the-u-s-parachute-team-sponsorship-program/

"What we weren’t able to predict was the opposition of some of our members to the idea. Some saw that the USPA would be helping the U.S. Team compete with demo teams for air show business."

Then we can add in the current museum debacle.

So when a guy says he has seen the USPA amend reports to protect manufacturers.... I can believe it.

Ron

We still have not solved the rig issue.

I have the USPA data set that drove the initial inquiry. The data set does not include any information on rig size. The makes/models of equipment components are represented in roughly the same proportions as market share.

The details of the data set are not mine to share. You can call USPA to see if they will share the data set with you. If you have particular questions, please PM me and I will share as much as I can.

--Mark

Believe whatever you like.

In my time on the board I have never heard a single conversation, read an e-mail, or been privy to any communication between board members, headquarters staff, or anyone else in which manufacturers were even brought up concerning any of the issues we deal with. Never. Not once. Maybe there's an effort to keep me in the dark because everyone knows I'll call bullsh*t, but I doubt it.

I sometimes try to address stuff I see on these forums that I believe to be off base, but no more. I have learned that I can not convince those whose minds are already made up that there is any other truth beyond that which they have convinced themselves of. I will reserve my energy for more positive efforts to serve our members.

I am availble 24/7/365 for anyone who wants to chat. 832-630-1213.

Quote

I sometimes try to address stuff I see on these forums that I believe to be off base, but no more. I have learned that I can not convince those whose minds are already made up that there is any other truth beyond that which they have convinced themselves of.

If I may Chuck, I'd advise you to continue to address things that you see here and that you know are wrong. But only once in a while and only with brief facts. Never argue, just inform. There are only a small handful of people with these beliefs anyway. The only reason to address them is not to change their mind, but to be sure that other, especially newer people do not get the wrong idea.

chuckakers

I sometimes try to address stuff I see on these forums that I believe to be off base,.... I have learned that I can not convince those whose minds are already made up that there is any other truth beyond that which they have convinced themselves of.

Huh, exact same thing I am feeling.

Quote

I will reserve my energy for more positive efforts to serve our members.

Maybe you should have the USPA look into failure of TSO'd rigs to open in time? Maybe you should ask why the USPA is buying into a museum with general funds from the membership? Maybe look into making the Group Member program actually something useful or try to get rid of it.

Or you could just continue to claim you personally know nothing of the issues (in spite of you positing on the topics before).

chuckakers

******I was quite surprised to read the report published by the USPA that removed pertinent details that most certainly save a number of lives of USPA members. I can only imagine that the details omitted in the report were to protect the interests of a particular manufacturer for a known issue when the details that were submitted didn't line up with the narrative they wanted to put out.

Yep.... The USPA protecting manufacturers over members.

I have been on the board for the past 3 years and have yet to see a single example of the organization protecting (or favoring) manufacturers or GM's over members. Additionally, I sent a PM to BarryWilliams requesting that he provide the details of the case he posted about so I could get some clarification. He has not yet responded.

Before your time, but when I was on the BOD, the BOD voted on the BSR raising the minimum age to 16 without discussion. Against the advice of USPA in-house council. Even though the age limit had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with lawsuits. No member other than a gear manufacturer asked for it. It passed.

top

Ron

failure of TSO'd rigs to open in time

What evidence do you have of rigs not opening in time?

--Mark

mark

***failure of TSO'd rigs to open in time

What evidence do you have of rigs not opening in time?

--Mark

See post #4

Ron

******failure of TSO'd rigs to open in time

What evidence do you have of rigs not opening in time?

See post #4

That's it?

--Mark

Hi Mark,

Quote

That's it?

Yup, and it is nothing.

IMO until such time as Ron can cite a specific TSO test for the applicable rig, he might just as well urinate into the wind.

Jerry Baumchen

mark

*********failure of TSO'd rigs to open in time

What evidence do you have of rigs not opening in time?

See post #4

That's it?

--Mark

It was enough for the USPA to ask the PIA to do a study.

Ron,

Can you explain why a museum is a bad thing for the sport of skydiving?

LeeroyJenkins

Ron,

Can you explain why a museum is a bad thing for the sport of skydiving?

Never said it was. I said it was not something the USPA should be funding.

I am not alone in that thought: /cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=334066#334066

That whole thread actually has some really good points.

This whole thing goes back to before 2002. The PIA and the USPA each gave matching grants of 25K to the "The American Museum of Sport Parachuting." The American Museum of Sport Parachuting was established in *1986*.

And as of 2018, we still have no museum. I have friends that bought "bricks" for the museum. The museum has still not been built.

I have no issue at all with a museum. I just don't want the USPA to waste money on it. I'd rather the USPA work on airport access issues and lobbying efforts to support skydiving. Maybe focus on better student programs, better gear, support the National teams, ensure the insurance is still available.

Here is a thought, maybe spend some money on jump pilot training? Maybe work on reducing these types of accidents: /cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4895519;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

I think if a private entity wants to run a museum for..... Well, anything, they should do whatever they want. If you want to spend membership money on it, then you should ask the membership.

Not a difficult concept.

Ron

***Ron,

Can you explain why a museum is a bad thing for the sport of skydiving?

Never said it was. I said it was not something the USPA should be funding.

I am not alone in that thought: /cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=334066#334066

That whole thread actually has some really good points.

This whole thing goes back to before 2002. The PIA and the USPA each gave matching grants of 25K to the "The American Museum of Sport Parachuting." The American Museum of Sport Parachuting was established in *1986*.

And as of 2018, we still have no museum. I have friends that bought "bricks" for the museum. The museum has still not been built.

I have no issue at all with a museum. I just don't want the USPA to waste money on it. I'd rather the USPA work on airport access issues and lobbying efforts to support skydiving. Maybe focus on better student programs, better gear, support the National teams, ensure the insurance is still available.

Here is a thought, maybe spend some money on jump pilot training? Maybe work on reducing these types of accidents: /cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4895519;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

I think if a private entity wants to run a museum for..... Well, anything, they should do whatever they want. If you want to spend membership money on it, then you should ask the membership.

Not a difficult concept.

Understandable, you normally mentioned it in the same breath as other criticism and wasn't sure if they were related.

Ron

******failure of TSO'd rigs to open in time

What evidence do you have of rigs not opening in time?

--Mark

See post #4

The database that led to the LRO investigation included just 24 fatalities over a period of 12 years. It included 5 cases where the reserve was activated at an estimated altitude of 200-300 feet, and 2 cases where the reserve was not activated at all, either manually or with an AAD. Also 2 cases where camera wings may have interfered with emergency procedures, and at least one where the cutaway altitude was low enough the AAD did not detect firing speed until too late. And one case where the AAD was set to fire at 200 feet -- and did.

In that database, harness/container make/model was identified 19 times. The size of the container was identified zero times. That is, there is no way to tell if the containers were too tight, too loose, or just right.

The length of the closing loop (which would affect pilot chute performance), method of packing, or other rigging issues was not mentioned at all.

In the 14 cases where a reserve model was mentioned, 9 were certificated under TS0-C23c Category B (that is, certificated sometime between 1984 and 1994), and 5 were TSO-C23d (1994 and later). Reserve sizes ranged from just over 100 square feet to around 300.

Based on the available anecdotes (I hesitate to call it "data"), there is no identifiable problem with the gear itself. The most common problem is low pull, low pull after cutaway, no pull, or some other version of user error, for which raising pull, decision, and AAD firing altitudes is entirely appropriate.

--Mark