USPA BOD... Nothing more than a mouth piece for manufacturers

Once again the USPA BOD proves it is nothing more than a mouth piece doing several gear manufacturers bidding.

The USPA BOD just raised the min pull altitude for 'C' and 'D' license holders from 2,000 feet to 2,500. This was not on any agenda list that I read, and no input from regular skydivers was solicited....

What was done was to bow down to Bill Booth. This action has zero reason unless the next step is to mandate AAD's. And last I recall (it has been a while) Booth had a pretty large stake in the US distribution rights of Vigil.

This new rule is worthless and stupid on its own. Simplest reason? There is NOTHING in any rule that makes it impossible to pull at 2500 feet right NOW. Nothing. In fact, if you are a 'D' or 'C' license holder there is nothing to prevent you from pulling at 3,500 feet right now.

So this rule makes zero sense because it can be done voluntarily right now with zero impact on anyone. Further, a person who has lost altitude awareness from 2,000 feet is unlikely to suddenly become more aware with an extra 3 seconds.

Fact is that if the USPA actually cared about safety, they would do something that kills more skydivers than loss of altitude awareness.... And that is canopy control. This act is nothing but setting the stage to mandate AAD's.

Now, do I think pulling at 2500 feet is a good idea? Yes, and most times I pull around 3,000 feet. But this rule is unneeded since most people are already pulling above 2,000 feet and people can decide at any time to raise their own pull altitudes.

What this does is limit demo's when there are low clouds. Worse, it shows that the BOD is nothing but a mouth piece for the companies in skydiving. The BOD serves PD, UPT and DZO's not regular jumpers.

Ron

The USPA BOD just raised the min pull altitude for 'C' and 'D' license holders from 2,000 feet to 2,500. This was not on any agenda list that I read, and no input from regular skydivers was solicited....

It was on the Safety and Training Comittee Agenda published on USPA's website. Input was solicited from some jumpers, I know of at least a couple that were asked about this. I am personally against the new change to opening altitudes and made it known to three different BOD members who asked.

http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Agenda_ST_2013_07.pdf

Quote

What was done was to bow down to Bill Booth. This action has zero reason unless the next step is to mandate AAD's. And last I recall (it has been a while) Booth had a pretty large stake in the US distribution rights of Vigil.

I'd like to see _any_ evidence that this is about 'bowing down to Bill Booth."

I"m opposed to the BSR and voiced that opinion. The BSR addresses a software issue on a non-mandatory piece of equipment.
That said, the manufacturers have also openly said they won't raise the activation altitude until opening minimums are raised, because of the narrow window. People are screaming that +/-750' isn't enough (based on recent fatalities).

The BSR is passed, but things can also be "unpassed" if there is enough reason (OK, I laughed a little behind my hand at that one, the BOD rarely seems to observe "reason." )

Kinda sucks for the AFF-I students though. I honestly don't think I pulled at or above 2,500' on any of my eval jumps. (usually just under 2,500)

theonlyski

Kinda sucks for the AFF-I students though. I honestly don't think I pulled at or above 2,500' on any of my eval jumps. (usually just under 2,500)

An S&TA (or IE) can waive the pull altitude to 2,000'. I suspect most AFF I/Es will do this for course jumps. I had the same question until I heard the waiver part.

DSE

Quote

What was done was to bow down to Bill Booth. This action has zero reason unless the next step is to mandate AAD's. And last I recall (it has been a while) Booth had a pretty large stake in the US distribution rights of Vigil.

I'd like to see _any_ evidence that this is about 'bowing down to Bill Booth."

I"m opposed to the BSR and voiced that opinion. The BSR addresses a software issue on a non-mandatory piece of equipment.
That said, the manufacturers have also openly said they won't raise the activation altitude until opening minimums are raised, because of the narrow window. People are screaming that +/-750' isn't enough (based on recent fatalities).

The BSR is passed, but things can also be "unpassed" if there is enough reason (OK, I laughed a little behind my hand at that one, the BOD rarely seems to observe "reason." )

Booth has been trying to get the altitudes raised ever since he started distribution for an AAD company. Until then, he *suggested* they be raised.

When the Stiletto came out, it was suggested that anyone jumping one open higher than 2k. Same situation, yet the BOD acted only on this, now. There is no rule that a person can't open higher.

This is nothing but the BOD doing a manufacturers bidding.

djmarvin

An S&TA (or IE) can waive the pull altitude to 2,000'. I suspect most AFF I/Es will do this for course jumps. I had the same question until I heard the waiver part.

It seems silly to me to have a different standard for the course. If they're serious about this 2,500' deck, why allow AFF-I candidates to go lower?

That's not 'training as you fight'. It would require raising the altitudes for the bottom end or possibly just being accepted that AFF-I's may bust them anyways.

Cliff Schmucker wanted them raised as well. He spoke with me about it at two different PIA's (one on video, I'm just too lazy to find the link).
If this is your 'evidence' that Booth is responsible, I've got evidence that proves Jimmy Hoff was killed by a veterinarian (he hated dogs).

Hey bud...I buried this in the other thread on the same topic ref AFFIs:

Quote

This was also hinted at, somewhat, at the 2013 AFF Standardization mtg (I believe).

http://parachutistonline.com/...ndardization-meeting

The group also discussed in detail the bottom-end-sequence altitudes for evaluation jumps. In the past, candidates have experienced very low main-canopy inflations after simulating the evaluator deployment at 3,500 feet and then tracking to 2,000 feet to create adequate horizontal separation before initiating their own main deployments. Recognizing the changes in main-canopy inflation times due to today’s canopy designs, the majority of the group felt that it was time to raise the bottom-end-sequence minimum deployment altitude for evaluators from 3,500 feet to 4,000 feet to help prevent dangerously low main-canopy deployments by candidates whose canopies take a lot of time to fully inflate. This change will need the approval of the USPA Board at its July meeting before it can take effect.

In my opinion, the pull heights should be the same as a Live AFF student on AFF certification Course.
5.5 wave off + pull.
between 4.5-5.5 is the main side.
3.5-4.5 reserve side.
that should leave enought ime to track away if needed and everyone to open at a Save height.

billvon

>Fact is that if the USPA actually cared about safety, they would do something that
>kills more skydivers than loss of altitude awareness.... And that is canopy control. This
>act is nothing but setting the stage to mandate AAD's.

Did you bring this up at the meeting? What did they say?

I have emailed, called, and talked to many on the BOD. You and I think I were both signatories on a letter that several wrote years ago.

They ignored all of, like they always do

DSE

Cliff Schmucker wanted them raised as well. He spoke with me about it at two different PIA's (one on video, I'm just too lazy to find the link).
If this is your 'evidence' that Booth is responsible, I've got evidence that proves Jimmy Hoff was killed by a veterinarian (he hated dogs).

Cliff also had a financial incentive. Might want to look at the dog.

OK, I'll follow your thought.
~USPA raises container opening altitudes.
~AAD manufacturers raise activation altitudes, as now liability in doing so remains as-is.

How exactly, does that financially benefit the AAD manufacturers any more than they're already enjoying?
If your argument is "if this then that, it's a specious argument, but if you have a different point, I'm open to being enlightened.
Bear in mind, I'm not a fan of the new BSR. I think USPA could have addressed much more important issues than this one, driven by an emotional response to recently having lost old friends.

So who is in the air with a tape measure?

Hi fellow brothers & sisters,

Honestly, I am surprised there is such an outcry from the community. I don't believe this new regulation is targeted at all forms of skydiving. I think this is mostly about protecting the individuals that think they can handle an emergency, but can't then get caught in a dangerous situation.

Most skydivers I know jump with an AAD. I'm confused and would like some further insight as to how there could be any profit to the manufacturers increasing the hard deck. I'd think very few fun jumpers are pulling at 2,000. It doesn't take much brain power to realize 2,000 is low for any skill level. Sure, if you're highly experienced you won't have as a difficult time with EP's, but this regulation isn't about you in my opinion.

You've never heard of a person dieing because they deployed too high. I am confident 2,500 is a low deployment for the majority of fun jumpers.

kallend

So who is in the air with a tape measure?

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

thevasc21

You've never heard of a person dieing because they deployed too high.

Maybe YOU haven't.

Canopy collisions happen.

topdocker

Wonder what would happen if an RD received 50 requests for 1-6 actions against members in a week.....

top

That already happened. And nothing happened.
Wish you'd made it to the board this time, Craig.

I'm not at all in favor of this new BSR, but honestly - unless someone is consistently pulling at 2K or under is anyone really going to notice? And IF they did how hard is it to excuse the action? Hard pull, floating hacky, someone above me in freefall, PC in tow etc.
The biggest issues I can see are to Demo teams and low cloud days where a 2500' (or lower) hop and pop is no longer doable....

It's a paper rule, one that AAD manufacturers can dismiss some liability with, and I get that.

So...manufacturers have asked USPA to help with wingsuit training too. In 2012 alone, I'll wager wingsuit issues cost USPA and its members more $$ than every single AAD fatality over the history of the sport.The wingsuit membership asked over several polls, that USPA enact some sort of wingsuit training mechanism. USPA BOD ignored that request.
Maybe one person out of a thousand knew USPA was considering raising the container-open altitude but it handily passed the board with zero membership commentary (I wrote to members of the BOD opposing it)

That's exactly why the S&TA can waive it on the spot - for the demo jumps, that is.

but I like low hop and pops on cloudy days, too.

kallend

So who is in the air with a tape measure?

Next step requiring everyone to have an electronic Alti like a Pro-Track to record your jump into and have it downloaded into Jump-Track at manifest to check on compliance. OR just put it as a display option on the Cypres or Vigil etc.

DSE

OK, I'll follow your thought.
~USPA raises container opening altitudes.
~AAD manufacturers raise activation altitudes, as now liability in doing so remains as-is.

How exactly, does that financially benefit the AAD manufacturers any more than they're already enjoying?
If your argument is "if this then that, it's a specious argument, but if you have a different point, I'm open to being enlightened.
Bear in mind, I'm not a fan of the new BSR. I think USPA could have addressed much more important issues than this one, driven by an emotional response to recently having lost old friends.

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.