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

Yep, me too. S&TA can clear it.

But to expand on this a little. One on the discussion points was that exemptions are to be event specific. Meaning that your waiver is good for a specific jump or series of jumps. Not in perpetuity. In other words, You can't get a cloud waiver this Saturday and be good for the rest of the season.

In other words, the USPA and PIA have collaborated to increase safety margins and reduce liability industry wide. Wether we like it or not.

Sorry bro. Not seeing the big conspiracy here.

Quote

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.

If you listen to what the BOD is saying, it was not to give more time (since as you stated most jumpers pull above 2.5k already) it is a move to allow AAD manufacturers to raise the firing altitude. They do not want to do it before not because they were afraid of more misfires.

This new rule allows them to raise the firing altitude from 750 to 1k.

Quote

I'm confused and would like some further insight as to how there could be any profit to the manufacturers increasing the hard deck

Limits their liability. There is no doubt a 1k AAD firing altitude would be safer, but they will not do that since it was too close to the C and D altitude of 2k. They can now raise it with protection.

Quote

It doesn't take much brain power to realize 2,000 is low for any skill level.

But it is not too low. People have been pulling there for decades. And as Quade pointed out, a guy that lost track of time is unlikely to get much from the three seconds ..... In fact, people often delay based on the amount of time they think they have. RE: if I pull at 2 and have a mal, I handle it right then. I I pulled at 5, I can take some time.

Quote

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.

It is a out the C an D license holders.... The highest level the USPA has. We are not talking about students. And there is nothing that prevents a D license holder from pulling higher.

So since nothing is preventing a person from pulling higher, and most people pull above there anyway.... Why is a rule change needed? Think about that... Why change it if not for the AAD manufacturers?

Quote

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.

You are missing the point. It is not about the rule, it is a out how the BOD is dictating rules based on the desires of a manufacturer and not the membership. THAT is the issue, not the rule itself

Deisel

In other words, the USPA and PIA have collaborated to increase safety margins and reduce liability industry wide. Wether we like it or not.

Sorry bro. Not seeing the big conspiracy here.

The USPA is acting to reduce *manufacturer liability*.... The USPA is not the PIA. That is a conspiracy, even if you don't want to see it

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the BOD could have had a wider discussion of the issue. I like how the wing-suit BSR has been discussed as an example.

Flawed process but with an acceptable outcome. Room for improvement, sure. But no reason for burning a at the steak on this one.

Deisel

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the BOD could have had a wider discussion of the issue. I like how the wing-suit BSR has been discussed as an example.

Flawed process but with an acceptable outcome. Room for improvement, sure. But no reason for burning a at the steak on this one.

There's NEVER a reason to burn a steak.

Quote

But it is not too low. People have been pulling there for decades

Maybe, but the gear has certainly changed over the last few decades. Canopies open slower, and fly/turn/descend/malfunction faster as well. Containers have become freefly friendly, and as a result are tighter and more 'built-up' then they were decades ago.

Some would argue that the gear has gone in the wrong direction, but the fact is that it's there and not going back anytime soon. So the application of the gear should change. If you have to give up 500ft of freefall to fly a faster canopy, and have a rig that holds together during any freefall maneuvers you can imagine, then so be it.

Any rule that's decades old in a sport that has gone though the number and scope of changes as skydiving should certainly be reviewed for it's applicability in the current environment.

If they're only raising the firing altitude 250 feet from 750 to 1 k, why wouldn't they just raise opening altitude to 2250, instead of 2500?

Opening altitude in Canuckistan for experienced jumpers is 2200

kallend

So who is in the air with a tape measure?

Exactly!

An extra 500 ft will cut off almost 3 seconds of my freefall time per jump. More useless nonsense from the BOD.

What's the big deal? Let them raise the deployment altitudes. I generally pitch anywhere f/ 3500-2500 anyway. Freaking canopy takes a good 800' snivel. When I was flying my Cobalt, I used to deploy in a track, or a sit position just to get the "Two stage opening" to get the rag open. I'm all for raising deployment altitudes. Like it or not, we're losing too many of our peers. I commend the work our BOD is doing & believe we have some of the best minds in the sky diving world there. From an S&TA's point of view, I reckon a pair of binoculars with a range finder should work quite nicely!

Best-
Richard

kallend

So who is in the air with a tape measure?

FAA maybe? My first jumpmaster who musta had a lasar rangefinder on the ground. " You been drinking? Pulled kinda low eh?" Alti said 1600' when I checked. You never know who is watching.

rwieder

What's the big deal? Let them raise the deployment altitudes. I generally pitch anywhere f/ 3500-2500 anyway. Freaking canopy takes a good 800' snivel. When I was flying my Cobalt, I used to deploy in a track, or a sit position just to get the "Two stage opening" to get the rag open. I'm all for raising deployment altitudes. Like it or not, we're losing too many of our peers. I commend the work our BOD is doing & believe we have some of the best minds in the sky diving world there. From an S&TA's point of view, I reckon a pair of binoculars with a range finder should work quite nicely!

Best-
Richard

Ah yes, the "it doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" retort. That's got a long and storied history of being awesome.

Deisel

Yep, me too. S&TA can clear it.

But to expand on this a little. One on the discussion points was that exemptions are to be event specific. Meaning that your waiver is good for a specific jump or series of jumps. Not in perpetuity. In other words, You can't get a cloud waiver this Saturday and be good for the rest of the season.

I pull at 3 on freefall jumps. I have no problem getting out at 2500 on a hop and pop though. I'm probably open at the same altitude or higher on the hop and pop.

Quote

Like it or not, we're losing too many of our peers.

This is what people seem to be ignoring when they bitch about higher pull altitudes. I don't think it's incorrect to say that every single jumper who went in with a partially deployed reserve will still be alive today if they had another 500 ft.

Everyone is going to say that you just need to act higher, and take care of business sooner, but the simple fact is that most people don't think about going in when they plan a skydive of make decisions. They think about less severe key points in the skydive, with two of them being 2k (the lowest published pack opening altitude) and 750ft (AAD firing altitude, if so equipped). Like it or not, people don't think they're going to go in, so they use these altitudes as their bottom end 'landmarks'.

Moving both of them up is going to build more altitude in the 'attitude' of jumpers with regards to how their actions down low. It's not going to make much of a dent in some of the more experienced jumpers, but we graduated 3 new A license holders just this past weekend, and not a single one of them is going to ever be comfortable being in freefall below 2.5k. As far as their concerned, anything past 2.5k is going to be LOW, and a time for immediate action, and that's a good thing.

It has to start somewhere, and now is a great time. To put the 'big picture' in perspective, I know a jumper who hit the ground with a partially inflated reserve and did not survive. I was there when he made his first jump, and jumped with him for years, right on up to him earning his AFF rating. In that case, if the pull altitude was bumped up to 2.5k the same weekend he got his A license, he might still be alive today.

To anyone who makes the bullshit 'slippery slope' argument, and asks why we don't pull at 8k, it's because (like I said) that's bullshit. Between the time that 2k was set as the min pull altitude and today, the gear and the sport have gone through some significant changes, and many of them point toward bumping pull altitudes up a notch. Pulling at 2k with a modern, slow opening canopy and an AAD is setting a VERY thin margin, and there is simply no reason to cut it that close.

Personally, I made this change to my own program several years ago. I used to jump a Sabre 1, and got used to the quicker openings and easy-going nature of the canopy. I used to pull at 2k all the time, and sometimes even a hitch lower. Then I moved to a Stiletto, which opened slower and was loaded higher, and I found myself reaching for the PC a little sooner. Later, I started jumping a Velo, and made it more of a 'rule' that I would be opening higher. I have never regretted having more altitude between me and the ground after opening.

I have only been jumping for a year and a half but i have never been able to justify a planned opening at 2,000ft. Call me a pussy if you like but pitching at that height would see me under my hard deck without a functional canopy. I would much rather trade a few seconds of meaningless solo free fall for a bigger buffer between me and the ground (plus AAD firing height for that matter) should shit hit the fan.

If I wanted the thrill of 'if this doesn't work in dead' I'd be BASE jumping

Deisel

Flawed process but with an acceptable outcome.

I disagree Louis. This is not an acceptable outcome. This is going to have impacts beyond what they intended.

"The road to Hell....."

Ron

***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.

But you have exposed the S&TA's to more liability in return. If I waive the 2.5K rule for little Johnny Lowpull and he craters in, his family attorney may look to me as a responsible party. I should have known he wasn't ready for such a low opening, yada, yada yada. Even if I get dropped from the lawsuit eventually, it still costs time, money, and effort.

So USPA is gonna throw the S&TA's under the bus and leave the manufacturers in the clear. Whee! Just the kind of representation we wanted!

BSR votes should be "by name."

top

wait till you are on a 12 or 16 way and need a little more sereration at pull time. Have you ever had someone track under you? Never pull low unless you are. Don't screw with malfunctions, chop them and pay ur rigger well!

grue

***What's the big deal? Let them raise the deployment altitudes. I generally pitch anywhere f/ 3500-2500 anyway. Freaking canopy takes a good 800' snivel. When I was flying my Cobalt, I used to deploy in a track, or a sit position just to get the "Two stage opening" to get the rag open. I'm all for raising deployment altitudes. Like it or not, we're losing too many of our peers. I commend the work our BOD is doing & believe we have some of the best minds in the sky diving world there. From an S&TA's point of view, I reckon a pair of binoculars with a range finder should work quite nicely!

Best-
Richard

Ah yes, the "it doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" retort. That's got a long and toried history of being awesome.

It does affect me!! And that's why I'm OK with it. It's a good move IMO. I really don't see the conspiriecy based on the info I've seen. Sounds like the players are working together to make our sport safer... those snakes?

Sorry not in favor of either change. The one I never see any one discuss is that fact that potential change of the AAD firing altitudes isn't the full story. AAD set for 750 in belly to earth orientation = almost 1100 feet in none belly to earth(its out of your burble)
Moving the AAD to 1000feet, means possible fire at 1300-1400.

Sorry I want the AAD to be LAST resort, the only reason AAD's became acceptable in the first place was they finally started showing they probably wouldn't kill you with a misfire, The main firing parameters are speed and altitude. They don't know what else is going on, i.e. canopy wrap, idiot tracking under you. If i'm forced to dump lower than I want because of something, i'd rather not be killed by the AAD.

I think the push to change is so we don't look to hard on why reserves aren't working with TSO limits, that needs to be addressed

I have no issue with H&P at 2K, prefer to pull at 2500-2700 at FF speeds. Don't agree with pushing liability to the STA's

Steve,
I've still been in freefall around 1500ft exactly twice. One was in the AFFIRC and the other was a real student emergency (I think you were on the DZ that day). The second I'd do again if necessary. Otherwise, I never want to be that low for any reason.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I just dont see a good reason to not have a conopy out before youre down in the triple digit altitude zone.

I think this will have unintended consequences for 7711-1 Demo Waivered events. Now the "Special Provisions For Parachutists" has a paragraph that states 2000 feet -pack open. It is created by the FAA FSDO for airshows weeks and even months before the shows. If USPA changes to 2500 as a BSR then it is likely-almost certain to find it's way into the 7711. The S&TA will have no say to change this FAA document. In the airshow business 2000 feet is sometimes the difference between doing the demo and not, and/or is sometimes a preferred option for some acts.

The FAA printed 7711-1 Waiver will not allow for S&TA's to intervene, and if conditions change on the day of the demo, etc. the FAA airshow supervising official in charge usually can't be found in a moment's notice. Heck, probably can't be found in an hour's notice. The more authority a supervising official has at a big airshow the harder it is to contact him. How can he have the knowledge or judgment to make any such decision on the spot? Get on the phone with the S& TA? Who says the S&TA would be available by telephone? More complications and verified communications to be reviewed in case of an insurance claim where breaching of insurance conditions are at issue, (demo insurance is thru USPA) yadda yadda etc.

The waiver is printed "in stone" and must be complied with to avoid a violation and to comply with demo insurance provisions. Doubt it can be changed at the last minute, and doubt the S&TA would be able to influence the author of the 7711, even if one could arrange telephone communications with the two parties.

I hope 2500 doesn't make it's way into the 7711 Waivers. If the current BSR language is in place, I bet it will. In my opinion the new BSR should exempt ALL demos from this requirement. If it does the FAA will probably leave the 2000 in place.





the
BSR should state this new 2500 standard shouldn't apply to any demo jump.

Deisel

Steve,
I've still been in freefall around 1500ft exactly twice. One was in the AFFIRC and the other was a real student emergency (I think you were on the DZ that day). The second I'd do again if necessary. Otherwise, I never want to be that low for any reason.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I just dont see a good reason to not have a conopy out before youre down in the triple digit altitude zone.

I'm interested on #2, was 1500 your hard deck or did you get the student deployed in at 1500? I remember a double fatality recently from a aff jump in Florida I believe. What is taught in AFF course about situations like those? Just curiosity as a sub 100 newb.

faulknerwn

But how many people going in pulled at 2k? I know that most of the reports I've read of people going in with partial reserves had people pulling much higher than that but just taking too long on procedures.

Bingo.

I figure in a few years this will be accepted and nobody will worry about it. But you are correct, the issue was they fought it too long, not that they pulled low. Most of us choose to pull well above two, but it is nice to have the freedom and choice to get out on a 2K hop n pop on a cloudy day, or get those extra feet of separation when tracking doesn't go as planned.

If the gear isn't living up to the TSO standards, I think that is a bigger issue than if I pull at 2500 feet or 2499.