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

[mark 107]

faulk04

You don't need to sign a piece of paper to do a h&p at 2k, all the S&TA needs to do is say it is waived on that specific jump

Ha ha.

_You_ don't need to sign a piece of paper, but the S&TA does. The S&TA needs to file the waiver in writing on the waiver form in the SIM, then send it to the USPA Regional Director and USPA Headquarters. (USPA SIM section 2-2, para C.)

Mark

[topdocker 0]

skyjumpenfool

***
I'm wondering why they, the BOD, are only interested in saving the small proportion with this change when they could be taking it to the more likely cause and saving a larger number of lives. They have made no indication that they will be doing that.

Kinda like many doctors...treat the symptom, not the cause and let it go at that.

Do we really believe the USPA, the PIA, the manufactuers, and the FAA are not studying this issue? And, do we really think that the manufactuer who solves this problem will not be rewarded with sales $$$$'s by advertising the results?

When you buy gear, do so based on safety results from testing and not "how cool it looks". When we do that in mass, watch the manufactuers change there tune. The bottom line in all of this... $$$$$ Talks!!!

I believe the BOD did "what they could do" to address this issue. Now, it's up to ME (and you)! We vote on this issue everytime we spend a dollar on gear.

I believe USPA has a couple of people there occasionally who look into the gear issues when something comes up (or someone goes in). The PIA is dragging its feet because they cannot show that some of the major players (and payers!) in the PIA may have screwed the pooch on this one. Easier to say, "We are studying that," and go about business as usual. Those manufacturers are working to redesign their equipment so they problem doesn't keep coming back to them, but the bad gear and bad gear combinations are still out there. The FAA only cares that the paperwork is in order- they have neither the time, money, nor expertise to do anything in this area.

Most jumpers do buy their gear based on safety, and they add more bells and whistles to make it safer. But the underlying premise is that every skydiver believes that when they pull the ir reserve handle, their reserve will be open and flying in just over two seconds. Reality is, people with small containers may be in for the surprise of their life when they are relying on their reserve to open.

The rule change per se is a none issue, people were pulling higher anyway. My problem comes with the continued over-indulgence of the manufacturers by the BOD with respect to adding/changing rules and the failure of some equipment. The BOD shifted the burden of performance from the manufacturers to the S&TA's without consulting many of them (I would bet none, or the ones that are on the BOD only).

And becoming an Angry Old Man in this sport is a privilege! We have watched a lot of friends die, watched more maim themselves permanently, and dealt with the BS from above for decades. We love this sport and have paid the price to have an opinion on how it should progress.

I am not angry, just very disappointed in the "leadership" of USPA. A new BOD was seated, with a new President, and the BS continues.

top

Jump more, post less!

[faulk04 0]

mark

***You don't need to sign a piece of paper to do a h&p at 2k, all the S&TA needs to do is say it is waived on that specific jump

Ha ha.

_You_ don't need to sign a piece of paper, but the S&TA does. The S&TA needs to file the waiver in writing on the waiver form in the SIM, then send it to the USPA Regional Director and USPA Headquarters. (USPA SIM section 2-2, para C.)



Mark

For every other BSR you need to do that but not for this one.

From Ed Scott:

To allow those good reasons, the board motion allows Safety and Training Advisors to waive the BSR on a jump-specific basis. If there is a low ceiling and the airplane can’t get above 2,500 feet for low exits or accuracy jumps or if the same low ceiling threatens a demo or if the big-way attempts need a little more room at the bottom to ensure adequate separation, then the S&TA simply waives those specific jumps from the BSR. There is no required paperwork or time spent waiting on someone else’s approval. However, DZ-wide or season-long waivers are not the intent.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Do we really believe the USPA, the PIA, the manufactuers, and the FAA are not studying this issue?

The USPA asked the PIA for a report back in 2010.... Have you seen that report yet? Three years and no report from the PIA, and the USPA has taken no other action as far as I know.

But please, tell us what the USPA has done since 2010 and inform us what the PIA has done since then. Also, give us some insight into what the FAA is doing. You seem to think something is going on that we don't know, so please educate us.

Quote

When you buy gear, do so based on safety results from testing and not "how cool it looks". When we do that in mass, watch the manufactuers change there tune. The bottom line in all of this... $$$$$ Talks!!!

Which rigs have this problem? Which reserves take too long to open?

THESE are the answers the USPA should be providing... Not changing a BSR to hope the problem goes away.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,057]

>I'm wondering why they, the BOD, are only interested in saving the small proportion
>with this change when they could be taking it to the more likely cause and saving a
>larger number of lives. They have made no indication that they will be doing that.

What "that" would they do to save a larger number of lives?

>Kinda like many doctors...treat the symptom, not the cause and let it go at that.

Good analogy, actually. They will try (and probably fail) to get the guy to diet and exercise, then prescribe statins, then eventually do a bypass.

Still, a doctor who does that, IMO, is a better doctor than one who says "you won't exercise? Fine, die."

[Bolas 5]

Is the deployment height waiver recorded in any way or just verbal?

[topdocker 0]

Bolas

Is the deployment height waiver recorded in any way or just verbal?

Looks like verbal only. Which means a jumper could do a demo low, then sell out the S&TA by saying he/she was TOLD it was okay.

"From Ed Scott:

To allow those good reasons, the board motion allows Safety and Training Advisors to waive the BSR on a jump-specific basis. If there is a low ceiling and the airplane can’t get above 2,500 feet for low exits or accuracy jumps or if the same low ceiling threatens a demo or if the big-way attempts need a little more room at the bottom to ensure adequate separation, then the S&TA simply waives those specific jumps from the BSR. There is no required paperwork or time spent waiting on someone else’s approval. However, DZ-wide or season-long waivers are not the intent."

top

Jump more, post less!

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

topdocker

***Is the deployment height waiver recorded in any way or just verbal?

Looks like verbal only. Which means a jumper could do a demo low, then sell out the S&TA by saying he/she was TOLD it was okay.

"From Ed Scott:

To allow those good reasons, the board motion allows Safety and Training Advisors to waive the BSR on a jump-specific basis. If there is a low ceiling and the airplane can’t get above 2,500 feet for low exits or accuracy jumps or if the same low ceiling threatens a demo or if the big-way attempts need a little more room at the bottom to ensure adequate separation, then the S&TA simply waives those specific jumps from the BSR. There is no required paperwork or time spent waiting on someone else’s approval. However, DZ-wide or season-long waivers are not the intent."

top

Or is something goes wrong, the S&TA could hose the jumper by denying that the waiver was given.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Krip 2]

Quick fix

Install P.O.B.s on tight rigs

Install Jesus cord.

Fun jumpers have been doing RD for a long time.

One Jump Wonder

[nigel99 556]

billvon

>I'm wondering why they, the BOD, are only interested in saving the small proportion
>with this change when they could be taking it to the more likely cause and saving a
>larger number of lives. They have made no indication that they will be doing that.

What "that" would they do to save a larger number of lives?

>Kinda like many doctors...treat the symptom, not the cause and let it go at that.

Good analogy, actually. They will try (and probably fail) to get the guy to diet and exercise, then prescribe statins, then eventually do a bypass.

Still, a doctor who does that, IMO, is a better doctor than one who says "you won't exercise? Fine, die."

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.

We've all seen the scary video's where clearly an extra 1000 or even 2000 feet would not have made a difference - the reserves still wouldn't deploy.

I'm also not naive, testing takes time and money. I'm quite happy that a container costs more and a new model/feature isn't released every time McDonalds updates their happy meal toy.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Bolas 5]

wolfriverjoe

******Is the deployment height waiver recorded in any way or just verbal?

Looks like verbal only. Which means a jumper could do a demo low, then sell out the S&TA by saying he/she was TOLD it was okay.

"From Ed Scott:

To allow those good reasons, the board motion allows Safety and Training Advisors to waive the BSR on a jump-specific basis. If there is a low ceiling and the airplane can’t get above 2,500 feet for low exits or accuracy jumps or if the same low ceiling threatens a demo or if the big-way attempts need a little more room at the bottom to ensure adequate separation, then the S&TA simply waives those specific jumps from the BSR. There is no required paperwork or time spent waiting on someone else’s approval. However, DZ-wide or season-long waivers are not the intent."

top

Or is something goes wrong, the S&TA could hose the jumper by denying that the waiver was given.

Seems that since there's no paper trail, the USPA could be targeted.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,057]

> 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.

Agreed - but there may be a limit on what they can do. USPA has no authority beyond what its members allow it to have.

>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.

Two issues there I can see:

1) Current TSO's DO have performance standards for opening distances. The problem isn't (IMO) that such standards do not exist, the problem is that modern rigs don't meet them.

2) Even if the FAA does release a new TSO it's likely to be ignored by rig manufacturers, the same way TSO C23d is ignored by manufacturers who tested decades ago under TSO C23b.

[nigel99 556]

billvon

> 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.

Agreed - but there may be a limit on what they can do. USPA has no authority beyond what its members allow it to have.

>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.

Two issues there I can see:

1) Current TSO's DO have performance standards for opening distances. The problem isn't (IMO) that such standards do not exist, the problem is that modern rigs don't meet them.

2) Even if the FAA does release a new TSO it's likely to be ignored by rig manufacturers, the same way TSO C23d is ignored by manufacturers who tested decades ago under TSO C23b.

I think we agree on it. I know about the existing TSO performance standards, I'm suggesting that relaxing them would be an acceptable outcome.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Southern_Man 0]

nigel99

***>I'm wondering why they, the BOD, are only interested in saving the small proportion
>with this change when they could be taking it to the more likely cause and saving a
>larger number of lives. They have made no indication that they will be doing that.

What "that" would they do to save a larger number of lives?

>Kinda like many doctors...treat the symptom, not the cause and let it go at that.

Good analogy, actually. They will try (and probably fail) to get the guy to diet and exercise, then prescribe statins, then eventually do a bypass.

Still, a doctor who does that, IMO, is a better doctor than one who says "you won't exercise? Fine, die."

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?"

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

This is not a USPA issue

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.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[dpreguy 14]

A thousand feet for a reserve to open?

[DanG 1]

Quote

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.

So you're on record as wanting USPA to petition the FAA for more regulation? Be careful what you wish for.

- Dan G

[Rick 67]

DanG

Quote

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.

So you're on record as wanting USPA to petition the FAA for more regulation? Be careful what you wish for.

not more regulation just make sure the current rigs meet the existing TSO requirement

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[Bignugget 0]

Rick

***

Quote

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.

So you're on record as wanting USPA to petition the FAA for more regulation? Be careful what you wish for.

not more regulation just make sure the current rigs meet the existing TSO requirement


You know...by asking nicely. not by regulation.

[Southern_Man 0]

DiverMike

Quote

This is not a USPA issue

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?"

[JerryBaumchen 1,419]

Hi Ken,

^^^^^ This.

My position is that the current, certificated equipment will still meet the TSO standards that it was certificated under until proven otherwise.

The parachute is airworthy until such time that is does not meet the tests called for in the TSO standard; not any other tests that someone might like it to pass.

Having an AAD cut the locking loop is not a TSO test.

And I do care about how many times someone swings a rig around by its bridle. That also is not a TSO test.

JerryBaumchen

PS) As I have more than once posted on this site, I will option my right to refuse to repack any really, really tight reserve; even if it will still pass the TSO tests. It is my
prerogative.

[billvon 3,057]

>A thousand feet for a reserve to open?

That would be too long a distance.

[billvon 3,057]

>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.

They could. However, as odd as it sounds, DZ.com probably has more accurate information about all the accidents than USPA does.

[Rick 67]

Bignugget

******

Quote

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.

So you're on record as wanting USPA to petition the FAA for more regulation? Be careful what you wish for.

not more regulation just make sure the current rigs meet the existing TSO requirement


You know...by asking nicely. not by regulation.


OK I will try again I believe that the current rigs have been modified from the original TSO'd design that they should be re-inspected to make sure they meet the current regulation(TSO)

I see no need to add more regulation

that is my opinion slam me if you want

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[billvon 3,057]

>OK I will try again I believe that the current rigs have been modified from the original
> TSO'd design that they should be re-inspected to make sure they meet the current
>regulation(TSO)

Do you mean re-test gear certified under TSO C23b to a different standard? (TSO C23d) Or re-test to the same standard it was designed to meet? (TSO C23b)