400 foot demos

[billvon 3,059]

So this weekend I was talking to people around the DZ and heard the background story behind the 400 foot demos.

Apparently a team (Red Bull) wants USPA permission/endorsement to do demos from 400 feet at airshows. They claim they have a TSOed BASE rig and a DZO willing to put them out that low.

All in all it sounds like a horrible idea, but apparently they are so serious about it that several team members are running for the board to ensure that it happens. There's a separate discussion about the merits of _that_ going on on the Elections board.

However, not many people are talking about the issue of the 400 foot demos. I've jumped from lower than that on BASE jumps. But as publicized, USPA-approved jumps, I think the incidents that resulted would be bad overall for both USPA and skydiving.

What does everyone else think?

[feuergnom 29]

from my outside of u.s. viewpoint:

there have been some demo incidents this year from "normal" altitude and the uproar in the community regarding the safety precautions on these jumps has been quite remarkable. i doesn't take much imagination what would be heard if anything on such a demo went wrong

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[Hausse 0]

On the subject of the TSO'd Base rig, I assume you are talking about the BASER.

Here is the link for more info:
http://www.thebaser.com/index.php

[DougH 270]

All stunt pilots are pilots, but not all pilots are stunt pilots.

All demo jumpers are skydivers, but not all skydivers are demo jumpers.

Why don't we get USPA out of the demo business. The sport will still get a black eye when some one craters into a crowd with nothing out, but at least the USPA won't be legally on the hook.

I don't think it is a good idea, but if they want to do a stunt at a stunt show that is their deal not mine. I just don't want my organization involved in any way that makes them liable.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[PhreeZone 20]

This is being covered a bit in the USPA elections forum but my thoughts on it is that is it a REALLY bad idea to have the USPA involved in a waiver of the BSR like this. The FAA is looking for us to self-regulate and if anything happens during an airshow on this then it will be looked at as being unable to safely self regulate.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[BIGUN 1,397]

Quote

They claim they have a TSOed BASE rig and a DZO...

We were making a NC/T jump in the military using... as you know, S/L D-bagged 11Bs. We were supposed to exit at 800 feet. The pilot inadvertently flew about an 1/8 of a mile to the left of the L which is acceptable, but in this case it placed us over a 400 foot knoll making our exit at 400 AGL. Calculating forward throw, we were under canopy at ~240' I checked canopy and hit the ground totally unprepared and a bit shocked thinking I'd missed something on my canopy check and then wondered what I'd broken.

War stories aside: I can't help but think this is a bad idea on many fronts. The compression of time in the decision-making process for the skydiver, the lack of time in decision-making if one has to go to reserve and then figure their outs around a crowd. Having done my fair share of demo jumps into closed stadiums, with the first criteria being the publics' safety, can't help but wonder if - one; just one injury of any type to the crowd is worth the media attention of an extraordinary jump.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 3,059]

>On the subject of the TSO'd Base rig, I assume you are talking about the BASER.

I assume so. It was referred to as "Sonic's Rig" which I believe is the BASEr.

I have to wonder at the wisdom of using a front mounted round reserve (arguably difficult to deploy and somewhat slow opening) on a 400 foot jump. I know the philosophy is that it's a BASE jump, not a skydive, and the reserve is just there for legality - but it still seems like a bad idea overall.

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

Apparently a team (Red Bull) wants USPA permission/endorsement to do demos from 400 feet at airshows. They claim they have a TSOed BASE rig and a DZO willing to put them out that low.

My question is why would they want to get out that low??? Non skydivers have know idea whats going on. There will be very little if any free fall.
You can see people falling from a plane from lets say 3000 feet. I think that's better then 400ft. People on the ground will get a chance to see the free fall part and see them deploy. From 400ft all they are going to see is parachute open. No free fall. Whats the point of the demo?? What are they demonstrating ? If they want to do demo's like that do BASE DEMOS!!!!!!

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Quote

All in all it sounds like a horrible idea, but apparently they are so serious about it that several team members are running for the board to ensure that it happens.

Which of the candidates are the ones you speak of?

[ozzy13 0]

Read this

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=f478f93b91355ac3fdb415c239405ca3&refurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fs.php%3Fn%3D-1%26k%3D200000010%26init%3Ds%253Agroup%26q%3DUspa%2Belections%2B2008%26sid%3Df478f93b91355ac3fdb415c239405ca3&gid=28534156601

And this

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3360755;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[jtnesbitt 0]

Quote

*** Having done my fair share of demo jumps into closed stadiums, with the first criteria being the publics' safety, can't help but wonder if - one; just one injury of any type to the crowd is worth the media attention of an extraordinary jump.

And that should be the main reason for why this is a bad idea and shouldnt happen. Even if there is an accident NOT involving the crowd the negative attention it would draw to our sport is not worth it. We've all seen examples of people getting hurt doing things they shouldnt have been doing and the media is all over it yet we never have the opportunity to explain why the instance was extraordinary.

We already know if something goes wrong it will make our sport look bad and I don't see ANYTHING we could possibly gain from this so why allow it?

"If this post needs to be moderated I would prefer it to be completly removed and not edited and butchered into a disney movie" - DorkZone Hero

[billvon 3,059]

>so why allow it?

I actually have no problem "allowing" it. Let them get approval from the FAA and do whatever they want. I just don't think USPA should be endorsing it.

[jtnesbitt 0]

Quote

>so why allow it?

I actually have no problem "allowing" it. Let them get approval from the FAA and do whatever they want. I just don't think USPA should be endorsing it.

I understand what you are saying, but isn't the USPA supposed to protect our interests and the growth of the sport? I guess I just feel that the USPA should do it's part to prevent something from happening that could hurt the sport instead of just wiping it's hands clean.

However, even as I write this, I can think of another time that the USPA did try to prevent something for the sake of helping the sport and that certainly backfired...

"If this post needs to be moderated I would prefer it to be completly removed and not edited and butchered into a disney movie" - DorkZone Hero

[ficus 0]

These same guys are already doing fixed-object demos from similar altitudes. If one of them were to go in during one of those demos, I doubt the general public would even understand the difference between that and a jump from an airplane.

I do see the point that it might harm the perception of safe self-regulation.

But if there exists a system whereby stunt pilots can fly inverted 10 feet off the deck, surely there should be a way for these guys to deploy at 400 feet. This is actually a fairly conservative altitude on the BASE scale.

[tetra316 0]

Quote

This is actually a fairly conservative altitude on the BASE scale.

That's right. Base jumpers jump from 400 feet. NOT skydivers. And you don't need an airplane to base jump. This would be classified as a skydive not a base jump due to the use of an airplane. Why not just get a crane and jump off that if they are so intent on doing this?

[michaelmullins 81]

Quote

These same guys are already doing fixed-object demos from similar altitudes. If one of them were to go in during one of those deploy at 400 feet. This is actually a fairly conservative altitude on the BASE scale.

The original waiver request was for a jump from 1,000 to 2,000 feet with a deployment altitude of 400 feet. There is a world of difference between jumping from a fixed object at 400' (starting with zero vertical speed) vs deploying at 400' while traveling 176 feet per second vertically.

Mike Mullins

[billvon 3,059]

>There is a world of difference between jumping from a fixed object at 400' (starting
>with zero vertical speed) vs deploying at 400' while traveling 176 feet per second
>vertically.

Agreed. With a stationary exit, you have 5 seconds to impact, and are traveling more slowly as your parachute begins slowing you. Taking it to near-terminal you have a little over 2. That means that missing the handle on the first attempt might well be fatal.

The best case is a poised exit from an aircraft traveling at slider-down BASE deployment speeds (i.e. 20-40kts) since you have the airspeed needed for deployment, you can use an unreefed square and you have more time to deal with problems due to the lower vertical speed.

>The original waiver request was for a jump from 1,000 to 2,000 feet with a
>deployment altitude of 400 feet.

Wow, that's an even worse idea.

[billvon 3,059]

>I guess I just feel that the USPA should do it's part to prevent something from
>happening that could hurt the sport instead of just wiping it's hands clean.

I don't, any more than USPA should protest a hollywood stunt using a helicopter and a BASE rig. There's nothing wrong with saying "it has nothing to do with sport skydiving, and thus we aren't endorsing it."

[aeromobile 0]

Quote

>so why allow it?

I actually have no problem "allowing" it. Let them get approval from the FAA and do whatever they want. I just don't think USPA should be endorsing it.

I agree. They can get their demo license directly from the FAA. All they have to do is get an FAA inspector to witness their 10 jumps and have him sign them off. Then the waiver, if any is needed, is from the FAA not USPA.

[Andy_Copland 0]

Quote

That means that missing the handle on the first attempt might well be fatal.

Hence you locate it at a sensible height and hold it before you throw it out. Bit of a no brainer, especially from an aircraft when there is no tracking involved.

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

This is actually a fairly conservative altitude on the BASE scale.

That's right. Base jumpers jump from 400 feet. NOT skydivers. And you don't need an airplane to base jump. This would be classified as a skydive not a base jump due to the use of an airplane. Why not just get a crane and jump off that if they are so intent on doing this?

Or a tethered balloon?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is actually a fairly conservative altitude on the BASE scale.

That's right. Base jumpers jump from 400 feet. NOT skydivers. And you don't need an airplane to base jump. This would be classified as a skydive not a base jump due to the use of an airplane. Why not just get a crane and jump off that if they are so intent on doing this?

Or a tethered balloon?

That would be considered a aircraft wouldn't it

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[riggerrob 643]

CSPA face this dilemma a long time ago and came up with two responses.

CSPA's first response involved issuing Exhibition Jump ratings (similar to USPA PRO) after applicants met certain pre-levels (10 accuracy jumps, written exam, etc.).

CSPA's second response involved distancing the Association form movie stunts as far as possible.

IOW if you want to do a stunt for a movie (ignoring the Canadian Air Regulations), CSPA wants absolutely nothing to do with it.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is actually a fairly conservative altitude on the BASE scale.

That's right. Base jumpers jump from 400 feet. NOT skydivers. And you don't need an airplane to base jump. This would be classified as a skydive not a base jump due to the use of an airplane. Why not just get a crane and jump off that if they are so intent on doing this?

Or a tethered balloon?

That would be considered a aircraft wouldn't it

According to the FAA, it's not.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[BlueHaze 0]

The really sad part is that we all know that they are doing this not for the sport but to get the "wow" factor and to be able to be "idolized". These are true Skygods that can not get enough of themselves. They have to be at every show to have a kid ask for their autograph. My GOD...that would make them be "so cool!"

I remember the Golden Knight Tandem Team hired them (FlyBoyz) for training while they were in Yuma. The Boyz wanted $15,000 for 3 days, a private King Air to fly them there, and the best housing at the base.

Yet, they did it practically for free, drove there, and stayed in bunks.

Now the Golden Knights have the autograph and wow factor, but they can not get rich off of it.