Mar 3, 2012, 8:03 PM
Post #27 of 90
(1243 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
I am pretty sure this is the age of the equipment not the jumper>>>>
Not from the way it's being explained, it appears to be a regulation regarding the age of the jumper using the equiptment.
The above quotes are just the reason why I posted this. It confused me as well. Are they putting an end date on the equipment or and age limit on the newbie?
It just seems very limited on the way it was written in the USPA Update. Hopefully it is explained better when it's "officially" released.
Mar 4, 2012, 4:56 AM
Post #28 of 90
(1226 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
This gets USPA out of the liability issue of under-age jumpers.
Horsepucky.
Now if the BOD were REALLY worried about that they'd drop the GM program because OUR (USPA) endorsement of DZ's by allowing them to be Group Members is what exposes US to the liability in the first place ESPECIALLY when the BOD sit's on it's hands in the event of DZ's (and members) who flagrantly violate BSR/FAR's
Did anyone even consult with a lawyer?
(This post was edited by diablopilot on Mar 4, 2012, 4:57 AM)
Mar 4, 2012, 7:55 PM
Post #31 of 90
(1166 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
And the way this is worded, ANY manufacturer is free to retroactively put ANY age restriction on ANY gear-user jumping gear in ANY way on ANY skydive.
Yeah, that really worries me too.
The retroactive thing is especially scary. If we buy a PD reserve, we know about the check boxes; if we buy a Strong Tandem, we know about the mandatory inspections and finite life. But at least we know the rules when we buy the equipment.
To a great degree we already have a system where companies can ban anything, anytime, retroactively, because we already have a system where riggers must follow manufacturers' instructions.
A company wants 10 year old rigs off the market? Update the instruction manual so that the rig has a 10 year life.
Now we do debate that: Some will say that if a TSO'd rig was delivered with manual version 1.1, nothing other than the FAA revoking the TSO or issuing an AD can ever change it being legal to rig and use according to that manual that first came with the rig. But that's certainly not the unanimous opinion, and many riggers aren't going to go against what they see in the latest manual!
This new BSR is another way for a company to do stop equipment from being used: Put out a manual saying only those 90 years or older can jump a certain rig.
But now the manufacturers' power is clearly extended to non-TSO'd components too, like main canopies.
A company like Pioneer Aerospace no longer sells to sport skydivers. It would cost them no real market if they said that those old civilian ParaCommanders are grounded, unless jumped by 90 year olds.
Companies won't try to piss off too many of their customers, but all this is still an area where the company has absolute power to determine who uses their products and how -- for reasons unrelated to actual safety (e.g. TSO'd speed tests).
Mar 5, 2012, 10:07 AM
Post #35 of 90
(1101 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Well, I know you, Craig, and myself were all a "NO" on this one. In S&T it was argued against, but we lost and it passed and went onto Full BOD.
The by name vote should be posted, since scuttle butt has it more people on the BOD are saying they voted no than the previous post showing a 70/30 split.
Mar 5, 2012, 11:16 AM
Post #37 of 90
(1091 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
Does anyone have any more info on this new BSR?:
Quote:
This section [SIM 2-1 E.4.c.(5)] read: "(5) All student tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirements for the tandem system used for that jump."
The age requirements are on the user of the equipment, not on the equipment itself.
FAIL.
According to your excerpt and English Sentence Structure 101, the age requirements are, in fact, not on the user of the equipment, but on the equipment itself.
English Sentence Structure 101: The subject of the sentence is "tandem system" -- not "user," "passenger" or "student."
Thus this section -- as written, not intended -- specifically refers to the age of the tandem system being used, not to the users thereof.
Again, USPA and the manufacturers have now given lawyers a green light to go after any manufacturer fielding equipment that is not at least 18 years old.
LOL
Good job, BOD. Better do an EC emergency change and fix that. All you need to do is this:
[SIM 2-1 E.4.c.(5)]:
IS: "(5) All student tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirements for the tandem system used for that jump."
SHOULD BE: "(5) All tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific tandem manufacturer’s student/passenger age requirements for its tandem systems."
44
P.S. Helping the BOD fix its functionally illiterate sentence structure is in no way an endorsement of:
a) the concept of age restrictions generally; or
b) codifying manufacturer business practices into the operating rules and policies of a membership sporting association specifically.
I just don't want my organization going off an another dollar-eating skyride because its alleged leaders can't think straight during their meetings.
Mar 5, 2012, 12:10 PM
Post #38 of 90
(1078 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
What could possibly be the mindset for this BSR? It protects only a very small portion of the membership (if the manufacturers are members) and it exposes the USPA to the chain of liability.
This gets USPA out of the liability issue of under-age jumpers.
If some lawsuit is filed that claims Junior Jumper jumped abc equipment and that equipment had a user age restriction, then USPA can be dismissed from the lawsuit easier because USPA has a BSR that says 'follow what the mfg says about user age restrictions.'
For most of the equipment out in the field today this BSR has no effect since there are no user age restrictions on most existing equipment. There are a couple of mfgs that have recently (within the last year or so) put in user age restrictions. This only applies to that equipment and any equipment in the future that may have a mfg imposed user age restriction.
.
Weak argument at best.
The manufacturers have stepped into the world of the non-student jumper. A 19 year-old jumper who buys gear in CA cannot legally jump it in the state of MS, and somehow the gear manufacturers have pawned off to USPA the responsibility of enforcing their rules to protect them. This does nothing to keep USPA out of a lawsuit because it would be easy to demonstrate how unenforceable it is.
This is a BLR... Basic Liability Restructuring and does not belong in the BSRs.
And the way this is worded, ANY manufacturer is free to retroactively put ANY age restriction on ANY gear-user jumping gear in ANY way on ANY skydive.
And there is no way to know what components have what age restrictions. So, a DZ may be letting someone break a BSR without knowing it, then when there is a problem, the DZ is hung out to dry for not enforcing a BSR.
This is wrong on soooo many levels.
top
Concur.
And yes, isn't it interesting that this BOD member justified the creation of a new Basic SAFETY Requirement not in terms of safety but in terms of liability?
Isn't it also interesting that USPA has, in fact, expanded the size of the lawsuit target to include all DZs, instructors, coaches and ST&As who, knowingly or unknowingly, permit a user-age component violation to occur on their watch?
This section [SIM 2-1 E.4.c.(5)] read: "(5) All student tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirements for the tandem system used for that jump."
The age requirements are on the user of the equipment, not on the equipment itself.
According to your excerpt and English Sentence Structure 101, the age requirements are, in fact, not on the user of the equipment, but on the equipment itself.
English Sentence Structure 101: The subject of the sentence is "tandem system" -- not "user," "passenger" or "student."
If you are going to be a grammar nazi, at least be correct. The subject of the sentence is "skydives". Everything else is an object of a prepositional phrase.
The statement isn't really that open for interpretation, but it is vague and does give the manufacturer a lot of leeway as has been stated in previous postings. Based on this requirement, the manufacture could say "the skydive could not be performed if it is capable of being witnessed on the ground by somebody under the age of 30."
Mar 5, 2012, 1:01 PM
Post #40 of 90
(1057 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
The by name vote should be posted, since scuttle butt has it more people on the BOD are saying they voted no than the previous post showing a 70/30 split.
Wait a minute. That was a WAG on my part. It was as accurate as I recall. +/- 20% maybe even....
(This post was edited by peek on Mar 5, 2012, 1:05 PM)
Mar 5, 2012, 4:14 PM
Post #41 of 90
(999 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Every vote the BOD makes should be reported "by name". We as the membership have the right to know who's voting and which way. All a BOD member needs to do when the cast a vote is to say "By name" to have it recorded in the minutes.
"USPA’s Executive Committee took action yesterday, March 6, to delay implementation of a new Basic Safety Requirement that would have required all skydivers to comply with any minimum age requirements set by a parachute equipment or component manufacturer for any users of its equipment. Many, if not most, manufacturers want to require that any users of their parachute equipment be at least the age of legal majority for liability reasons. By interim action, the Executive Committee set the implementation date for this new BSR as October 1, 2012, unless further modified by the full board of directors at its August 3-5 meeting in Minneapolis. This delay will provide another opportunity for the board to discuss all the ramifications of the new rule at the summer meeting, as well to gather and consider member input. Please feel free to contact USPA Headquarters or any member of the board of directors with your input to this BSR."
(This post was edited by dabase on Mar 7, 2012, 9:16 AM)
The by name vote should be posted, since scuttle butt has it more people on the BOD are saying they voted no than the previous post showing a 70/30 split.
Wait a minute. That was a WAG on my part. It was as accurate as I recall. +/- 20% maybe even....
70/30, 80/20, is immaterial. The BOD had to have a at least a 51% majority. But now, so many are saying they voted against it, that it should have been around 120% opposed.
You, Rich and Randy may have been the ones opposed, I dunno, and as of the first of this month, mi opinion as to matters of USPA is moot as far as the BOD cares.
Mar 8, 2012, 8:30 AM
Post #47 of 90
(766 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Matt,
Not true. The executive committee has tabled the implementation of the age requirement to after the next meeting to allow for more discussion.
This was initiated by Randy Allison and has my full support. If I would have remembered I would have voted by name but I think if you speak to any BOD member you will see I was completely opposed to this from committee on through full BOD. Randy, Craig Stapleton, and Gary Peek should be commended on standing firm on there beliefs regarding this decision.
I had many many reasons for my stance and would be happy to share them if you want to ring me.
Mar 8, 2012, 8:44 AM
Post #48 of 90
(761 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Matt,
Not true. The executive committee has tabled the implementation of the age requirement to after the next meeting to allow for more discussion.
This was initiated by Randy Allison and has my full support. If I would have remembered I would have voted by name but I think if you speak to any BOD member you will see I was completely opposed to this from committee on through full BOD. Randy, Craig Stapleton, and Gary Peek should be commended on standing firm on there beliefs regarding this decision.
I had many many reasons for my stance and would be happy to share them if you want to ring me.
Your voice is heard and represented I promise.
Not picking a direct fight with you, but you're the one answering questions though, so you get the heat, sort of.
I think my point about the %'s may have been unclear. The BSR passed, it had to have at least the 51 % to do so (I do not know the bi-laws actual % required). But so many BOD members are saying privately they are in the "Opposed Vote Camp", if so then that the BSR proposal could not have even made it out of committee.
My opinion should not matter, I am no longer a member. I do not see a reason to change that status at the moment.
But, to beat on the horse as it has its last breath, You say my opinion mattered, it was the same, as what appears to be, as what the majority of the membership feels on numerous topics, yet, I felt the opinion meant nothing and the BOD was self serving, not membership serving.
It is y'all's ship to sail, I got off at the last port, unnoticed but by a few.
Mar 8, 2012, 9:19 AM
Post #49 of 90
(756 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
To the best of my recollection which isn't the best. Myself and Jesse Farrington on Safety and Training were definitely NO. There was a third but I do not recall who it was. S&T consists of: Todd Spillers Tony Thacker Sherry Butcher Merriah Eakins Jesse Farrington Mike Mullins (not present this meeting) Myself.
Mar 8, 2012, 2:01 PM
Post #50 of 90
(729 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
To the best of my recollection which isn't the best. Myself and Jesse Farrington on Safety and Training were definitely NO. There was a third but I do not recall who it was. S&T consists of: Todd Spillers Tony Thacker Sherry Butcher Merriah Eakins Jesse Farrington Mike Mullins (not present this meeting) Myself.
Out of 7 members, 1 was not present, 3 voted no, 3 voted yes, how is that a majority vote?
