Forums: Archive: 2005-2006 USPA BOD Elections:
Multiple S&TA's?

 


WrongWay  (D 27371)

Jun 30, 2004, 12:59 PM
Post #1 of 24 (2493 views)
Shortcut
Multiple S&TA's? Can't Post

How many could be based on how many regulars are at a particular dz. The reasoning behind it would be so that they could oversee each other to prevent slacking, and also providing more sets of trained eyes to be watching for incidents or incidents in the making. Thoughts?


eeneR  (C 34303)

Jun 30, 2004, 1:01 PM
Post #2 of 24 (2447 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WrongWay] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

crossing this from Ron's thread

How about a census based requirement for S&TA's....the smaller dz's may not really need 2 while some of the bigger ones really could use 3 with the amount of things going on...

Use jumper traffic to give an idea on the number...so if dz X has 20 jumpers...they get one...dz Y has 100 jumpers they get 2 etc...

Maybe base this off the average jumps by experinced jumpers? its a thought, not sure how much of a pain to implement


(This post was edited by eeneR on Jun 30, 2004, 1:02 PM)


bbarnhouse  (D License)
Pixie
Jun 30, 2004, 1:20 PM
Post #3 of 24 (2437 views)
Shortcut
Re: [eeneR] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

Interestingly enough we currently have 2, and a discussion ensued yesterday about adding a 3rd.


MakeItHappen

Jun 30, 2004, 1:23 PM
Post #4 of 24 (2432 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WrongWay] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How many could be based on how many regulars are at a particular dz. The reasoning behind it would be so that they could oversee each other to prevent slacking, and also providing more sets of trained eyes to be watching for incidents or incidents in the making. Thoughts?

See S&TAs
Many DZs do have more than one S&TA.
.


eeneR  (C 34303)

Jun 30, 2004, 1:24 PM
Post #5 of 24 (2429 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bbarnhouse] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Interestingly enough we currently have 2, and a discussion ensued yesterday about adding a 3rd.

And really the more eyes you have watching and the more heads you have in the discussion the better chance you are to have a good outcome. Not saying it will fix things, but it will allow for more supervision, then also give you a "board" of people to discuss incedents and situations...as well as coming up with a way to handle those involved.

Now we also dont want to run into to many chiefs and not enough indians kind of thing, hence basing the # of S&TA's on how busy the DZ is...


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jun 30, 2004, 1:24 PM
Post #6 of 24 (2429 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WrongWay] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

I was an S & TA for a while. They have no real authority. If the S & TA says, "Don't take that student through the solid cloud layer." and the AFFI does anyway, the S & TA can revoke the AFFI's rating for 30 days. Of course then the S & TA gets fired from the DZ, the DZO tells USPA that the AFFI did nothing wrong, and you have business as usual. Currently the only real authority at a DZ is the DZO.

Derek


pilotdave  (D License)

Jun 30, 2004, 4:22 PM
Post #7 of 24 (2377 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

Thats only true at some DZs. Not all DZs work that way. Maybe you were just jumping at the wrong place all those years...

Dave


Premier quade  (D 22635)
Moderator
Jun 30, 2004, 7:47 PM
Post #8 of 24 (2339 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
See S&TAs
Many DZs do have more than one S&TA.
.
.
Make It Happen

For the folks unfamiliar, MakeItHappen.com is the web site and screen name of USPA National Director and BoD member, Jan Meyer.

http://uspa.org/contact/bod.htm


Greene  (D 5835)

Jun 30, 2004, 7:59 PM
Post #9 of 24 (2333 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WrongWay] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile

We have two, going for three.


BillyVance  (D 18895)

Jun 30, 2004, 10:54 PM
Post #10 of 24 (2318 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WrongWay] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

I feel like every DZ should have at least two S&TAs. Some people can't be at the DZ every weekend, and there should be at least one S&TA at the DZ every day there's skydiving going on.

Blue Skies
Billy


WrongWay  (D 27371)

Jul 1, 2004, 9:31 AM
Post #11 of 24 (2266 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Greene] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Smile

We have two, going for three.

Edited cuz I found out who the second one was (the guy who in three years as a "weekend warrior" I met once and maybe saw a few times.....). I was talking about having multiple "active", "full time" S&TA's. So who's the up and comer?

(sorry to get off subject guys Tongue)

Edited again cuz I had two signatures. Cool


(This post was edited by WrongWay on Jul 9, 2004, 6:45 AM)


skymedic  (C 33561)

Jul 3, 2004, 10:19 PM
Post #12 of 24 (2208 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WrongWay] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

there are three S&TA's at my DZ....at first I wasn't too sure of it...now I realize it works and is a good thing.SmileSmile


MikeTJumps  (D 5957)

Jul 4, 2004, 2:11 AM
Post #13 of 24 (2205 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

While the jist of what you are saying is valid, the specifics are not quite right. Here is some more accurate information.

The S&TA can suspend, not revoke a rating for a maximum of a 30 day period, subject to review by the regional director. (Governance manual, 1-6.6.B.1)

The Regional director can suspend instructional ratings for a period not to ecxeed 60 days.... (Governance manual, 1-6.6.A.1) The President of the USPA is to be consulted by the Regional Director for actions being taken against a member.

Sanctions against a member are determined by the Executive Board of the USPA and they can include censure, followed in severity by supsension or revocation of ratings, membership, and licenses.

As usual, in proper procedures, a member has the right of statement and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is the US system of justice, not the Spanish system (where you are guilty until proven innocent).


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jul 7, 2004, 4:27 PM
Post #14 of 24 (2143 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MikeTJumps] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As usual, in proper procedures, a member has the right of statement and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is the US system of justice, not the Spanish system (where you are guilty until proven innocent).

Should an AFFI have that protection if charged with taking a student through the clouds? Due process is well and good for criminal justice, but these are instructors in a rather hazardous sport.


tspillers  (D 21601)

Jul 7, 2004, 4:33 PM
Post #15 of 24 (2141 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

Absolutely. From the ground, you can't always tell if they went through or the other side of the clouds.

Now I know you are going to say, but what about video. Well, that all comes out in the process.

I will put the question back to you. Do you think actoin should be taken on an AFFI, regardless of circumstances, if they take a student through a cloud?

Todd


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jul 7, 2004, 5:51 PM
Post #16 of 24 (2134 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

How long would due process take - months? Just think of the legal exposure if the AFF-I has an accident with another student during this period.

This particular case is a FAR violation, not just bending the BSR and letting someone jump with the wind gusting at 15mph. Jumping where you can't see is quite unsafe and certainly isn't teaching the student good spotting. At my DZ the ST&A is one of the AFF-Is. I don't expect him to arbitrarily ground one of his fellow instructors on a minor technicality. If he does it, it's for a gross violation.

I can't answer to a vague hypothetical, and with my experience may not be able to definitively answer a specific one. But I'll maintain that the American guarantee of innocence until proven guilty applies only to the criminal justice system. We don't wait before grounding pilots, cops, or teachers who are suspected of unsafe or illegal behavior. The good of the community outweighs any presumption of innocence. They get put on leave, generally paid, or behind a desk until the matter is settled.

I'll add that I would expect a waiver to be seen as even less relevent for a student accident if the instructor was active after a prior violation only because the white washing, err, due process, was still being done.


Hooknswoop  (D License)

Jul 7, 2004, 6:00 PM
Post #17 of 24 (2131 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

USPA doesn't want to enforce the BSR's. If a DZO takes action against one of their I's, it cuts their own throat, less I's = less $ for the DZO.

Skydiving is 'Self-Regulating'.

I'm not even sure what that means anymore.

Imagine if the airlines were 'self-regulating'.

Derek


tspillers  (D 21601)

Jul 7, 2004, 7:32 PM
Post #18 of 24 (2125 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

I figured on more responses. One scenario I was thinking of is dealing with intent. You have a legal condition, but because you have a student that take 42 seconds to exit on a 95kont jump run you go through a cloud. I have had a student take that long, there weren't clouds on that load. That is of course an extreme.

I have to once again agree with most DZ's won't ground their I's because then they don't get the students done. I think at the least they should not use them after that day and find someone else for a while. This is one where I think all the facts could change my feelings on the appropriate actions needed.

Todd


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Jul 8, 2004, 2:01 PM
Post #19 of 24 (2099 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I figured on more responses. One scenario I was thinking of is dealing with intent. You have a legal condition, but because you have a student that take 42 seconds to exit on a 95kont jump run you go through a cloud. I have had a student take that long, there weren't clouds on that load. That is of course an extreme.

42 seconds is a bad deal alright, but that still doesn't mean you should intentionally jump a cloud. You can do a go around - that long into the run suggests a long spot anyhow, bad starting point for a student landing. And certainly anyone behind you two will want that.

And if it did happen in that circumstance, I wouldn't expect the ST&A to make that move, rather than a private discussion about how to move the students out faster.


tspillers  (D 21601)

Jul 8, 2004, 8:16 PM
Post #20 of 24 (2079 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

This was after climbout started I was a videographer back then and I timed from the first instructor out until launch. NO climbing back in for a go around.

You comment about intent is what I was after. I feel there is a difference between occasional accident and blatant repetition.

Todd


ChuteUAFFI  (D 25200)

Aug 4, 2004, 6:22 PM
Post #21 of 24 (1980 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MikeTJumps] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

2 S&Tas at one dz. One guy goes by the rules and one guy wil sign off about any body to keep them and dzo happy. try to figure that out. Tandems in clouds but not when one guy is there.


ChuteUAFFI  (D 25200)

Aug 9, 2004, 6:24 AM
Post #22 of 24 (1939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

Go through a cloud on a course jump and see what happens.


ChuteUAFFI  (D 25200)

Aug 9, 2004, 6:28 AM
Post #23 of 24 (1938 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

Aint you and the pilot supposed to stay away from clouds a distance set up in the FAR? If a student takes 42 seconds are you on your spot? What airplane? 60 miles a hour is one mile a minute and over 10,000 you are supposed to keep 1 mile away horizontal. Poor planning and bad spot?


tspillers  (D 21601)

Aug 9, 2004, 11:14 AM
Post #24 of 24 (1927 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChuteUAFFI] Multiple S&TA's? [In reply to] Can't Post

The airplane was a King with a pilot that did not give any kind of cut. 100 miles per hour is 1.26 miles in 42 seconds. Most of his jump runs were almost 100 knots which is more than 100 miles per hour.

We did not have that plane back at that DZ after that event. We hated taking students out of it.

Back to the point of I think intent should be looked at. The pilot can't see below and communication once you are out is rough at best.

We didn't have a cloud in the sky that day, but I have had great, legal spots that if we had that scenario, we might have hit a cloud.

Rules are rules, but do we ground someone because they cut off another canopy once without looking at the big picture? Should we ground a swooper that had to dig out and AOLMST hurt themselves even though he hasn't done that in the last 100 swoops? Do we tell a student to take up bowling because he didn't pull once or twice, etc.?

In my law enforcement training, we discussed intent of the law. As an officer you report to the courts an infraction of the rule (law). Then the judge or jury considers intent and will sometimes find not guilty because there was not intent. Many laws are written with intent being part of the law. We often have to play officer, judge and jury.

Our point should be education and increasing voluntary compliance when possible. Sometimes you must take further actions for repetitive or blatant offenses.

You are a videographer. I assume you video tandems and AFF's. Many times I would guess you spot and the TI follows you (they should look too). Do they always get out as quick as you thought? Usually, it should not matter as I am sure you allow room for error.

Does this make sense?



Forums : Archive : 2005-2006 USPA BOD Elections

 


Search for (options)