Aug 8, 2010, 5:47 PM
Post #1 of 26
(2417 views)
Shortcut
Skydiving Issues?
Can't Post
So far, all I've seen or heard regarding the upcoming elections is BS politics. You all know what I'm talking about...
So are there any actual issues or concerns that our soon to be elected representatives should be discussing? Other than not having free beer and packing - what else does everyone want to see happen in the skydiving world.
OK, I'll go first - mandatory naked skydives for hot chicks on their check-dive
So are there any actual issues or concerns that our soon to be elected representatives should be discussing? Other than not having free beer and packing - what else does everyone want to see happen in the skydiving world.
If you go to the USPA web site you can find BOD meeting committee meeting agendas. These are things that have/will be discussed. Parachutist magazine reports on the results/changes related to these discussions. Is that what you needed?
As far as letting the BOD know what members would like to see addressed, well, just post here. That is what this forum is for. However, be advised that there are some BOD members that do not care about anything discussed in dropzone.com forums. I don't know why. I have always considered them to be quite educational, and lets me know what members are thinking.
The way to get the attention of the BOD is for many members to contact the BOD directly about an issue.
Since some of the BOD do not want to hear from members, USPA HQ disabled the email address fullboard@uspa.org for members. Jan Meyer has created one that works, uspabod@skydivehard.com
All Board members have email addresses in the magazine and on the USPA web site here. Perhaps mailing them individually would be more productive. At least you would find out who responds.
All Board members have email addresses in the magazine and on the USPA web site here. Perhaps mailing them individually would be more productive. At least you would find out who responds. HW
Thank you Howard. Perhaps I should have explained that better.
Some BOD members think that an email address that forwards to all BOD members is too easily used by USPA members to complain en masse, rather than contacting only a limited number of BOD members, (or headquarters staff who are supposed for forward complaints and suggestions to the BOD.)
Sometimes this type of communication fails to inform all of the BOD members that should know about it, therefore, emailing the entire BOD is the only way to know that the BOD is informed about any particular problem. That is why I suggest that members do that.
A number of times I have been informed by an email to the entire BOD about problems that I would never have know about otherwise, and have appreciated the email.
Some BOD members do not appreciate it. This varies depending on the issue or complaint, so, no, there is not a list of "good guys" and bad guys".
(This post was edited by peek on Aug 25, 2010, 10:32 AM)
I'm not online as much these days as I used to be, but I get lots of emails and phone calls from the membership regarding the BOD meetings and Safety & Training issues. I have always tried to bring info I received to the meetings, and I can say that during the meetings, it has been really helpful to be able to cite specific scenarios, when advocating for an issue.
Well Tom you have always been open to communication in the industry with anyone, based on my dealings with you, you have returned calls and emails in a timely manner.
The Mo (husband) says there is a law in Florida that a female skydiver can not jump on Sundays without their spouse... If this is true, I would like to see it amended that the male spouse can not get laid on Sundays... this is very important shit man.
Standardized "punishments" for those who instruct without ratings. Preferably to not include allowing the offender to immediately go get rated.
Canopy coach ratings (basic and advanced), mandatory basic canopy control education for license progression and a BSR limiting type of main canopy and wingloadings based on license and additional training received.
It's good to have a dream.
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Sep 20, 2010, 9:38 AM
Post #19 of 26
(1664 views)
Shortcut
Standardized "punishments" for those who instruct without ratings. Preferably to not include allowing the offender to immediately go get rated.
Canopy coach ratings (basic and advanced), mandatory basic canopy control education for license progression and a BSR limiting type of main canopy and wingloadings based on license and additional training received.
It's good to have a dream.
I agree 100%. But getting USPA to recognize that training experienced skydivers has merit is likely not going to happen. USPA currently espouses the idea that recognized training relates exclusively to new skydivers, not "Experienced" skydivers. We ran into this proposing an advanced coach rating that IMO, could easily be applied to Wingsuits, Canopy Coaching, and perhaps other disciplines as well.
Standardized "punishments" for those who instruct without ratings. Preferably to not include allowing the offender to immediately go get rated.
Canopy coach ratings (basic and advanced), mandatory basic canopy control education for license progression and a BSR limiting type of main canopy and wingloadings based on license and additional training received.
It's good to have a dream.
I agree 100%. But getting USPA to recognize that training experienced skydivers has merit is likely not going to happen. USPA currently espouses the idea that recognized training relates exclusively to new skydivers, not "Experienced" skydivers. We ran into this proposing an advanced coach rating that IMO, could easily be applied to Wingsuits, Canopy Coaching, and perhaps other disciplines as well.
Although it is a good idea, there is a very good chance that the USPA would create a canopy coach rating that would do more harm than good. If our past experience with the BIC, JM (de)evolution into the Coach Rating program is any example, things wouldn't be better. What sort of expert skill level would be required by the USPA to gain the rating?
When the USPA sends official representatives to CP Nationals to run the meet, that have no concept of modern canopy piloting or experience with modern canopy flight, it shows what level of interest the USPA has in safe and modern canopy flight. The interest level is low and the understanding is even lower.
What sort of expert skill level would be required by the USPA to gain the rating?
For the basic survival skills stuff, I'd like to see at least an instructor rating of some sort. For the advanced (swooping) stuff, I don't know. I'd hope there would be some sort of performance based standard beyond just an instructor rating; those of us who don't swoop have no business trying to teach it.
In reply to:
The interest level is low and the understanding is even lower.
My big worry is that lack of interest and understanding is going to lead to the end of self-regulation in the sport. With so much emphasis on promoting the sport, you'd think it would make sense to implement a real program of education in the one area that seems to dominate our injury and fatality reports.
For the basic survival skills stuff, I'd like to see at least an instructor rating of some sort. For the advanced (swooping) stuff, I don't know. I'd hope there would be some sort of performance based standard beyond just an instructor rating; those of us who don't swoop have no business trying to teach it.
Its just that I've had to spend days working with people to unfix the things that inept instructors and wanna-be canopy coaches have taught people. Things that were not just wrong, but dangerous.
In reply to:
My big worry is that lack of interest and understanding is going to lead to the end of self-regulation in the sport. With so much emphasis on promoting the sport, you'd think it would make sense to implement a real program of education in the one area that seems to dominate our injury and fatality reports.
I agree, but that level of simply not caring or not fully grasping how the sport has evolved, seems to be par for the course with a large part of the BPD. When some of the BOD made their last skydive ZP was a new technology, I think they don't quite grasp what the problem is and simply blame the swooping community.
(This post was edited by AggieDave on Sep 21, 2010, 2:33 AM)
PhreeZone (D License)
Moderator
Sep 21, 2010, 7:09 AM
Post #24 of 26
(1549 views)
Shortcut
Its just that I've had to spend days working with people to unfix the things that inept instructors and wanna-be canopy coaches have taught people. Things that were not just wrong, but dangerous.
I agree on this one. I've had arguments with AFF-I's that insist that you have to do a hook turn at a different altitude if you are turning into higher winds or down wind since "the wind hits the top of your canopy and makes it dive different" We have the same basic conversation all the time on here and yet there are still instructors that don't understand things like this, the 45 degree on exit thing is bogus, or dozens of other things that they are misinformed about.
I am a really large fan of the Flight-1 course series and the knowledge they cover in there. It would be ideal if the USPA could license or purchase this type of knowledge and then issue ratings on a test that covers this material to ensure that candidates are able to explain not just swooping but things like flare timing, patterns, long spots and other items like that to address skills at all levels.
I would like to establish a Group Member DZ "Emergency Action Plan". Nothing complicated, just a rquired list of simple things for the DZ management to be pro active about before an injury occurs.
And I'm with you all on the canopy skills/coaching info.
1
