Forums: Archive: 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections:
USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

3331  (D 3331)

Jun 16, 2011, 12:20 PM
Post #1 of 26 (3210 views)
Shortcut
USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting Can't Post

http://www.uspa.org/...mfid/19/Default.aspx


theonlyski  (D License)

Jun 17, 2011, 6:37 AM
Post #2 of 26 (3142 views)
Shortcut
Re: [3331] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Any ideas as to how to get something brought up in the meeting?

I've emailed (with no reply) my RD back in April.


MakeItHappen

Jun 17, 2011, 7:53 AM
Post #3 of 26 (3135 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Any ideas as to how to get something brought up in the meeting?

I've emailed (with no reply) my RD back in April.

Ask the appropriate committee chair or ask any other BOD member.
Committee membership and contact info is on the USPA web site.

What item did you want on the agenda?

.


theonlyski  (D License)

Jun 17, 2011, 8:55 AM
Post #4 of 26 (3128 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What item did you want on the agenda?

I would like to see about getting an amendment to the BSR’s allowing ”Military Re-Enactment Groups” to be considered to operate within the BSR’s the same way the ‘military orders’ jumps do.

I know of one of such groups, who require all members to be graduates of military basic airborne course, using similiar gear as the military, even going thru pre-jump and JMPI procedures, however... due to the exit altitude, they violate the minimum container opening BSR, and as such, could be punished if they were USPA members.

I've heard of no such punishment, but there is an open door, and I'd rather close the door, before someone gets punished (licenses/ratings/membership revoked).

I've gotten new location on the RD and may be able to talk to him face to face tomorrow.


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Jun 17, 2011, 8:56 AM)


stratostar  (Student)

Jun 17, 2011, 9:30 AM
Post #5 of 26 (3121 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

There are policies already in place for those type's of groups to get a waver from the BOD, that don't mean they would get it.

The biggest problem I have with your request is the fact those groups (as far as I know) have not taken the needed steps to seek any such waver in order for their group to become members. In fact I have talked one of these guys who wanted to come out to the dz and jump his old round shit, we talked in great detail about it, I use rounds too.

It was clear to me that not only did this guy not care for joining USPA, his group had no interest in joining or hoop jumping in order to get a waver, as far as they were concerned they had an FAA waver for demos, so fuck the uspa.... was pretty much what I got from that talk.


MakeItHappen

Jun 17, 2011, 10:19 AM
Post #6 of 26 (3117 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
What item did you want on the agenda?

I would like to see about getting an amendment to the BSR’s allowing ”Military Re-Enactment Groups” to be considered to operate within the BSR’s the same way the ‘military orders’ jumps do.

I know of one of such groups, who require all members to be graduates of military basic airborne course, using similiar gear as the military, even going thru pre-jump and JMPI procedures, however... due to the exit altitude, they violate the minimum container opening BSR, and as such, could be punished if they were USPA members.

I've heard of no such punishment, but there is an open door, and I'd rather close the door, before someone gets punished (licenses/ratings/membership revoked).

I've gotten new location on the RD and may be able to talk to him face to face tomorrow.

I suggest emailing the chair of the S&T committee.

I will say that the amendment you propose would probably not pass.

Military jumps do not always follow USPA guidelines.
Some of them do. For example, the academies, USMA & USAFA, do require their cadets to follow the BSRs.
Some of them don't. For example, rapid deployment forces, aka 'paratroopers', do not follow the USPA BSRs.

There is also a HUGE difference in the liability of military personal jumping under military orders versus civilians (whether or not former military) jumping on their own volition.

About a year ago, the Red Bull team wanted to exit low at air shows. They were denied and they were highly experienced jumpers.
I doubt USPA would make a blanket rule for potentially lower skilled and uncurrent jumpers to exit low.

Your best bet would to have the group apply for a waiver, but that would likely be denied too.

If you or a group want to do something against the USPA doctrine, your best bet is not to be affiliated with USPA.
That would also include the DZ that the jumps are done at and the instructors that put out the jumpers.
IOW, a GM DZ that allows a bunch of non- USPA members to re-enact D-day may be subject to losing its GM membership.
USPA instructors that trained and/or put out the jumpers not in accordance to USPA rules would also be subject to losing their rating and/or membership.

An alternative to the situation you describe would be to do the drops from a sufficient altitude.
That way you could use current USPA instructors and no one would be on the chopping block-so to speak - well any more than normal.

There is also a thread on here about a re-enactment that took place in Colorado about 5 years ago. See the incidents forum.

.


airtwardo  (D License)

Jun 18, 2011, 1:08 AM
Post #7 of 26 (3091 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

That would also include the DZ that the jumps are done at and the instructors that put out the jumpers.
IOW, a GM DZ that allows a bunch of non- USPA members to re-enact D-day may be subject to losing its GM membership.
USPA instructors that trained and/or put out the jumpers not in accordance to USPA rules would also be subject to losing their rating and/or membership.
There are a couple of reenactor groups currently doing such demos, few of the participants are sport jumpers from what I've seen.
And I've never seen a full 'training' exercise at a commercial dropzone.

Doubtful that the USPA would or could care to make any kind of changes in the BSRs


diablopilot  (D License)

Jun 19, 2011, 11:19 AM
Post #8 of 26 (3064 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

More to the point the USPA BOD discussed these groups and their request for a waiver about a year ago and indeed concluded that the USPA wanted nothing to do with them. :-)


theonlyski  (D License)

Jun 20, 2011, 6:35 AM
Post #9 of 26 (3037 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Military jumps do not always follow USPA guidelines.
Some of them do. For example, the academies, USMA & USAFA, do require their cadets to follow the BSRs.
Some of them don't. For example, rapid deployment forces, aka 'paratroopers', do not follow the USPA BSRs.

Just FYI, that is not correct. I emailed Jim Crouch back and forth about this issue (June 2010) and got this statement

Quote:
Hi Robert,
We will clean this up in the next version of the SIM so it is a bit clearer. The Board decided to allow military jumps to count towards jump numbers for licenses and awards, as stated in the minutes back in 2005:
Military jumps conducted on military orders. Should they count for USPA awards and licenses?

A question was posed to S&T as to whether military jumps conducted on military orders should they count for USPA awards and licenses? At issue is the use of round parachutes and exit and opening altitudes at and below 1200 feet AGL. The BSR’s state that jumps made under military orders do not need to be made in accordance to the BSR’s. Therefore the Committee believes that it is clear in our BSRs that those jumps are being conducted in accordance with the BSRs and should apply towards the total jumps needed for B, C and D licenses as well as awards.

However, it is a bit confusing that the BSRs state that military jumps need not meet the BSRs, therefore the jumps are in compliance with the BSRs. We will have a new version of the SIM ready sometime in the late summer-early fall. I am currently working on the edits for both the SIM and IRM, and the S&T Committee will be reviewing changes at the upcoming July Board meeting.

Thanks,


Jim Crouch


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jun 20, 2011, 8:01 AM
Post #10 of 26 (3025 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Ski,

IMO:

The Group/s don't need a waiver as they are not conducting Skydiving Operations.

I would also venture that an Individual who is jumping with the Group/s would be in the same boat as they are not conducting a Skydiving Operation, but a Military Reenactment.

The only "waiver" I could potentially see being "needed" would be if some one in the USPA Safety Community thought that an Individual on the Reenactment Jump was doing some thing in Violation of the BSR's while performing that jump.

Which I think all would agree is not a USPA type of Skydive, even by the "Old School" standards of Surplus Round gear etc.

Again just IMO.
Matt


theonlyski  (D License)

Jun 20, 2011, 8:23 AM
Post #11 of 26 (3023 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The only "waiver" I could potentially see being "needed" would be if some one in the USPA Safety Community thought that an Individual on the Reenactment Jump was doing some thing in Violation of the BSR's while performing that jump.

Matt,

There is the problem. I have been accepted to one of the teams, (by far the youngest guy by a few decades). I asked Jim Crouch:
Quote:
Jim, 
 
     Would a USPA member be in trouble for violating the minimum opening BSR on these jumps?

His reply:
Quote:
Technically yes. USPA members are supposed to abide by the BSRs regardless of where the jumps are made or what type of jump is performed. So, any jumps from an aircraft must meet the BSRs.  
Thanks,
Jim

See my problem?


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jun 20, 2011, 8:41 AM
Post #12 of 26 (3016 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Interesting, as you are not making a Skydive. You are not even making a jump in the efforts to get to skydive.

IMO, I think Jim may have this one wrong.

I am of the mind set that MFF should be good to go as far as counting in USPA's License and Awards type programs (and of course would fall under Mil Rules for conduct of the jump), but not Mil SL. Mil Static Line is not a Skydive.

If we are talking about Static Line Progression, when the goal is to progress to freefall Skydiving, yes, but not standard Mil SL when the goal is mass tactical troop deployment.

These Goup/s are not doing any SL Progression, so should not be on USPA's radar.

Let the FAA and their waiver and safety process stand.

Matt


MakeItHappen

Jun 20, 2011, 9:45 AM
Post #13 of 26 (3010 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Military jumps do not always follow USPA guidelines.
Some of them do. For example, the academies, USMA & USAFA, do require their cadets to follow the BSRs.
Some of them don't. For example, rapid deployment forces, aka 'paratroopers', do not follow the USPA BSRs.

Just FYI, that is not correct. I emailed Jim Crouch back and forth about this issue (June 2010) and got this statement

Quote:
Hi Robert,
We will clean this up in the next version of the SIM so it is a bit clearer. The Board decided to allow military jumps to count towards jump numbers for licenses and awards, as stated in the minutes back in 2005:
Military jumps conducted on military orders. Should they count for USPA awards and licenses?

A question was posed to S&T as to whether military jumps conducted on military orders should they count for USPA awards and licenses? At issue is the use of round parachutes and exit and opening altitudes at and below 1200 feet AGL. The BSR’s state that jumps made under military orders do not need to be made in accordance to the BSR’s. Therefore the Committee believes that it is clear in our BSRs that those jumps are being conducted in accordance with the BSRs and should apply towards the total jumps needed for B, C and D licenses as well as awards.

However, it is a bit confusing that the BSRs state that military jumps need not meet the BSRs, therefore the jumps are in compliance with the BSRs. We will have a new version of the SIM ready sometime in the late summer-early fall. I am currently working on the edits for both the SIM and IRM, and the S&T Committee will be reviewing changes at the upcoming July Board meeting.

Thanks,


Jim Crouch

Your conclusion is incorrect.
What I said and the paragraph that Jim quoted from the BOD minutes are both correct and do not conflict.
They address two different questions.

Both USMA & USAFA have asked for waivers to SIM 2-1.J.3 for their cadets.
They were granted these waivers, but the BOD did ask them why they needed the waiver in the first place because SIM 2-1.A.1 states that the BSRs need not be followed while jumping under military orders.
The representatives of the military academies stated that the SOPs for cadets must follow the BSRs.

Paratrooper and other military scenarios do not have an SOP to follow the BSRs.

The question the BOD addressed in 2005 was to determine if military jumps could be counted towards licenses and awards.
The answer was yes because they are not violating any of the BSRs.

The question YOU are asking is quite different than a military person jumping under military orders.
You are asking if a civilian operation can perform jumps or get a waiver to perform jumps that violate the BSRs.

The answer to that is that you could face disciplinary actions if you did not have a waiver.
If you want a waiver, you'd have to ask USPA BOD for that.
As I said before, I do not think the BOD would approve such a waiver, but you can always ask.

.


AndyMan  (D 25698)

Jun 20, 2011, 9:55 AM
Post #14 of 26 (3006 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Interesting, as you are not making a Skydive. You are not even making a jump in the efforts to get to skydive.

IMO, I think Jim may have this one wrong.

I am of the mind set that MFF should be good to go as far as counting in USPA's License and Awards type programs (and of course would fall under Mil Rules for conduct of the jump), but not Mil SL. Mil Static Line is not a Skydive.

If we are talking about Static Line Progression, when the goal is to progress to freefall Skydiving, yes, but not standard Mil SL when the goal is mass tactical troop deployment.

These Goup/s are not doing any SL Progression, so should not be on USPA's radar.

Let the FAA and their waiver and safety process stand.

Matt

Here's what I don't get - and most of this is my ignorance, as I don't know much about these military re-enactment groups... I think the crux of the problem that I see is that military re-enactment groups aren't Military, in real definition, right?

We've got a clear and simple differentiation here. Military jumps, under order, in the name of national security have a different standard than civilian jumps. This differenciation is easy, clear, and makes sense to a lot of people.

But military re-enactment jumps, being done for historical, educational, or entertainment reasons? To me, that doesn't fit the simple differentiation above. These people doing these jumps aren't currently in the military, aren't under orders, aren't defending the nation, aren't training for combat (pls correct me if wrong on this). It seams clear these jumps should fall under the USPA since they're clearly not military.

I think a waiver should be required, and I think the USPA shouldn't give one.

Just my (ever so humble) thoughts.

_Am


topdocker  (D 12018)

Jun 20, 2011, 10:01 AM
Post #15 of 26 (3005 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As I said before, I do not think the BOD would approve such a waiver, but you can always ask.

.

"Speaking in my opinion only"

I think the BOD was hesistant to give a blanket waiver to an entire group with little knowledge of their training, equipment, membership, and currency. Howewver, an individual member would have a greater chance of obtaining a waiver being specific about types of jumps, when they occur, and how current the jumper is.

Prior planning and permission beats begging for forgiveness!

Again, just my thought on the subject.

Craig


MakeItHappen

Jun 20, 2011, 10:27 AM
Post #16 of 26 (3002 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
As I said before, I do not think the BOD would approve such a waiver, but you can always ask.

.

"Speaking in my opinion only"

I think the BOD was hesistant to give a blanket waiver to an entire group with little knowledge of their training, equipment, membership, and currency. Howewver, an individual member would have a greater chance of obtaining a waiver being specific about types of jumps, when they occur, and how current the jumper is.

Prior planning and permission beats begging for forgiveness!

Again, just my thought on the subject.

Craig

Even when the BOD knows who the people are they have said this:
Quote:
7. Two-thousand-foot deployment limit for demo jumps—the Red Bull team has requested a
waiver to deploy at 400 feet on demo jumps using specialized equipment. Special Instructions
from the FAA attached to each approved 7711 authorization require all jumpers to deploy at
2,000 feet or higher. This was discussed at length. This motion passed Committee 4-3. Ed Scott
presented input from the FAA on these types of jumps. The following motion was presented:
Motion 33: Failed, 4/17/0 (Mr. Spillers)
“Move to waive BSR, 2,000’ opening altitude, for Red Bull team members named below. This
waiver applies to jumps where an air show line is in place and TSO rigs will be used. Opening
altitude shall not be lower than 800 feet. To include up to 5 practice jumps at a consenting DZ.
Jumpers include: Charles Bryan, Miles Daisher, and Mike Swanson. Waiver shall expire in 120
days.”

If I were you (theonlyski), I'd contact each BOD member directly to see if they would support your request.

.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jun 20, 2011, 11:21 AM
Post #17 of 26 (2993 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AndyMan] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Interesting, as you are not making a Skydive. You are not even making a jump in the efforts to get to skydive.

IMO, I think Jim may have this one wrong.

I am of the mind set that MFF should be good to go as far as counting in USPA's License and Awards type programs (and of course would fall under Mil Rules for conduct of the jump), but not Mil SL. Mil Static Line is not a Skydive.

If we are talking about Static Line Progression, when the goal is to progress to freefall Skydiving, yes, but not standard Mil SL when the goal is mass tactical troop deployment.

These Goup/s are not doing any SL Progression, so should not be on USPA's radar.

Let the FAA and their waiver and safety process stand.

Matt

Here's what I don't get - and most of this is my ignorance, as I don't know much about these military re-enactment groups... I think the crux of the problem that I see is that military re-enactment groups aren't Military, in real definition, right?

We've got a clear and simple differentiation here. Military jumps, under order, in the name of national security have a different standard than civilian jumps. This differenciation is easy, clear, and makes sense to a lot of people.

But military re-enactment jumps, being done for historical, educational, or entertainment reasons? To me, that doesn't fit the simple differentiation above. These people doing these jumps aren't currently in the military, aren't under orders, aren't defending the nation, aren't training for combat (pls correct me if wrong on this). It seams clear these jumps should fall under the USPA since they're clearly not military.

I think a waiver should be required, and I think the USPA shouldn't give one.

Just my (ever so humble) thoughts.

_Am

They are NOT Skydiving, they are not an Organization of Skydivers, they need NO waiver. Individuals shouldn't need one either as they are NOT skydiving and thus NOT Violating a USPA BSR for SKYDIVING.

And for full disclose I did argue the other side of this several years ago till a guy from the FAA at and Airshow said "Why a Waiver for skydiving altitudes? are they skydiving?"

Matt


topdocker  (D 12018)

Jun 20, 2011, 11:36 AM
Post #18 of 26 (2984 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Interesting, as you are not making a Skydive. You are not even making a jump in the efforts to get to skydive.

IMO, I think Jim may have this one wrong.

I am of the mind set that MFF should be good to go as far as counting in USPA's License and Awards type programs (and of course would fall under Mil Rules for conduct of the jump), but not Mil SL. Mil Static Line is not a Skydive.

If we are talking about Static Line Progression, when the goal is to progress to freefall Skydiving, yes, but not standard Mil SL when the goal is mass tactical troop deployment.

These Goup/s are not doing any SL Progression, so should not be on USPA's radar.

Let the FAA and their waiver and safety process stand.

Matt

Here's what I don't get - and most of this is my ignorance, as I don't know much about these military re-enactment groups... I think the crux of the problem that I see is that military re-enactment groups aren't Military, in real definition, right?

We've got a clear and simple differentiation here. Military jumps, under order, in the name of national security have a different standard than civilian jumps. This differenciation is easy, clear, and makes sense to a lot of people.

But military re-enactment jumps, being done for historical, educational, or entertainment reasons? To me, that doesn't fit the simple differentiation above. These people doing these jumps aren't currently in the military, aren't under orders, aren't defending the nation, aren't training for combat (pls correct me if wrong on this). It seams clear these jumps should fall under the USPA since they're clearly not military.

I think a waiver should be required, and I think the USPA shouldn't give one.

Just my (ever so humble) thoughts.

_Am

They are NOT Skydiving, they are not an Organization of Skydivers, they need NO waiver. Individuals shouldn't need one either as they are NOT skydiving and thus NOT Violating a USPA BSR for SKYDIVING.

And for full disclose I did argue the other side of this several years ago till a guy from the FAA at and Airshow said "Why a Waiver for skydiving altitudes? are they skydiving?"

Matt

So, if I wanted to train students on static line, just do it low enough that it is not considered "skydiving?" Awseome!

I think in reality any intentional jump from an aircraft in flight is considered a "skydive" by the FAA. It would follow that USPA would consider those "skydives" as well.

top


AndyMan  (D 25698)

Jun 20, 2011, 11:51 AM
Post #19 of 26 (2982 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
They are NOT Skydiving, they are not an Organization of Skydivers, they need NO waiver. Individuals shouldn't need one either as they are NOT skydiving and thus NOT Violating a USPA BSR for SKYDIVING.

And for full disclose I did argue the other side of this several years ago till a guy from the FAA at and Airshow said "Why a Waiver for skydiving altitudes? are they skydiving?"

Matt


That just doesn't pass the giggle test.

So.... any pilot with a 182 can drop as many unlicensed SL jumpers as he wants into public events at 800 feet without any USPA guidance? I don't think the FAA would agree. I suspect they'd want to see a whole lot of paperwork including PRO ratings.

So whats' the difference? The difference is that these types of jumps are usually done by the military, and when done under military auspices there's broad acceptance that 'things are different'. But the crux of the problem is that it isn't the military doing these jumps.

As for the "It's not SKYDIVING" opinion -

FAR 91 doesn't talk about "skydive" or "skydiving operations". Nor does part 105 or 95.

The FARs do talk about Parachutes, parachute jumps, and parachute equipment.

The BSR's are not limited to instructional jumps, nor jumps that are part of a progression. This differenciation that you've constructed is imaginary.

Either the jump is military under orders or its part of the responsibility the FAA has chosen to delegate to the USPA.


_Am


Premier faulknerwn  (D 17441)
Moderator
Jun 20, 2011, 12:41 PM
Post #20 of 26 (2975 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AndyMan] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

On a similar note - what about smoke jumpers? I actually haven't the faintest idea what altitude they exit at, but I'm sure their landing areas probably don't meet BSRs! If a smoke jumper was a USPA member could he get sanctioned too?


topdocker  (D 12018)

Jun 20, 2011, 1:11 PM
Post #21 of 26 (2975 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulknerwn] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
On a similar note - what about smoke jumpers? I actually haven't the faintest idea what altitude they exit at, but I'm sure their landing areas probably don't meet BSRs! If a smoke jumper was a USPA member could he get sanctioned too?

Their exit altitudes are reported to be between 1500 and 3000 feet. I think they would be "under orders" similar to military jumpers. Or would the fire be considered an "emergency" that required their exiting, similar to an aircraft emergency? Firefighter A/C can fly lower than FAA minimums (among other things), so there must be allowances in the FAR's for firefighting operations.

I would bet pretty good dollars that if they do not already have a waiver, the BOD would do whatever it took to not sanction an active member for also being a smoke jumper.

Again, just my thoughts, not an official USPA position.

Craig

PS. And my hat is off to all those that jump out there to fight those fires!


peek  (D 8884)

Jun 20, 2011, 4:33 PM
Post #22 of 26 (2961 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I would like to see about getting an amendment to the BSR’s allowing ”Military Re-Enactment Groups” to be considered to operate within the BSR’s the same way the ‘military orders’ jumps do.

My apologies. I should have taken the time earlier to look this up. See the section of the new Advisory Circular, then take the discussion from there. (The AC may not address these groups in an ideal way yet.)

(To make this work USPA might need to consider re-inactment parachute jumps to not be a "skydive", much like they consider military jumps to not be under USPA rules, so that re-inactment participants who are USPA members would not be violating a BSR.)


http://www.pia.com/PIAPUBS.htm

Excerpt:

NOTE: In addition to landing area size requirements, the FAA also imposes qualification and currency requirements found in the Parachuting Special Provisions listed in FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS), located at http://fsims.faa.gov. Parachuting demonstrations that seek relief from any requirement listed in these special provisions must have a letter of approval from the FAA General Aviation and Commercial Division (AFS-800), Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Standards Service, Room 821, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591 (e.g., airborne reenactment by civilians for reduced experience or lower opening altitudes).


(This post was edited by peek on Jun 20, 2011, 4:39 PM)


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jun 22, 2011, 8:02 AM
Post #23 of 26 (2900 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AndyMan] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
They are NOT Skydiving, they are not an Organization of Skydivers, they need NO waiver. Individuals shouldn't need one either as they are NOT skydiving and thus NOT Violating a USPA BSR for SKYDIVING.

And for full disclose I did argue the other side of this several years ago till a guy from the FAA at and Airshow said "Why a Waiver for skydiving altitudes? are they skydiving?"

Matt


That just doesn't pass the giggle test.

So.... any pilot with a 182 can drop as many unlicensed SL jumpers as he wants into public events at 800 feet without any USPA guidance? I don't think the FAA would agree. I suspect they'd want to see a whole lot of paperwork including PRO ratings.Of course not , but your putting apples in the orange basket now, like others here.

So whats' the difference? The difference is that these types of jumps are usually done by the military, and when done under military auspices there's broad acceptance that 'things are different'. But the crux of the problem is that it isn't the military doing these jumps.

As for the "It's not SKYDIVING" opinion -

FAR 91 doesn't talk about "skydive" or "skydiving operations". Nor does part 105 or 95.

The FARs do talk about Parachutes, parachute jumps, and parachute equipment.

The BSR's are not limited to instructional jumps, nor jumps that are part of a progression. This differenciation that you've constructed is imaginary.Is it? they are not conducting a Parachute Jump for the intention of eventually being a Skydiver, which SL Progression is about. The BSR's have no weight here, since this is not a USPA type of Parachute Jump

Either the jump is military under orders or its part of the responsibility the FAA has chosen to delegate to the USPA.
The FAA Has not delegated these re-enactment groups to the USPA, the FAA has issued them the waivers for their jumps. A member asked a question to make sure her would not be punished by USPA for being a member of this group, they said he would be punished, IMO they are wrong for thinking so.

_Am

This really shouldn't be an argument for or by USPA or by any of us.

Matt


Andy9o8  (D License)

Jul 10, 2011, 9:25 AM
Post #24 of 26 (2749 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
They are NOT Skydiving, they are not an Organization of Skydivers, they need NO waiver.

Yes they are; yes they are, and yes they do. Makeithappen's and AndyMan's interpretations are correct. If a civilian is making a parachute jump from an aircraft and he is not, at the very least, doing so as the authorized guest of a military unit conducting military operations under orders (whether training or deployment), it is a skydive. (And even then, unless he's formally imbedded in the unit, there's an argument that a USPA BOD waiver is still required.) Other factors that you cite (military re-enactment, mil-surp gear, type of aircraft, type of jump, etc.) are irrelevant.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 11, 2011, 8:05 AM
Post #25 of 26 (2710 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] USPA Board Plans Summer Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
They are NOT Skydiving, they are not an Organization of Skydivers, they need NO waiver.

Yes they are; yes they are, and yes they do. Makeithappen's and AndyMan's interpretations are correct. If a civilian is making a parachute jump from an aircraft and he is not, at the very least, doing so as the authorized guest of a military unit conducting military operations under orders (whether training or deployment), it is a skydive. (And even then, unless he's formally imbedded in the unit, there's an argument that a USPA BOD waiver is still required.) Other factors that you cite (military re-enactment, mil-surp gear, type of aircraft, type of jump, etc.) are irrelevant.

I respect your opinion as a skydiver and lawyer and concede it may be correct.

But, the organization we are talking about has in the past and continues to meet the FAA's requirements for a waiver. They do so by stating they are not skydiving.

They are not members of USPA (for the most part) and only occasionally jump at a GM DZ.

They can move their training locations to the one they "own" in the mid west and this is then a moot point, or at least only a concern for some individuals.

Personally, IMO, this is a waste of USPA's time to deal with. Just make a blanket statement that it is not a USPA matter and they assume no liability in it.

Matt


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Archive : 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections

 


Search for (options)