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

 

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

Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jul 7, 2011, 6:48 PM
Post #1 of 34 (3747 views)
Shortcut
Summer Board Meeting Can't Post

Well the summer meeting is upon us and hopefully everyone has been hard at work in the off months preparing. Maybe we can use this thread to update the online community, or more importantly have them voice their opinions.

There are some very important topics that are going to be covered and I think it is important to keep everyone in the loop.

Thanks,
Rich Winstock


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)

Jul 8, 2011, 8:11 AM
Post #2 of 34 (3661 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Interestingly enough, I am the only gallery member (so far). I am posting updates on the Skydive Raeford Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/RaefordDZ


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 8, 2011, 8:36 AM
Post #3 of 34 (3656 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Seems a reasonable request.
I hope the BOD will keep us the General Members in the loop here.
And as you may have knowledge of the BOD efforts this weekend maybe that will be accomplished!

Matt


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jul 8, 2011, 6:24 PM
Post #4 of 34 (3620 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Good first day. The proxy passed with approx 3500 votes.
Also some very proactive changes coming out of Sfaety and Training regarding canopy education. Looks very good to hav a new canopy proficiency card requirement for the B license., all input has been excellent.
We also spent a good amount of time going over the tandem's 19 commandments and how they relate to USPA.
All updates to follow but I would suggest following slot perfects updates on the raeford facebook page, link above.
Rich Winstock


MikeTJumps  (D 5957)

Jul 9, 2011, 7:20 AM
Post #5 of 34 (3586 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

The Argus AAD situation with cutter malfunctions was discussed but the only thing that the USPA BOD was involved with is getting the manufacturers of the rigs and the AAD to discuss the situation with each other. USPA will have no recommendations as to the outcome of the situation.

The PIA's views: Still five manufacturers not allowing Argus in their rigs unless a cutter redesign occurs making it more reliable.

Lawsuits naming USPA: There are three currently in contention. One of which I informed the plaintiff's attorney that they did not have a vialble case against the USPA. I have been informed that there are numerous "bad vibes" about me being an expert witness in skydiving matters simply because I was a plaintiff's expert witness against a pilot who, in the opinion of five major MEL Jump Pilots was not operating an aircraft safely leading to an injury of a skydiver (partial permanent paralysis). What the public has not been told is that I have helped shut down at least 12 other lawsuits where either I informed the plaintiff's attorneys that they didn't have a case or that the attorneys settled for fear of a costly court battle. No matter what I said was the responsibility of the injured party, it seems that insurance companies prefer to settle rather than fight it out in court.

We have been informed that Rick Horn, one of the second tier of the original AFF Course Directors passed away three weeks ago. He was Alpaca farming/raising in CA. Cancer got him.

The Summer 2012 meeting location has been selected as Minneapolis, MN.

The S&T committee is working on issues involving Tandem Demo Jumps into Level 2 stadiums.

Tandem Manufacturer's "19 Commandments" are being examined.


(This post was edited by MikeTJumps on Jul 9, 2011, 7:24 AM)


MikeTJumps  (D 5957)

Jul 9, 2011, 3:08 PM
Post #6 of 34 (3557 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MikeTJumps] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Oops. Spelling error: Viable, not vialble.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jul 10, 2011, 10:05 AM
Post #7 of 34 (3514 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I am very pleased to announce that the full BOD accepted the requirement for a canopy piloting proficiency card for a B license, effective 1/1/2012. The S & T commitee along with help from some key individuals present at the meeting worked hard on this card all weekend. The card is in conjunction with section 6-10 & 6-11.

Also tandem passengers do not need helmets or altimeters as per USPA but manufacture requirements might be different.

Just to name a few things.

Rich


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)

Jul 10, 2011, 3:43 PM
Post #8 of 34 (3480 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.uspa.org/...9/Default.aspx#22779


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Jul 10, 2011, 3:45 PM
Post #9 of 34 (3479 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MikeTJumps] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The Argus AAD situation with cutter malfunctions was discussed but the only thing that the USPA BOD was involved with is getting the manufacturers of the rigs and the AAD to discuss the situation with each other. USPA will have no recommendations as to the outcome of the situation.

The PIA's views: Still five manufacturers not allowing Argus in their rigs unless a cutter redesign occurs making it more reliable.

Lawsuits naming USPA: There are three currently in contention. One of which I informed the plaintiff's attorney that they did not have a vialble case against the USPA. I have been informed that there are numerous "bad vibes" about me being an expert witness in skydiving matters simply because I was a plaintiff's expert witness against a pilot who, in the opinion of five major MEL Jump Pilots was not operating an aircraft safely leading to an injury of a skydiver (partial permanent paralysis). What the public has not been told is that I have helped shut down at least 12 other lawsuits where either I informed the plaintiff's attorneys that they didn't have a case or that the attorneys settled for fear of a costly court battle. No matter what I said was the responsibility of the injured party, it seems that insurance companies prefer to settle rather than fight it out in court.

We have been informed that Rick Horn, one of the second tier of the original AFF Course Directors passed away three weeks ago. He was Alpaca farming/raising in CA. Cancer got him.

The Summer 2012 meeting location has been selected as Minneapolis, MN.

The S&T committee is working on issues involving Tandem Demo Jumps into Level 2 stadiums.

Tandem Manufacturer's "19 Commandments" are being examined.

So you went to the board meeting?


diablopilot  (D License)

Jul 10, 2011, 5:04 PM
Post #10 of 34 (3465 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Also tandem passengers do not need helmets or altimeters as per USPA but manufacture requirements might be different.

Clarify please. Has the BOD removed the requirement that tandem students have access to a visual altimeter?


MikeTJumps  (D 5957)

Jul 10, 2011, 9:03 PM
Post #11 of 34 (3440 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes Chuck. I've been to all but 2 BOD meetings since 1997. I am the PIA's representative to them and Dan Poynter funds my trips there. I am an advisor to the S&T committee and I have input at the BOD meetings whenever I find something important to address.


diablopilot  (D License)

Jul 11, 2011, 9:08 AM
Post #12 of 34 (3402 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Also tandem passengers do not need helmets or altimeters as per USPA but manufacture requirements might be different.

Clarify please. Has the BOD removed the requirement that tandem students have access to a visual altimeter?

I've had a confirmation from a BOD member that this is the case. The BSR has been changed so that a Tandem Student no longer has to have access to an altimeter.

I'd LOVE to hear the BOD's explanation for this.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 11, 2011, 10:33 AM
Post #13 of 34 (3396 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Also tandem passengers do not need helmets or altimeters as per USPA but manufacture requirements might be different.

Clarify please. Has the BOD removed the requirement that tandem students have access to a visual altimeter?

I've had a confirmation from a BOD member that this is the case. The BSR has been changed so that a Tandem Student no longer has to have access to an altimeter.

I'd LOVE to hear the BOD's explanation for this.

This seems a step backwards in my opinion. Now it appears even USPA has stepped back from tandem as a Training method and the Students are no longer Students.

Matt


peek  (D 8884)

Jul 11, 2011, 11:13 AM
Post #14 of 34 (3380 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The BSR has been changed so that a Tandem Student no longer has to have access to an altimeter.

What is interesting is that many people (BOD members and other alike) think that an altimeter on the instructor's wrist is "accessible" to the student. It _can_ be, but I don't think that it necessarily is, and certainly isn't all the time.

By the way, Gary Peek and Vic Johnson voted no to that BSR change. If enough members think this BSR change was not a good thing, then by all means contact the Safety and Training committee members.

(Discuss it here, complain there.)

Perhaps someone could start another thread in the Instructors or S&T forum.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jul 11, 2011, 1:36 PM
Post #15 of 34 (3363 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey Diablo,

I can give you the thought process that took place in S&T regarding the altimeters for tandem students.

Across the country many many dropzone interpret visually accessible to mean the tandem instructors altimeter would suffice to meet the requirement. I know of several large dropzones that do not give their tandem students altimeters on the first jump, but consequently give them one for a training tandem. I personally have fielded many calls asking for a clarification. the problem was that even the BOD had differnet opinions. Which in turn means it is not clear. All we did was add (except tandem students) to the wording. This makes it clear that a tandem student does not need an altimeter. Keep in mind it doesnt say they cant have one, so if you give your students altimeters that is completely up to each DZ.

The S&T felt it was not a safety issue. The arguement was if a tandem instructors altimeter malfunctioned they could use the students as a back up. It was strongly believed a tandem instructor should be able to know via time clock, visually, or through experience that his altimeter is not functioning properly.

There were some other very debated issues as well. Min. exit altitude of 7500', tandem canopies must maintain 100' seperation, deployment altitude to 5500. All of these and several others were not only voted down, it was unanimous. Many DZ's will exit with a tandem at 6, 6.5, and 7 k weather dependant. My thought on the 7500 exit altitude was that we have a min deployment altitude of 4500' so I felt it wasnt necessary to designate a min exit altitude. You must exit high enough to initiate deployment by 4500. I felt keeping it simple was probably the best route.
Another issue was requiring the tandem canopy to be fully inflated by 4k. Again, I felt this a bit ridiculous being the tandem instructor doesnt have control over the time it may take to open fully. If we went ahead and approved this one then you can open at 4600 but if you snivel to 3800 you would be in violation. It just seemed contradictory to me.

I hope that clears some of it a bit. I am always open to your thoughts and do not ever take offense to disagreement or debate.
Rich


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 11, 2011, 3:00 PM
Post #16 of 34 (3350 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hey Diablo,

I can give you the thought process that took place in S&T regarding the altimeters for tandem students.

Across the country many many dropzone interpret visually accessible to mean the tandem instructors altimeter would suffice to meet the requirement.This would be of course incorrect by the various Manufacturers and their course teachings. I know of several large dropzones that do not give their tandem students altimeters on the first jump, but consequently give them one for a training tandem. I personally have fielded many calls asking for a clarification. the problem was that even the BOD had differnet opinions. Which in turn means it is not clear. All we did was add (except tandem students) to the wording. This makes it clear that a tandem student does not need an altimeter. Keep in mind it doesnt say they cant have one, so if you give your students altimeters that is completely up to each DZ.

The S&T felt it was not a safety issue.but it is, if a student panics the arm the instructor just stick in front of them to show an altimeter is now "trapped". The arguement was if a tandem instructors altimeter malfunctioned they could use the students as a back up.a good argument It was strongly believed a tandem instructor should be able to know via time clock, visually, or through experience that his altimeter is not functioning properly.

There were some other very debated issues as well. Min. exit altitude of 7500', tandem canopies must maintain 100' seperation, deployment altitude to 5500. All of these and several others were not only voted down, it was unanimous. Many DZ's will exit with a tandem at 6, 6.5, and 7 k weather dependant. My thought on the 7500 exit altitude was that we have a min deployment altitude of 4500' so I felt it wasnt necessary to designate a min exit altitude. You must exit high enough to initiate deployment by 4500. I felt keeping it simple was probably the best route.
Another issue was requiring the tandem canopy to be fully inflated by 4k. Again, I felt this a bit ridiculous being the tandem instructor doesnt have control over the time it may take to open fully. the slower opening canopies of today is why the THREE US MANFACtURUERS are requiring 5500' AGL If we went ahead and approved this one then you can open at 4600 but if you snivel to 3800 you would be in violation. It just seemed contradictory to me.

I hope that clears some of it a bit. I am always open to your thoughts and do not ever take offense to disagreement or debate.
Rich

I think it just muddied up the waters a bit more.

I think Gary and Vic actually thought of Student Training, not the others.

I think voting against the safer altitudes in the 19 Commandments is actually a vote against Tandem Student Safety.

Matt


3331  (D 3331)

Jul 11, 2011, 5:31 PM
Post #17 of 34 (3328 views)
Shortcut
Re: Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

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


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jul 11, 2011, 7:49 PM
Post #18 of 34 (3307 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think voting against the safer altitudes in the 19 Commandments is actually a vote against Tandem Student Safety.

Hey Matt,
There was no vote against anything. We just left it alone. Meaning that the deployment altitude for tandems is 4500'. We didnt change anything. If we did as suggested by the manufacturers and changed the deployment altitude to 5500' how would we do student training tandems. We train to waive at 5500' by the time they actually wave and find the rip cord it is usually initiated around 4700-4800 depending on how much time you decide to give them. If we change the altitude to 5500 feet training tandems would have to wave at 6500.

There was nothing brought before the board that stated 4500 was an unsafe altitude to deploy tandems at. Do you feel differently? I deploy at 5k 99.7 % of the time but have on a few ocassions deployed below 5k and above 4500. I dont feel as if I was being unsafe to my student.

Again, to emphasis we did not do anything, we just didnt change what we currently are using.

As far as the exit altitude all we are saying is that having a 4500 deployment altitude answers the min exit altitude. High enough to deploy by 4500'agl.
If we said 7500' is a BSR for min exit that means every tandem that is done across the country below 7500 agl is a bsr violation. How many dropzones if weather comes in do tandems from 6k up to 7500k? I will answer for you, a lot.

As far as the altimeters, I agree they are a useful training tool and should be used on all training tandems. I do not believe we should make it a bsr violation if you dont put an altimeter on grandpa jones who is checking skydiving off his bucket list. I think it should be left up to the dropzones themselves.

It is a fine line we are trying to walk and not everyone will be happy but I guarantee if we made those changes dropzones and instructors across the world would be pretty pissed off.

Please keep in mind if you want to deploy at 5500, and only exit above 7500 you are completely free to adhere to those standards as set by your dz.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jul 11, 2011, 7:57 PM
Post #19 of 34 (3305 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think Gary and Vic actually thought of Student Training, not the others.
In reply to:

I have all the respect in the world for both Gary and Vic and would never speak against them.

I will add that by making the above changes student freefall would be drastically reduced. A 7500 agl exit and a deployment by 5500 agl. is not giving a tandem training student the time needed to accomplish anything. If they wave at 6500' to initiate deployment by 5500 that leaves 1000' to get stable throw a drogue and actual perform some skills: ie practice touches, turns, forward motion.

So although Gary and Vic have valid reasons and points not agreeing with them does not mean we are against the students, it is quite the opposite.

Your thoughts?


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 12, 2011, 8:27 AM
Post #20 of 34 (3260 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I think Gary and Vic actually thought of Student Training, not the others.
In reply to:

I have all the respect in the world for both Gary and Vic and would never speak against them.

I will add that by making the above changes student freefall would be drastically reduced. A 7500 agl exit and a deployment by 5500 agl. is not giving a tandem training student the time needed to accomplish anything. If they wave at 6500' to initiate deployment by 5500 that leaves 1000' to get stable throw a drogue and actual perform some skills: ie practice touches, turns, forward motion.

So although Gary and Vic have valid reasons and points not agreeing with them does not mean we are against the students, it is quite the opposite.

Your thoughts?

The 5500' AGL altitude is the same as an AFF Cat "A". We find that to be plenty of time.

True the BOD did not vote "against" the 19 Commandments but they should have voted "yes" to implement them. They are only Safety driven after all, and Safety should be USPA's first concern.

Bill Booth actually had good a argument for raising the minimum deployment altitude from 4500' to 5500'. I do not remember the exact wording but it involved the ~2500' AAD activation altitude and the combination of 1000' opening mains with a delay for any reason in the deployment process. The outcome could be a two out situation or a reserve main entanglement. The argument was sound enough ALL three of the US Tandem Rig Manufacturers signed that document and presented it to PIA.

Now with USPA NOT agreeing to the Safer Standards, we once again have a double standard with which we USPA and Manufacturer Rated Instructors have to follow. Since the Manufacturer and USPA have an agreement that if an Instructor Violates one or the others rules a rating can be pulled and that WILL BE honored by the other, so, we have a problem.

If UPT says: "Here is the 19 Commandments for Tandem Parachuting, follow them". I do Hop and Pop Tandems at 4500', UPT says: "No" and pulls my rating, I no longer have a USPA rating as well, per the agreement from 2008(?). I cry: "But USPA Said!" See?

The Tandem Students deserve our complete attention for their safety, that is all the 19 Commandments tried to get ALL of us T-I's to do. USPA should have agreed. By agreeing then the four major players that are not the FAA would be on the same page, giving us a better leg to stand on.

The other direction would be to have USPA get ALL THE WAY OUT of Tandem Skydiving Governing and then let the Manufacturers deal with each DZ and individual themselves. I know there are lots of T-I's that would prefer that.

Again this is my opinion, the BOD had theirs and the BOD voted as such. I see it as a Safety discussion, and am quite surprised that it was not implemented, as every one I voted for this past election ALL campaigned for Safer Skydiving.

Matt


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 13, 2011, 2:17 PM
Post #21 of 34 (3204 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I think Gary and Vic actually thought of Student Training, not the others.
In reply to:

I have all the respect in the world for both Gary and Vic and would never speak against them.

I will add that by making the above changes student freefall would be drastically reduced. A 7500 agl exit and a deployment by 5500 agl. is not giving a tandem training student the time needed to accomplish anything. If they wave at 6500' to initiate deployment by 5500 that leaves 1000' to get stable throw a drogue and actual perform some skills: ie practice touches, turns, forward motion.

So although Gary and Vic have valid reasons and points not agreeing with them does not mean we are against the students, it is quite the opposite.

Your thoughts?

A 4500' AGL exit doesn't allow the Student to do any training, unless the T-I uses it as s chance for Canopy Control.

A minimum of 7500' would at least let them, arch, read an Alti (if they still wore one) and then attempt a pull on time.

Matt


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jul 14, 2011, 12:28 AM
Post #22 of 34 (3174 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I am all for a recommended min altitude for a training tandem. 7500 would be good for that. I dont think it needs to be a bsr though. How about 7500 feet agl and an altimeter as a recommendation for training tandems.
.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 18, 2011, 9:22 AM
Post #23 of 34 (3082 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I am all for a recommended min altitude for a training tandem. 7500 would be good for that. I dont think it needs to be a bsr though. How about 7500 feet agl and an altimeter as a recommendation for training tandems.
.

Sure, and remember, all tandems should be for training as all Tandems have an Instructor and Student as well as handles to facilitate this. Even says so on the Student harness for UPT.

I personally think, that if the BOD was wanting to take a step back from Tandem Instruction, then step all the way out. But, if they still want to be involved in Tandem Instruction step back in all the way and Hokie Pokie.

Matt


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jul 18, 2011, 7:01 PM
Post #24 of 34 (3049 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I do not disagree with what you are saying. Tandems are meant to be a training tool vs an amusement ride. The problem is not everyone wants to be trained. Some people want to show up and just experience the thrill of freefall and a canopy ride. Should we push it on these folks? I usually give them what they want.


diablopilot  (D License)

Jul 18, 2011, 9:03 PM
Post #25 of 34 (3040 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Summer Board Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

From FAR 105.45

Quote:
(2) The person acting as parachutist in command:

(i) Has briefed the passenger parachutist before boarding the aircraft. The briefing must include the procedures to be used in case of an emergency with the aircraft or after exiting the aircraft, while preparing to exit and exiting the aircraft, freefall, operating the parachute after freefall, landing approach, and landing.


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

Forums : Archive : 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections

 


Search for (options)