legalize1966 0 #1 July 16, 2009 Has USPA ever appointed a person as S&TA for a DZ they do not even jump at? Could they even do that? Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #2 July 17, 2009 Sure they can, and I recall that they have. Imagine a DZ that is not a group member, but has jumpers that want to have a USPA connection for licenses etc.. If USPA can't find a qualified local jumper to serve as S&TA at that DZ, they might appoint somebody at a nearby DZ. The regional director defines the area of authority for an S&TA, and can make it for several DZ's, or none, or just part of a specific DZ. I know of at least one S&TA who was appointed for a region, and another who was appointed for a specific demo site which wasn't a DZ at all. The whole point of the S&TA position is to create a bridge between jumpers and USPA, and that take many forms.Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #3 July 20, 2009 And the RD/USPA has the ability to appoint "At Large" S&TA's and use them for a DZ with no qualified Individuals (this may be more aplicable to the OP) or as the catch all for a DZ missed. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loudtom 5 #4 July 20, 2009 I know jumpers want access to an S&TA. But if a DZO is not willing to become a member for any reason, should that same DZ have access to USPA ammenities? It is a choice for jumpers to jump at a non GM, so it is not like they wouldn't know they won't have access to an S&TA and all the other things that go with being a GM. It seems counter productive from USPA's point of view. Knowing that a DZ is not affiliated with the National governing body may make a difference to some tandem students, and shouldn't GM's get that advantage as well as every other one since they pay for it? USPA should be for USPA. If your not, don't expect the benefits. JMHO, tomtom #90 #54 #08 and now #5 with a Bronze :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #5 July 20, 2009 From http://uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/SafetyTrainingAdvisors/tabid/80/Default.aspx Quote USPA Regional Directors appoint Safety & Training Advisors at each drop zone. Among their volunteer duties, S&TAs provide advice and training for many extraordinary jumps, verify rating renewal requirements and issue license tests. They may be called upon to investigate skydiving accidents and report safety problems and violations. The S&TA is the USPA member's direct link to the Regional Director and USPA Headquarters. If you have a safety concern or question about anything related to skydiving, your S&TA is probably the best place to start looking for answers. If he doesn’t know the answer to your question, he will likely know where to find it or who to call for an answer. Notice that says USPA member, not USPA group member. S&TAs are there for the individual jumpers, not the dropzones."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #6 July 22, 2009 Quote I know jumpers want access to an S&TA. But if a DZO is not willing to become a member for any reason, should that same DZ have access to USPA ammenities? It is a choice for jumpers to jump at a non GM, so it is not like they wouldn't know they won't have access to an S&TA and all the other things that go with being a GM. It seems counter productive from USPA's point of view. Knowing that a DZ is not affiliated with the National governing body may make a difference to some tandem students, and shouldn't GM's get that advantage as well as every other one since they pay for it? USPA should be for USPA. If your not, don't expect the benefits. JMHO, tom I've been previously been S&TA at a non-group member DZ and I'm currently S&TA at a group member DZ. You know what the difference is between the two DZs, from a safety & training perspective? Not one damn thing. If it were my call, my current DZ would spend that $400/year on something that had a bigger impact on safety than the GM program does...say, ergonomic seats in the plane or something. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loudtom 5 #7 July 22, 2009 I think we have gotten away from the S&TA being a safety nazi and moved on to them being in the chain of administration and paper work. We have all seen things go on at a dz that an S&TA should get involved in but doesn't because they make money or want that prestige of being an S&TA and don't want to piss off the DZO. I know not all are like that but some are. How about when a DZO is an S&TA. Some conflict of interest can come up. Being a GM should be about helping skydiving as a group. I have heard an awful lot about abandoning the program but I do not believe this would be in all of our best interests. We need to find a way to make the program work, for safety's sake. lttom #90 #54 #08 and now #5 with a Bronze :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #8 July 22, 2009 QuoteBeing a GM should be about helping skydiving as a group. I have heard an awful lot about abandoning the program but I do not believe this would be in all of our best interests. We need to find a way to make the program work, for safety's sake. lt What does the GM program have to do with safety? Anything worth doing at a group member dropzone is equally worth doing at a non-group member dropzone. Simply put, the program isn't about safety. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
legalize1966 0 #9 July 22, 2009 Can we stay on topic? Geeze no wonder the idiots at the DZ complain about this site so much. What would be the point of having an idividual appointed as S&TA that does not even come to the GM DZ? If one used the "its for the Jumpers" argument this would seem to be a dumb move by the RD as the Jumpers would not even see the S&TA. So essentially there is no S&TA at the DZ. Why do this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loudtom 5 #10 July 23, 2009 Seperating the landing areas is an area group members have agreed to abide by. While it may be a good idea a non GM does not have to comply with it to satisfy a GMship. So I see that as pertaining to safety. And this goes directly to appointing someone who does not go to the dz they were appointed to. At least it is a GM. Wouldn't it be even sillier to appoint one to a non GM and then have them not show up? See, we didn't hijack this thread, just made it more interesting. lttom #90 #54 #08 and now #5 with a Bronze :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #11 July 23, 2009 QuoteSeperating the landing areas is an area group members have agreed to abide by. While it may be a good idea a non GM does not have to comply with it to satisfy a GMship. So I see that as pertaining to safety. And this goes directly to appointing someone who does not go to the dz they were appointed to. At least it is a GM. Wouldn't it be even sillier to appoint one to a non GM and then have them not show up? See, we didn't hijack this thread, just made it more interesting. lt Like I said, if it's worth doing at a GM DZ, it's worth doing at a non GM DZ. In my experience, dedication to safety (e.g. seperating landing areas) has zero relevance to whether a dropzone pays USPA a group member fee each year. And to the topic at hand, I could see appointing an S&TA who sometimes jumps at a particular dropzone, but not one who never or nearly never jumps there. If the latter is the case, politics are likely at play. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #12 July 24, 2009 It would seem that the issue you brought up has been resolved. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
legalize1966 0 #13 July 24, 2009 So we got Mike back? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #14 July 26, 2009 No, but I suspect you'll not be upset and you can rubber stamp what ever you want. I.E. Business as usuall, FAR's and BSR's be damned. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
legalize1966 0 #15 August 1, 2009 Yeah what ever you say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #16 August 3, 2009 I got your PM, interesting read, but you have blocked me so how do you want me to respond? Here in this thread? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
legalize1966 0 #17 August 4, 2009 Dude let it rest already! Every thing in my PM has been beaten to death here already! Get it through your thick skull we are here to stay and this witch hunt needs to stop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loudtom 5 #18 August 4, 2009 You wanted to make this public and now you talk in riddles. For the people that may know the sitch ok, but for the rest of us you make no sense. Do you know what is going on Matt? Could you fill in the rest of us? Do we want to know? lttom #90 #54 #08 and now #5 with a Bronze :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #19 August 4, 2009 I think he came here to complain like many do and he did not ge tthe support he wanted. The DZ he jumps at has gone through another move and it's S&TA did not move with it. The RD told the DZ to use the "At Large" nearby, they never called and never would have any way. The DZ in its new location now has a new S&TA. The tw oS&TA's have a very close relationship, so I see no change in how the S&TA will work with the DZ. I think he and the DZ got what they wanted, just didn't have the patience to wait for it to happen. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loudtom 5 #20 August 4, 2009 Thank you, thank you very much... lttom #90 #54 #08 and now #5 with a Bronze :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
legalize1966 0 #21 August 4, 2009 QuoteI think he came here to complain like many do and he did not ge tthe support he wanted. The DZ he jumps at has gone through another move and it's S&TA did not move with it. The RD told the DZ to use the "At Large" nearby, they never called and never would have any way. The DZ in its new location now has a new S&TA. The tw oS&TA's have a very close relationship, so I see no change in how the S&TA will work with the DZ. I think he and the DZ got what they wanted, just didn't have the patience to wait for it to happen. Matt That is funny. But you know that Mike kept things from being worse than they where. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Driver1 0 #22 August 12, 2009 If I understand this correctly, Suzie Paiser got appointed as S&TA for the AST backup plan, (Waverly). The question that I have is this, is this the same "Suzie" that recently married Mike Paiser? If she is, it appears that they will burn Waverly just as they have at the other three airports. If information serves me correctly, Mike Paiser is the S&TA that allowed the night tandems with wuffos, the jumps where up-jumpers and/or camera guys would hang from the tandems, allow alcohol consumption before the beer lite and against airport policy, allowing jumping on cloudy days, (ie; videos I posted recently) and amongst other issues, can't seem to be able to throw the drogue while face to earth, instead, uses it to get stable to make up for his deficiencies as a TI? All of these issues lead to their demise in Clarksville. They want to blame others, but they did it to themselves. If this is the case, they won't last long at Waverly either.There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
legalize1966 0 #23 August 14, 2009 Yes they are married why do you think I laughed at matthew's "close relationship" comment? Mike didn't allow them to do night tandems he made them safer. the Chuck and the DZ was going to do night tandem jumps any way and if Mike didn't set up the lights they would have been done in total darkness. He made it safer for Jeff, Josh, etc etc. Again the DZ is SAFER when Mike is the S&TA! With out him the place would have been a mess. If you think the DZ's Staff is Childish and Unproffesional here on this web site or with mike, watch them with out adult suppervision! matthewcline NEVER came to the DZ and never would, even when invited! So USPA trying to hide under the "At Large S&TA" was just setting up the DZ to be called unsafe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Driver1 0 #24 August 14, 2009 Quote With out him the place would have been a mess. Apparently it was a mess, why else did they get kicked out of Clarksville? Quotematthewcline NEVER came to the DZ and never would, even when invited! From what I understood, Matt was barred from the DZ by Mike.There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
legalize1966 0 #25 August 15, 2009 No one has ever been "bared" or banned for that matter. Some people are just babies who can't get over themselves. Mike and Chuck both called to offer Matt a chance to see the DZ operate for himslef. He never showed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
