Should 270's be outlawed at USPA DZ's

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You're honor, I don't care about your fucking rules of court, fuck you and your kangaroo court.

If you get stuck, revert to that.

Or just point out the gold fringe on the flag.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Why are some people so unwilling to agree that the USPA does regulate? Jebus....

One does not need to be a USPA member to legally skydive. One does need to obey FAA regulations in order to legally skydive.

Right, and a DZ / skydiver does need to be in compliance with USPA REGULATIONS in order to remain a license holder / group member holder. The USPA does regulate and can enforce by way of suspension or revocation. Fortunately they are a pretty great organization and they aren't into abuses.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You're honor, I don't care about your fucking rules of court, fuck you and your kangaroo court.

If you get stuck, revert to that.

Or just point out the gold fringe on the flag.

Gold fringe? Is there a ref I'm missing?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Right, and a DZ / skydiver does need to be in compliance with USPA REGULATIONS in order to remain a license holder / group member holder.

I do not believe this to be true. I see BSRs and group member "rules" bent and broken often with little or no consequence.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're honor, I don't care about your fucking rules of court, fuck you and your kangaroo court.

If you get stuck, revert to that.

Or just point out the gold fringe on the flag.

Gold fringe? Is there a ref I'm missing?

It would appear so. Do a search!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

USPA requires FAR compliance.

Thank you. SO the USPA does backdoor regulate or ensure compliance with the 120 day repack.

The FAR is a legal requirement whether you belong to the USPA or not. The USPA has to require FAR compliance, if they did not they would be seen to be condoning illegal activities.

(And as far as I am aware, the USPA is in favour of the FAA extending the repack cycle)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Right, and a DZ / skydiver does need to be in compliance with USPA REGULATIONS in order to remain a license holder / group member holder.

I do not believe this to be true. I see BSRs and group member "rules" bent and broken often with little or no consequence.

So you're saying there is no enforcement. Many state and federal laws are the same way. To have legislated rules is one thing, for them to have teeth is yet another. If suits are filed, these rules tend to grow teeth. The first step is writing the legislation, the second is enforcement; the wildcard is teh degree of enforcement and the selectivity as to who they are enforced upon.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're honor, I don't care about your fucking rules of court, fuck you and your kangaroo court.

If you get stuck, revert to that.

Or just point out the gold fringe on the flag.

Gold fringe? Is there a ref I'm missing?

It would appear so. Do a search!

Hmmmm, I'm thinking, thinking, thinking..... yep, I absolutley don't give a shit about the reference.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What are BSR's then? So if you jump at a USPA DZ then you don't have to have your reserve repacked every 120? You don't have to be licensed by a USPA instructor? Hmmmmm..... learn things new everyday....

You seems to have the USPA confused with the FAA.

W/o looking it up, doesn't the USPA require gear be repacked every 120? Even if so in a backdoor fashion by way of requiring gear be maintained. The USPA does regulate, don't make me break out the book.

Are you referring to reserve repacks? That is mandated by the FAA not USPA. Riggers are certified by the FAA and issued seal numbers.

Does the USPA require that your gear be mantained as per the FAA? I'm thinking, yes, and I don't feel like loking it up, so someone pipe in! Why is it that she you go to a new DZ or your own DZ will do reserve checks? I'm thinking teh USPA also regulates this or enforces teh FAA regulation - same thing.

They may require the same things that the FAA requires but they don't enforce it and can't change it. The USPA couldn't change that 120 day requirement to 180 days if they wanted to. They can only lobby the FAA to make that change.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

USPA requires FAR compliance.

Thank you. SO the USPA does backdoor regulate or ensure compliance with the 120 day repack.

The FAR is a legal requirement whether you belong to the USPA or not. The USPA has to require FAR compliance, if they did not they would be seen to be condoning illegal activities.

(And as far as I am aware, the USPA is in favour of the FAA extending the repack cycle)

The USPA has to require FAR compliance, if they did not they would be seen to be condoning illegal activities.


No, the USPA chooses to legislate and enforce the FAA rule. They could be complacent as to the rule. The FAA regulates equip and the USPA enforces that reg, but there is no duty on their part to do so.


if they did not they would be seen to be condoning illegal activities.


So if you witness a murder and do zero, don't call the cops, dn't help, you are not in violation fo anything. I think some states have these new motorist laws that require some assistance, but they are really not enforceable.

As for seen as, now you're trying to interpret the legislative intent of teh USPA backing the 120 day. Hmmmmm. Perhpas it would be negligent to ignore teh 120 day rule, but it also might be construed as grossly negligent to ignore all the recent 270 hook-deaths. Hmmmmmm..... see how it works both ways? I try not to guess legislative intent, I'm usually wrong.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What are BSR's then? So if you jump at a USPA DZ then you don't have to have your reserve repacked every 120? You don't have to be licensed by a USPA instructor? Hmmmmm..... learn things new everyday....

You seems to have the USPA confused with the FAA.

W/o looking it up, doesn't the USPA require gear be repacked every 120? Even if so in a backdoor fashion by way of requiring gear be maintained. The USPA does regulate, don't make me break out the book.

Are you referring to reserve repacks? That is mandated by the FAA not USPA. Riggers are certified by the FAA and issued seal numbers.

Does the USPA require that your gear be mantained as per the FAA? I'm thinking, yes, and I don't feel like loking it up, so someone pipe in! Why is it that she you go to a new DZ or your own DZ will do reserve checks? I'm thinking teh USPA also regulates this or enforces teh FAA regulation - same thing.

They may require the same things that the FAA requires but they don't enforce it and can't change it. The USPA couldn't change that 120 day requirement to 180 days if they wanted to. They can only lobby the FAA to make that change.

The individual DZ's enforce it. They can enforce it on at least 2 grounds:

- It is FAA rule

- It is USPA rule

and a 3rd would be that it shows good faith and not being negligent.

Does the USPA have any duty to legislate or enforce the 120 day rule? I don't see how they do. They do it as a show of good faith and responsibility, but they are not the FAA's arm and could simply ignore it.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So you're saying there is no enforcement. Many state and federal laws are the same way. To have legislated rules is one thing, for them to have teeth is yet another. If suits are filed, these rules tend to grow teeth. The first step is writing the legislation, the second is enforcement; the wildcard is teh degree of enforcement and the selectivity as to who they are enforced upon.

The USPA has no means of enforcement. All they can do is revoke your membership, which is of little to no consequence. On the other hand, if a FAR violation is punished, the repercussions can be serious.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DJL 232]

Quote

Quote

Your poll misses the point by about 270 degrees.

Becauseeeeeee? So should it read that straight in landings be banned then?

19% believe they s/b banned, which is ironically the same number that voted for Perot in 92. That is significant. And if asked if they s/b segregated, I bet 80% would say yes. Banning is the radical approach, so I just wanted to see what the result was.

Thanks for the clarification. I edit that to say 19% of people miss the point by 270 degrees.

It's kind of like saying that since most accidents occur within 2 miles of your house that you should park your car 2 miles away.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[beowulf 1]

I have seen dropzones ignore the 120 day rule for certain people.

unfortunately I can't remember the names anymore.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So you're saying there is no enforcement. Many state and federal laws are the same way. To have legislated rules is one thing, for them to have teeth is yet another. If suits are filed, these rules tend to grow teeth. The first step is writing the legislation, the second is enforcement; the wildcard is teh degree of enforcement and the selectivity as to who they are enforced upon.

The USPA has no means of enforcement. All they can do is revoke your membership, which is of little to no consequence. On the other hand, if a FAR violation is punished, the repercussions can be serious.

Right, the USPA can only require the group members require it, then revoke if there is non-compliance.

The consequences are huge, I like being USPA and I think group mmebers do too. Could you see looking for a non-USPA DZ? We would basically become base jumpers

Yea, FAR's have serious teeth and they act on them.

How did the 270 hook thread turn into a referendum on 120 packs?

Anywho, the USPA can and does write regulation and on occassion will enforce I'm sure.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

The individual DZ's enforce it. They can enforce it on at least 2 grounds:

- It is FAA rule

- It is USPA rule

and a 3rd would be that it shows good faith and not being negligent.

Does the USPA have any duty to legislate or enforce the 120 day rule? I don't see how they do. They do it as a show of good faith and responsibility, but they are not the FAA's arm and could simply ignore it.

The FAA is the only one with teeth. All the USPA can do is revoke their membership. Not much of punishment. The USPA pretty much is required to follow the FAA requirments. They can't recommend 180 days whent he FAA requires 120 days.

[Lucky... 0]

As for 120 pacs and regulation in general, here's some fodder to toss around.

The USPA, if they're going to address 120 day packs, must equal or exceed the FAA. So why couldn't they require 60-day repacks? They could. I realize they are going the other way with it, but hypothetically they could shorten the req for repacks. They could also ignore the rule and figure it is already covered by the FAA, so there is no need to even address it. I mean really, do they need to remind you that you shouldn't speed on the way to the DZ too? Point is, they DO proactively legislate and enforce the 120 day rule, even if it does coincide with the FAA.

Let's all quit acting as if the USPA doesn't regulate, just because they aren't like the local cops wriiting you for 5 over doesn;t mean they don't regulate.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your poll misses the point by about 270 degrees.

Becauseeeeeee? So should it read that straight in landings be banned then?

19% believe they s/b banned, which is ironically the same number that voted for Perot in 92. That is significant. And if asked if they s/b segregated, I bet 80% would say yes. Banning is the radical approach, so I just wanted to see what the result was.

Thanks for the clarification. I edit that to say 19% of people miss the point by 270 degrees.

It's kind of like saying that since most accidents occur within 2 miles of your house that you should park your car 2 miles away.

I realize the poll is one of absolutes: Allow hooks or not. So I see your point. But legislation in the US works that way, it's crisis management. If we lost 1 or 2 a year, we can handle that, but when we start losing 6 in 3 months, or whatever t has been, then there is a crisis that needs to be addressed.

Bottom line is that something needs to be addressed.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Point is, they DO proactively legislate and enforce the 120 day rule, even if it does coincide with the FAA.

How do they actively enforce the 120 day rule?

If USPA decided to require a shorter repack cycle than the FAA how many people do you think would follow it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I have seen dropzones ignore the 120 day rule for certain people.

unfortunately I can't remember the names anymore.

A DZ knew a jumper was beyond 120 and let em jump? Not that care and I think the 120 rule s/b at least twice that, but the DZ / DZO / pilot could be fucked if they knew and it could be proven.... so just continue amnesia, please.

I've had cops let me go speeding... like once. I bet the DZ didn't advertise it too loudly.

I think the 120 rule is idiocy.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

As for 120 pacs and regulation in general, here's some fodder to toss around.

The USPA, if they're going to address 120 day packs, must equal or exceed the FAA. So why couldn't they require 60-day repacks? They could. I realize they are going the other way with it, but hypothetically they could shorten the req for repacks. They could also ignore the rule and figure it is already covered by the FAA, so there is no need to even address it. I mean really, do they need to remind you that you shouldn't speed on the way to the DZ too? Point is, they DO proactively legislate and enforce the 120 day rule, even if it does coincide with the FAA.

Let's all quit acting as if the USPA doesn't regulate, just because they aren't like the local cops wriiting you for 5 over doesn;t mean they don't regulate.

Even if the USPA requred 180 days no one would follow it. If they required 60 days no one would follow that either.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The individual DZ's enforce it. They can enforce it on at least 2 grounds:

- It is FAA rule

- It is USPA rule

and a 3rd would be that it shows good faith and not being negligent.

Does the USPA have any duty to legislate or enforce the 120 day rule? I don't see how they do. They do it as a show of good faith and responsibility, but they are not the FAA's arm and could simply ignore it.

The FAA is the only one with teeth. All the USPA can do is revoke their membership. Not much of punishment. The USPA pretty much is required to follow the FAA requirments. They can't recommend 180 days whent he FAA requires 120 days.

- Are you shitting me, losing my USPA would be devastating, which is why I follow rules. It could bankrupt a DZ/DZO.

- The USPA doesn't have to follow FAA rules, they, like all of us, just can't violate them. There is a difference.

The USPA could require a repack that is < 120 days and legislate it. They have chosen 120 days and have written it, don;t make me look it up, so they have legislated the 120 rule whether you like it or not. Even tho they can't violate FAR's, they are not an arm of teh FAA so they could ignire the 120 rule thinking the FAA would pick it up.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

How do they actively enforce the 120 day rule?

Make the USPA and / or you DZ aware that you no longer acknowledge the 120 rule and see how many jumps you get in that day.

Furthermore, I've had DZ's make copies of my pack card, so that is how they ensure compliance and active enforcement. Now do they do spot checks? I've never seen it, but they do what is reasonably expected.

Quote

If USPA decided to require a shorter repack cycle than the FAA how many people do you think would follow it?

If the feds decided to make states go back to 55mph speed limits via hiway funding, how many drivers would follow? Your point is void in that we're talking legislation, not willfull violation.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Right, the USPA can only require the group members require it, then revoke if there is non-compliance.

The consequences are huge, I like being USPA and I think group mmebers do too. Could you see looking for a non-USPA DZ? We would basically become base jumpers

Yea, FAR's have serious teeth and they act on them.

How did the 270 hook thread turn into a referendum on 120 packs?

Anywho, the USPA can and does write regulation and on occassion will enforce I'm sure.

The overwhelming majority of my jumps were either made without USPA membership, at a group member dropzone (that was fully aware that I was not a USPA member), or with USPA membership at a non-group member dropzone. I'm a member when I have to be, which is rarely.

It has been my experience that it is not difficult to find a dropzone that will allow non-USPA members to jump. Consequently, I suspect a revoked (individual) membership would have minimal consequences on one's ability to skydive.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

As for 120 pacs and regulation in general, here's some fodder to toss around.

The USPA, if they're going to address 120 day packs, must equal or exceed the FAA. So why couldn't they require 60-day repacks? They could. I realize they are going the other way with it, but hypothetically they could shorten the req for repacks. They could also ignore the rule and figure it is already covered by the FAA, so there is no need to even address it. I mean really, do they need to remind you that you shouldn't speed on the way to the DZ too? Point is, they DO proactively legislate and enforce the 120 day rule, even if it does coincide with the FAA.

Let's all quit acting as if the USPA doesn't regulate, just because they aren't like the local cops wriiting you for 5 over doesn;t mean they don't regulate.

Even if the USPA requred 180 days no one would follow it. If they required 60 days no one would follow that either.

Another post based upon willful violation. That's on the user's end, I'm talking legislation/regulation, not willful violation. Altho you are right with your point, the analogy of 120 packs was introduced as a matter of enforceability as with 270 hooks, remember?