1 1
MakeItHappen

USPA Board Meeting

Recommended Posts

So suddenly any time the board needs to "collect" data, they pass a BSR? Of all the options I see to collect this, passing a BSR to do it wude have been past last on my list. Granted, I'm not on the board and maybe this is happening a Lot more than I (or most everyone else here) are seeing but, going heavy handed like this, seems inappropriate at best. Those in favor of this, seem to continually use the argument of how badly this info is needed to back their argument of being in favor of this. I don't think anybody is against finding that out, including me. I don't agree this is needed to get it. I remember the days of the Convention and can't recall seeing any more than a few (<5) activations. Pretty sure there were more jumps done in those 10 days than just about anywhere else on the planet. Let me make a prediction: I don't think this is going to be reported very often. A; it just doesn't happen often. B: it's embarrassing and since there is (at this time) no repercussions for NOT doing it, there is little reason to expose the risk of trusting the USPA with that info. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skypilotA1 said:

"The question no one seems to want to answer - Why is collecting this data so important that it requires a BSR to get it?  Aren't BSR's supposed to be about basic safety issues - things that can/have hurt or kill skydivers?"

The answer is important because USPA doesn't know the extent of the problem. According to one source, CYPRES  supplies on average 670 replacement cutters a year to the US, combined military & civilian. Even if the civilian percentage is a faction of that number, that is a HUGE number of AAD fires per year...and that is just CYPRES. And that number doesn't even include VIGIL fires. The AAD fires are simply not being reported. If the collected data indicates a pattern (like TIs with hand cams, AFF single instructor release jumps, or solo student practicing backflips), then some retraining may be in order. The extent of the problem simply isn't known, and this BSR may help save lives. 

So simply...the BSR is simply to collect data that may save lives, and there is no downside to reporting.

Paul Gholson

 

 

Maybe it's just me, but I'm still not seeing a reason for this being a BSR.  If it is data you are after, classify all AAD fires as incidents. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from an AAD fire regardless of the type of jump it occurs on.  

Should a pattern of AAD fires be seen at any particular dz, S&T could then investigate further and require whatever retraining may be indicated by that pattern. I see nothing wrong with requiring the entire dz instructional staff to go through some sort of retraining.

Perhaps a required "standardization" session (like I/E's are required to attend semi-annually) and a check dive including ground prep with an I/E for all USPA I's on an annual or semi-annual basis would do more to save lives/prevent AAD fires.  

Becoming an instructor should not require self-incrimination.  Being required to report one's own AAD fire, including their name, is requiring self-incrimination as there is a threat of disciplinary action attached to submitting said report.

imho, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, baronn said:

So suddenly any time the board needs to "collect" data, they pass a BSR? Of all the options I see to collect this, passing a BSR to do it wude have been past last on my list. Granted, I'm not on the board and maybe this is happening a Lot more than I (or most everyone else here) are seeing but, going heavy handed like this, seems inappropriate at best. Those in favor of this, seem to continually use the argument of how badly this info is needed to back their argument of being in favor of this. I don't think anybody is against finding that out, including me. I don't agree this is needed to get it. I remember the days of the Convention and can't recall seeing any more than a few (<5) activations. Pretty sure there were more jumps done in those 10 days than just about anywhere else on the planet. Let me make a prediction: I don't think this is going to be reported very often. A; it just doesn't happen often. B: it's embarrassing and since there is (at this time) no repercussions for NOT doing it, there is little reason to expose the risk of trusting the USPA with that info. 

If you are not against it, why do you keep fighting about it?  

 

Why the BSR?  IMO - maybe because instructors/staff can have such egos that that unless you make it a requirement, they don't believe it applies to them and so many are certainly not going to admit to a mistake.  Mistakes are made, AAD's fire, and hopefully no one will die because the mistake is made.  We learn from them and move on.

Why not require everyone report? IMO -  Need to start somewhere.  Maybe we need to be more concerned about the students, whose training them, and whose jumping with them.  I'm sure the USPA would be happy to receive other reports on AAD's firing if anyone wanted to let them know.

WFFC  - there were not as many AAD's worn back in the day so you wouldn't see that many fire.    How many low pulls were there back then?

I am not a big fan of the USPA and how they secretly do things but you are pitching a fit over nothing.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May want to read everything I post. I am against a required BSR to collect this. DZO's and S&TA's cude provide this info. They don't need a BSR to require it. Airtec introduced their AAD's in the early 90"s. Most everyone I knew. had 1 near the end of the convention days.. You can continue to nitpick my points as much as you see fit. The point here is the Board continues to focus on non issues and ignore more important things. I'm not alone in feeling this way. If yer OK with this, good for you. I disagree and am not afraid to say it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, skybytch said:

Maybe it's just me, but I'm still not seeing a reason for this being a BSR.  If it is data you are after, classify all AAD fires as incidents. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from an AAD fire regardless of the type of jump it occurs on.  

Should a pattern of AAD fires be seen at any particular dz, S&T could then investigate further and require whatever retraining may be indicated by that pattern. I see nothing wrong with requiring the entire dz instructional staff to go through some sort of retraining.

Perhaps a required "standardization" session (like I/E's are required to attend semi-annually) and a check dive including ground prep with an I/E for all USPA I's on an annual or semi-annual basis would do more to save lives/prevent AAD fires.  

Becoming an instructor should not require self-incrimination.  Being required to report one's own AAD fire, including their name, is requiring self-incrimination as there is a threat of disciplinary action attached to submitting said report.

imho, of course.

Sooo, we have an as yet to be proven problem and the answer is to require more rules and regulation to fix it? Requiring the entire staff to have to go thru retraining because 1 individual had a fire?  I think if the Board continues to act like this, and some members continue to support, these type of un-needed actions, fewer and fewer folks are gonna want to participate as instructors. And before I start getting, "What are you afraid of?" routine, I don't have an AAD in my personal rig, Don't hum it down as I have witnessed at many member DZ's by current board members and I/E's, have no intention of suddenly changing that. It is extremely doubtful this will ever affect me personally. I hate bullies and I hate bully tactics. This stinks of that...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, baronn said:

Yep. Pretty sure most non fatal accidents don't get reported. Explain how reporting these to the USPA can change any of those outcomes? 

Lots of reasons.

It would be good to spot trends before they turn deadly.  If the rate of AAD firings of AFF JM's is going up, due to pursuing a student too low?  Then we change the training syllabus NOW before they turn into fatalities.

It would also be good for student safety to see how much the industry is relying on AAD's.  Are student AAD firings an incredibly rare thing, as they seem to be?  Great.  Do some DZ's see a student AAD firing once a month?  Then the only thing standing between a student and a fatality is a fallible device.  Bad.

Also people often wonder whether or not to use student or expert AAD's on students, with good arguments being made for both.  Do student AAD's result in a lot of firings in less than emergent situations?  Then USPA could advise DZ's to use expert AAD's instead.  Or do student AAD's really save more students in emergency situations than an expert model would?  That's another very important thing to learn.

Quote

Who knows?

Right now no one.  And that is EXACTLY why we need more data - so we do know.  "Who knows?" is a poor reason to set a specific training policy.

Quote

Yet, we are continually being asked to :Trust" their judgement. Another News Flash,  Trust is earned, time for the Board to prove they understand that....

Yep.  And many on the board have earned my trust.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, baronn said:

Sooo, we have an as yet to be proven problem and the answer is to require more rules and regulation to fix it?

Sometimes rules and regulations are a good thing.  Yes, some of what I suggested would add to them, but it would serve multiple purposes.  A required classroom session (including discussion) and a check dive would help to ensure that instruction given across the country is the same, that each instructor is capable of planning and performing a safe student jump, and other data could also be collected by the I/E and then sent on to S&T

 

Quote

Requiring the entire staff to have to go thru retraining because 1 individual had a fire?  

What I wrote - "Should a pattern of AAD fires be seen at any particular dz, S&T could then investigate further and require whatever retraining may be indicated by that pattern. I see nothing wrong with requiring the entire dz instructional staff to go through some sort of retraining."

One AAD fire does not a pattern make. 

Edited by skybytch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, this thing sure ran away fast. I never opposed Finding out if this is a problem. I have always said I didn't like this approach. The board cude have simply asked if anyone witnesses a fire, send a text, phone call or Email to Ron Bell. No need to name any place/one to gather data. But Nooooo. Now it's actually being suggested that every instructor at a DZ that has this happen, needs re-training. Why stop there? Why not re-train every AFF, Tandem and videographer that may ever be on a student jump across the entire planet? And while we're at it, require every instructor to put a non refundable deposit with the USPA because there's a chance that a life saving device may actually be used. They can continue to wisely invest that into projects like the Museum. And then beg for funding to send a team to a World event......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2019 at 5:58 PM, ufk22 said:

I don’t understand alll the fuss...

A student can sue????? For an AAD fire?????  This seems to go to the erroneous assumption that the instructor in there to save the student’s life.  That is the student’s job.  My job is to train them to proficiency. Maybe because is was trained S/L and trained S/L students for 20 years before I started AFF.

Of course it is their job.  And they can still sue you.  Anyone can sue you for anything.  An AFF student could sue you because they flared at 30 feet and broke their leg.  They could also sue you because they were female and they feel they were harassed, or that you discriminated against them by making them buy their own lunch.

Whether or not they win, of course, is another matter - and usually they don't, because Hulsey vs Elsinore set a pretty good precedent when it comes to skydiving accidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, baronn said:

Man, this thing sure ran away fast. I never opposed Finding out if this is a problem. I have always said I didn't like this approach. The board cude have simply asked if anyone witnesses a fire, send a text, phone call or Email to Ron Bell.

And almost no one would have heard about it - and almost no one would have complied.  

Quote

Now it's actually being suggested that every instructor at a DZ that has this happen, needs re-training.

Any AFF JM who has an AAD fire on a student jump DOES need retraining.  If your DZ does not concern itself with such incidents - seek a different DZ.

Quote

Why stop there? Why not re-train every AFF, Tandem and videographer . . . . .

Because when a competent instructor does a good job no retraining is required.  I assume you do not make such foolish claims in real life, and you are now just angry and trying to "win" the argument.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is a big deal in the long run. The USPA would like to get decent feedback from the field.

I still think it is kind of stupid to put it into the BSR's as filling out paperwork doesn't seem to be a fundamental part of actually making a safe skydive. So I laugh at the USPA's actions, even while understanding that they probably thought, "But nobody's gonna fill this stuff out unless we really, really try to force them by making it sound super important." 

But taking the time to look at the SIM, the BSR info actually makes it sound like data collection would fit the mandate. It has stuff like:

Quote

A. How the BSRs affect safety
1. The BSRs promote practices aimed at eliminating
incidents in skydiving and, by doing so, make
skydiving safer and more enjoyable.
2. The BSRs are established by evaluating incidents and
identifying their root causes.
3. Safety is accomplished by reducing the risk factors,
which requires everyone involved in skydiving to:
a. acquire knowledge and make a continuing effort [...]

Maybe a little more feedback communication is OK for the organization to have.

Anyway, not my problem really. I'm in the CSPA where we have long had Accident/Incident/Malfunction forms we're supposed to send in for all sort of stuff. (The info does get anonymized and originals shredded.) Any AAD fire would likely qualify, not just on instructional jumps.  Yes it is a battle to get people to send them in, and some DZ's are better than others at getting people to submit them. Incident reports are great for annual safety reviews too, internally on a DZ.

I'm ready to just move along on this.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, billvon said:

And almost no one would have heard about it - and almost no one would have complied.  

Any AFF JM who has an AAD fire on a student jump DOES need retraining.  If your DZ does not concern itself with such incidents - seek a different DZ.

Because when a competent instructor does a good job no retraining is required.  I assume you do not make such foolish claims in real life, and you are now just angry and trying to "win" the argument.

1st point They didn't try. Your response is pure speculation

2nd point. Agreed. The circumstances wude dictate what that needs to be. An S&TA  or DZO issue

What argument do you think I'm trying to "Win"? Clearly Sarcasm is beyond your comprehension...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

This whole USPA witch hunt is getting really old. You realize the USA is possibly the last remaining major skydiving country in the world that allows AADs to be optional? Nearly every other major country that has a footprint in skydiving requires all jumpers to have AADs. They are not optional. It's good to see the USPA trying to keep us at a proper standard. Having to fill out a form after nearly dying is not a big deal.

Edited by Westerly
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's optional ONLY on your personal rig. It's left to individual DZ's to require it or not. Required on tandem and student gear. Again, another weak argument. Have you read any of my previous posts? If so, did you read all of it? I continue to find these kind of responses amazing...….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
12 hours ago, baronn said:

It's optional ONLY on your personal rig. It's left to individual DZ's to require it or not. Required on tandem and student gear. Again, another weak argument. Have you read any of my previous posts? If so, did you read all of it? I continue to find these kind of responses amazing...….

I have read your posts, I just think you are overreacting here just like half the people on this forum do anytime anyone even whispers something about the USPA. The USPA makes a small change and all of a sudden BIG Parachute is out to get everyone and destroy skydiving. Having to send in a form in an effort to learn trends in AAD fires is not a big deal. Collecting statistical data to determine safety trends is literally one of the USPA's core functions, as is the core function of anyone who works in any industry involving safety. It's a basic principle of determining risk.

 

Edited by Westerly
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Westerly said:

I have read your posts, I just think you are overreacting here just like half the people on this forum do anytime anyone even whispers something about the USPA. The USPA makes a small change and all of a sudden BIG Parachute is out to get everyone and destroy skydiving. Having to send in a form in an effort to learn trends in AAD fires is not a big deal. Collecting statistical data to determine safety trends is literally one of the USPA's core functions, as is the core function of anyone who works in any industry involving safety. It's a basic principle of determining risk.

 

Clearly you haven't. Or you simply choose not to comprehend what I post. You continue to go back to the REASON for this info. As I have said here many times, I don't oppose finding that out. I strongly disagree with the method they have chosen to attempt to get it. Apparently the Board doesn't have enuff faith in their members or experience at a DZ to simply ask for this. In this small forum, many have willingly shared their experience when they witness this happen.  The incentive to NOT let it happen is strong, I fail to see why a BSR is needed to get this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna guess that USPA has a pretty good idea of what would happen if this wasn't mandatory. 

They don't have 'enuff' faith in the members. 
They do have 'enuff' experience in receiving (or more accurately not receiving) accident reports. 


They know damned well that there are a LOT more accidents than they get reports on. I can think of at least a half dozen people who suffered fairly serious injuries (broken bones) that were never reported to USPA. 

 

They know full well that if they relied on voluntary reports of AAD fires on student jumps, that they would receive reports on only a fraction of the actual occurrences. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Gonna guess that USPA has a pretty good idea of what would happen if this wasn't mandatory. 

They don't have 'enuff' faith in the members. 
They do have 'enuff' experience in receiving (or more accurately not receiving) accident reports. 


They know damned well that there are a LOT more accidents than they get reports on. I can think of at least a half dozen people who suffered fairly serious injuries (broken bones) that were never reported to USPA. 

 

They know full well that if they relied on voluntary reports of AAD fires on student jumps, that they would receive reports on only a fraction of the actual occurrences. 

Again, pure speculation. Since it was never attempted, we will never know.  As of rite now, the BSR, though mandatory, has no penalty, so technically, if you don't report this, it won't matter. So what's different between this and the voluntary accident report?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, baronn said:

Again, pure speculation. Since it was never attempted, we will never know.  As of rite now, the BSR, though mandatory, has no penalty, so technically, if you don't report this, it won't matter. So what's different between this and the voluntary accident report?

Not correct at all.  The BSR requires the report and if the report is not made it is a violation of the BSR. Then, disciplinary action may be taken for not filing the report and any actions that were also BSR violations.  If the report is made, then no disciplinary action will be taken on what is in the report.

This is the reference in the USPA Governance Manual:

  1. Any USPA member shall be guilty of an offense justifying the imposition of the penalties set forth in USPA Governance Manual Section 1-6.4.C (below) who—

    1. Willfully, flagrantly or continuously violates the USPA Basic Safety Requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, michaelmullins said:

Not correct at all.  The BSR requires the report and if the report is not made it is a violation of the BSR. Then, disciplinary action may be taken for not filing the report and any actions that were also BSR violations.  If the report is made, then no disciplinary action will be taken on what is in the report.

This is the reference in the USPA Governance Manual:

  1. Any USPA member shall be guilty of an offense justifying the imposition of the penalties set forth in USPA Governance Manual Section 1-6.4.C (below) who—

    1. Willfully, flagrantly or continuously violates the USPA Basic Safety Requirements.

I stand corrected. If it never gets reported, then they can't take action. Soooo, in a way, this encourages someone to not report it. If another person sees/hears of it happening, they can drop a dime on them.  Since this is being touted as a "data acquisition action", why is a BSR needed? What has suddenly changed that needs this action? Hiding behind the "We need to know when these happen" doesn't justify a BSR. I do agree it wude be good to know if there is all of a sudden a lot of these going on. The polls here and the numbers I'm getting from the mfg's aren't supporting that trend. So it keeps coming back to my original question, why now?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2019 at 2:15 AM, Westerly said:

This whole USPA witch hunt is getting really old. You realize the USA is possibly the last remaining major skydiving country in the world that allows AADs to be optional? Nearly every other major country that has a footprint in skydiving requires all jumpers to have AADs. They are not optional. It's good to see the USPA trying to keep us at a proper standard. Having to fill out a form after nearly dying is not a big deal.

I realize Americans don't see Canada as any more than a State they need paperwork to visit, but we actually are a separate country that is not AAD mandatory.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2019 at 8:22 PM, Westerly said:

The USPA makes a small change and all of a sudden BIG Parachute is out to get everyone and destroy skydiving.

"BIG Parachute", I like that. I'll probably use it without attribution so I'm acknowledging it now. Every time someone starts sounding like they believe in a conspiracy at the "EVIL USPA HQ".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
5 hours ago, baronn said:

I stand corrected. If it never gets reported, then they can't take action. Soooo, in a way, this encourages someone to not report it. If another person sees/hears of it happening, they can drop a dime on them.  Since this is being touted as a "data acquisition action", why is a BSR needed? What has suddenly changed that needs this action? Hiding behind the "We need to know when these happen" doesn't justify a BSR. I do agree it wude be good to know if there is all of a sudden a lot of these going on. The polls here and the numbers I'm getting from the mfg's aren't supporting that trend. So it keeps coming back to my original question, why now?

Why now?  Why not now?  This is information that the Director of Safety & Training and the BOD feels is important to have in order to enhance safety.

 

Edited by michaelmullins
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, baronn said:

Why not anytime in the last 25 yrs, what changed?

This was covered in the videos posted upstream if you would watch them. Ron Bell talked about why he wanted this change in the video.

Edited by Westerly
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1