0
peek

Need input from USPA members, Parachutist article

Recommended Posts

I know that a lot of USPA members don't really read much in Parachutist magazine, so I'm asking members to read the article on page 38 of the July 2017 Parachutist, "Is Indoor Skydiving Skydiving?" The article is wriiten by Randy Connell, headquarters Director of Competition.

USPA is trying to determine how deeply, if at all, to get "officially" involved in tunnel flying, and all of the associated issues with doing so. (More than just competition issues.)

The article includes many, many questions, so this may be an indication to you of how complex this issue is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CASPA debated this question long and loud during our Annual General Meeting in February 2017.
We decided to allow tunnel fliers to compete under rules written by CSPA judges (e.g. Rena Gallo) and that they could purchase FAI Sporting licenses through CSPA.

On another motion, CSPA delegates voted against selling CSPA
memberships to tunnel rats because of fears that under-aged athletes might sue CSPA if injured. That debate ignored he notion that most tunnels carry far more insurance than CSPA.
The "no" side of the debate was lead by two Ontario DZOs who want CSPA to change BSRs to include 16-year-old tandem students.
Holy hypocracy Batman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am totally against it. Aside from I see it as just another way for the USPA to make money, it's the United State PARACHUTE Association. Not TUNNEL association. If you include tunnel then include BASE, at least they use a parachute. USPA would be taking on way too much liability.

Are you going to have a whole new set of BSR's for tunnel? Group Member Tunnels? What about the age limit? Most tunnels take very young children. Why is the tunnel okay for a 5 yr old when a tandem isn't? You can still get injured or killed.

Tunnel is not skydiving. USPA should stay out of the tunnel business.

Also, If you are going to increase our due's, (as stated in the Winter minutes - I guess you will be voting on this at the meeting in a couple weeks) I want to know what I get out of it as an individual member.


Judy
Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Gary,

I am glad to see that you started a thread on this issue. I applaud you, as usual, for your continuous outreach to the USPA members. There a few items of interest in the Parachutist which I would like attention on:

a. Foreign Member Voting
b. Balloting Period
c. USPA - Involvement in Indoor Skydiving

Foreign Member Voting:

USPA wants to take away the option of foreign members to vote for a Regional Director in a Region of Choice. Two statements put in favor for eliminating this right:
1. "... on the premise that only members in a USPA region should be able to vote for that region's director."
2. "In the last election, out of some 6700 foreign members, 583 voted for a regional director"

As a resident of NC but with my declared residence in FL, I voted for the Regional Director in FL. Also many skydivers travel the world, work in different dropzones, etc.etc. Which Regional Director should they vote for if not for the RD which they identify their home dropzone with? or better yet, should that not be left up to the individual? after all, they are full members and should have equal rights. Slipery slope here... Foreign members pay anywhere from 13 to 60% more in membership dues (yearly-life). Yet not all rules apply the same?
Many ways to look at this.. needless to say I dont see a fair argument behind making this change.

Balloting Period

Reduction of open voting from Oct1-Nov30 to Oct1-30.

"But a two-month period creates a large staff workload, since many members join and expire during each of the months, and the staff needs to verify that each person is a current member when they vote"

This sounds like a system failure for which staff is asking for a change instead of addressing the root cause. That or perhaps a clearer explanation on the subject is needed? I dont see how shortening the open voting time frame eliminates the problem, but rather reduces the amount of the problem. Am I calculating this incorrectly?

USPA - Involvement in Indoor Skydiving

----------------------------------
taken from: http://www.uspa.org/About-USPA/about-us

USPA’s mission is three-fold:

*to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing and *instructor qualification programs
*to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system
*to promote competition and record-setting programs
-----------------------------------------
Couple of questions and thoughts to the matter:

- How much will it cost to change the mission statement and all the overhead to accomplish this suggestion of regulating or getting involved with indoor skydiving?
- How much will my membership go up to accomplish this action?

I can see how this is looked at as a revenue source (which can backfired without a proper business case)... However, when the USPA BoD comprises 22 individuals, 14 Regional Dir and 8 Natl Directors conducting 3 meetings a year... My guess is $30-40k per meeting ($100-120k/yr)... perhaps there should be a two sided approached in reducing cost as well as increasing revenue. Not that increasing Profit is the target.... But then what is the real mission behind this move? and has it been really studied to determine it will not increase the members costs... how else will this be funded?

As usual Gary... Thanks for your involvement.

Regards,

JP Vega

Note: all quotes above are copied from the published Parachutist Issue 693 (July 2017) - Official publication of the United States Parachute Association.
i keep minimum information on my profile. email is my communication preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here, Here. What exactly is the USPA gonna bring to the table to improve/benefit this situation? Tunnels seem to be better off without their involvement. The less involvement from these incompetent Numbskulls the better.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jlmiracle

I am totally against it. Aside from I see it as just another way for the USPA to make money, it's the United State PARACHUTE Association. Not TUNNEL association. If you include tunnel then include BASE, at least they use a parachute. USPA would be taking on way too much liability.

Are you going to have a whole new set of BSR's for tunnel? Group Member Tunnels? What about the age limit? Most tunnels take very young children. Why is the tunnel okay for a 5 yr old when a tandem isn't? You can still get injured or killed.

Tunnel is not skydiving. USPA should stay out of the tunnel business.

Also, If you are going to increase our dues, (as stated in the Winter minutes - I guess you will be voting on this at the meeting in a couple weeks) I want to know what I get out of it as an individual member.

Hell yeah, everything you said. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, I believe it be madness for USPA to get involved to do anything with the tunnel business. I believe USPA have enough on there Plate trying to run the Parachuting side of things.
Its like our Association over here trying to get involved in things that it has no business too!!!

I sincerely hope that this does not get through

My 2c

Safe Landings :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tunnel flying is a standalone simulant of one portion of sport parachuting. As such, it is by no means skydiving. The safety portions are almost entirely different, as they don't involve impact with the ground or individual equipment. So I would see this as a means for USPA to expand its charter, and its size. It would get more and more involved in the competition aspect (because that's a significant part of tunnel flying), and less and less involved in things like airport access and canopy flying (which are more challenging, and apply only to skydiving).

Having a subcommittee, maybe. But using this as a new way to generate income, and therefore to dilute the mission of the USPA, nope.

If there were a tunnel flying association, I'd totally be in favor of there being a liaison. But the USPA has a three-part mission statement. Two of the parts have a subset that could potentially apply to indoor skydiving (promoting safety through instructor & JM certification -- but, again, it's a small subset of the skills involved in skydiving), and competition and records (competition mainly; I guess records could be timed, but, again, without the uncertainty of exiting, it's not apples to apples). Airport and airspace don't apply at all.

Around 40 years ago USPA disallowed any serious mention or advertising for BASE. I don't advocate this approach to tunnel flying, but I could easily see tunnel flying taking more and more attention from actual parachuting, and therefore diluting the effectiveness of the USPA in its core charter.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, they'll probably approve it. Tunnel flying is much more easily bounded, which makes it easier to analyze and think you're doing something. That looks good in end-of-year statements. [:/]

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peek

I know that a lot of USPA members don't really read much in Parachutist magazine, so I'm asking members to read the article on page 38 of the July 2017 Parachutist, "Is Indoor Skydiving Skydiving?" The article is wriiten by Randy Connell, headquarters Director of Competition.

USPA is trying to determine how deeply, if at all, to get "officially" involved in tunnel flying, and all of the associated issues with doing so. (More than just competition issues.)

The article includes many, many questions, so this may be an indication to you of how complex this issue is.



Enquiring minds want to know:

Does indoor "SKYdiving" involve the sky or diving?

Why would the US PARACHUTE Assoc. involve itself with activities where no parachute is ever used?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I gathered from the article, the integration of wind tunnels into USPA was a PIA decision that the USPA voted against but was overruled. As the representative for the USA, the USPA was forced to comply. The question now is what to do/how to comply with the PIA directive.

Could someone explain to me what the PIA actually does for me as a USPA licensed skydiver? Organize international competition? Anything else? Is there is a reason to cede authority to the PIA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jsreznor

From what I gathered from the article, the integration of wind tunnels into USPA was a PIA decision that the USPA voted against but was overruled.



Are you sure it was PIA? I don't know anything about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jsreznor

From what I gathered from the article, the integration of wind tunnels into USPA was a PIA decision that the USPA voted against but was overruled. As the representative for the USA, the USPA was forced to comply. The question now is what to do/how to comply with the PIA directive.

Could someone explain to me what the PIA actually does for me as a USPA licensed skydiver? Organize international competition? Anything else? Is there is a reason to cede authority to the PIA?



PIA = Parachute Industry Association. There is no mention of PIA in the article.

FAI = Federation Aeronautique Internationale.

No, there's no reason to cede authority to the FAI. US tunnel flyers can form their own association, and compete against other non-FAI teams. I think they should.

-Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think we are involved enough with private business interests ala Gear Manufacturers? See BSR for minimum opening altitudes, what about the class III medical!

PIA already served that function for those company's, but USPA is increasingly pushing their agenda.

We don't need to get involved with the corporate owned tunnel enterprise as well.

This is a strong no from me. Focus on representing the sport and actual skydivers.
"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999

That said, they'll probably approve it. Tunnel flying is much more easily bounded, which makes it easier to analyze and think you're doing something. That looks good in end-of-year statements. [:/]

Reading Parachutist magazine, it seems the USPA would rather not take on the responsibility for the tunnels, but the FAI's Parachuting Commission decide to add "indoor skydiving." The USPA is worried that IBA and others aren't up to the Herculean task of organizing and fielding teams for international competition.

So be it. Tunnel flying is cool, and is certainly growing as a sport, but it has little to do with the essential core of our sport; jumping from a plane in flight, opening a parachute, and then making a safe landing. Should NASCAR have to oversee BMX bike competitions? Both involve racing around some sort of track.

Just as our sport grew since the 60s, and the USPA had to grow to meet the new demands, so can the IBA or any other organization that wants to concentrate on tunnel flying. Let them make the rules, collect the memberships, field the teams, and grow their sport. I feel we already have enough to do on our side of the fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see tunnel-flying, para-gliding, speed-flying, etc. as the future of skydiving. When gasoline becomes too expensive for motor-sports, the average skydiver will quit jumping out of airplanes, but take up one of the above-mentioned sports to occupy his/her weekends.
At the same time (prohibitively expensive petroleum) USPA will be forced to chose between dissolution or including another Aerosport. Far wiser to include other Aerosports early .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt we will see this in the near to medium term future unless the price is artificially inflated. Increasing production in the US is making this scenario unlikely for now.
"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>USPA is trying to determine how deeply, if at all, to get "officially" involved in tunnel flying

To the extent of having standards for tunnel competitions and guidelines for scoring/judging - yes.

To the extent of having recommendations for integrating tunnel training into AFF or static line - yes.

To the extent of developing safety programs for tunnels and instructional syllabi for training for tunnel flight - no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think we could be driven out of busyness by fuel prices. We could be regulated out of operation. Let's say they declare that skydiving operations had to operate under... Part 121 or 135? insted of part 91. Sorry I don't remember all my parts. Could happen, a couple of Paris style crashes with lots of press could do it. Or changes to operating fees if the new ATC is hostile to general aviation. Say a big fee for "Comercial" use of the ATC system. AOPA might sell us out on that to save recreation on the basis that "Commercial" airlines could afford it. That might push a regular commercial operation into part 121. Say the one time fee being too high for calling on every flight/load. They would assume that any one operating as many individual flights as we do would fall under 135 or at least 121. I mean if you think about it we operate so many flights we really are closer to small 135 operations. If they reclassified us out of part 91...

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm fundamentally opposed to the USPA involving itself in anything tunnel related. It's not the same sport. You can look at something like a VFS/FS competition in tunnel as similar to a skydiving competition in that a lot of the same skills are used, however, the risks, training and associated knowledge bases are different. The USPA should be looking at "owning" fewer things, not more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peek

***From what I gathered from the article, the integration of wind tunnels into USPA was a PIA decision that the USPA voted against but was overruled.



Are you sure it was PIA? I don't know anything about that.

He means IPC.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielcroft

I'm fundamentally opposed to the USPA involving itself in anything tunnel related. It's not the same sport. You can look at something like a VFS/FS competition in tunnel as similar to a skydiving competition in that a lot of the same skills are use.



This is why I think it should be part of uspa. The competitions are very similar. Also, as a newer skydiver I am continually told to go to the tunnel to work on things. I can go in there and take things to the sky to help me out and vice versa. If they were so different then that would not be common advice.

I am not saying they should be on the same level or that tunnel time replaces jump count. There are differences but I think it should be embraced especially the youth who are spending time in the tunnel. They can be the future of the sport. I think it could also streamline both sports from a governing and administration point of view. I would see a smaller basic membership and then smaller fees to add skydiving or tunnel licensing. You would essentially remain the same fees if you just skydive. Then if you want to progress in the tunnel its a small addition.

Without the tunnel, I'm not sure I would have made it through AFF. Now that I have an A license and just a few jumps from my B license, the tunnel is teaching me to freefly safely. I can understand the wariness of the old guard but as a newer skydiver I like the idea and can see ways the addition would have little impact on the pure skydiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0