Need input from USPA members, Parachutist article

[chuckakers 370]

kat00

***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.

You are correct that tunnels contribute to skydiving, and as an activity they are embraced by just about everyone.

The issue here is not whether tunnels contribute to skydiving. It's whether the governance of tunnel competitions and records should be administered by USPA. IMO, the governance of tunnel flying as a sport should belong to an independent entity dedicated to tunnel stuff. USPA was established to promote skydiving - real jump out of airplanes and save yer ass kind of skydiving. USPA was handed tunnel flying by the IPC (International Parachuting Commission) which adopted tunnel flying as a part of sport parachuting under the guise of "indoor skydiving", which it is not. It is body flight and if the powers to be in the tunnel world want recognition by the FAI they should lobby FAI to give it it's own category and world governing body.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[kimemerson 7]

Mike Mcgowan pretty much sought the same input on his Facebook page and there are now well over 200 responses. The conversation has been quite lively over there. Of those 200+ responses there might be 1, maybe 2 people who think it's a good idea. The others aren't on the fence on this one: They're pretty adamant. And fired up to a degree. Seems like no one has to think much about it as if to them it is black & white. If the tenor of the conversation is any indication of the general membership, it would then behoove USPA to steer clear of this.

[gowlerk 1,903]

My Canadian perspective is simple. If the IPC wants it, do it. But require all competitors to have at least a B CoP. That'll get them to drop their money grab quickly.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[danielcroft 2]

kat00

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.

If the USPA wants to define what constitutes contributory or substitutional training in a tunnel, it can easily do that now. There's no need for it to be involved at any level in administration.

kat00

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.

I'm not sure where you think any kind of streamlining comes from in an overlap here. The USPA (as Chuck rightly stated) was designed to promote and represent skydiving, i.e. people who jump from planes. The idea that this core skillset should or could effectively overlap into tunnel flying at a minimum would require expansion and time, i.e. money. This, even given if it was a good idea - which I still believe it is not.

kat00

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.

The tunnel is a valuable tool for skydivers, adding structure to that is something that the USPA could and should do *in the context of skydiving* that does not involve administering a totally different sport.

[Ron 7]

Nope, tunnel is no more skydiving than paragliding is skydiving.

The USPA if they HAVE to appoint a team should do it this ONE time and make it clear that they will not be doing it again.

But I fear the USPA wants to get involved to make money. To charge the tunnels to be group members (and be just as worthless as the DZ group member program). And then charge non-students to be members.

The USPA set the precedent when they DIDN'T get involved in BASE jumping.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[riggerrob 558]

Dear Gowlerk,
We debated that exact point during CSPA's AGM. One side stated that tunnel fliers would bring plenty of new revenue (membership dues) to CSPA, with little additional expense ... perhaps maybe tunnel-specific coach ratings.
Opinions, prejudice, bias, boilerplate, BS, etc. flew fast and furious during that meeting.
Most of us concluded that new revenues would exceed new expenses.

[kat00 11]

riggerrob

Dear Gowlerk,
We debated that exact point during CSPA's AGM. One side stated that tunnel fliers would bring plenty of new revenue (membership dues) to CSPA, with little additional expense ... perhaps maybe tunnel-specific coach ratings.
Opinions, prejudice, bias, boilerplate, BS, etc. flew fast and furious during that meeting.
Most of us concluded that new revenues would exceed new expenses.

That is kinda how I see it. More people = more revenue. More people also lets you get better group rates for insurance and have more for programs like SIS (which could also go across to tunnels ). I understand people want to follow the original charter but sports evolve. Nobody expected tunnels back in the day. Now they are common. So why not look into from a broader perspective instead of writing it off real quick.

[gowlerk 1,903]

riggerrob

Dear Gowlerk,
We debated that exact point during CSPA's AGM. One side stated that tunnel fliers would bring plenty of new revenue (membership dues) to CSPA, with little additional expense ... perhaps maybe tunnel-specific coach ratings.
Opinions, prejudice, bias, boilerplate, BS, etc. flew fast and furious during that meeting.
Most of us concluded that new revenues would exceed new expenses.

Yes, and if CSPA existed for the purpose of making a profit enlarging the membership to include non-parachutists would make perfect sense. But CSPA is not a revenue raising entity, it's here to serve parachutists. Tunnel fliers could easily one day out number parachutists in Canada. When that day comes who do you think will look after the interests of skydivers?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi kat00,

Quote

Nobody expected tunnels back in the day.

Some 'back in the day' history for you.

In the summer of 1965 I was talking with Jack Ady ( '65 Nat'l Champion ) and he was absolutely convinced that the Army Team had a tunnel that they would not talk about.

Also, in the mid-'60's it was common rumor that the Soviets had multiple tunnels.

Was any of this true? I doubt it, but it was being talked about.

Jerry Baumchen

[IanHarrop 37]

In my view, this whole issue is driven by the rules of the FAI for competition and the placement of tunnel flying under the IPC.

As it stands right now to compete in an FAI sanctioned event a competitor must belong to an organization that is a member of the IPC. Unfortunately, the IPC only allows one organization from each country. So unless a tunnel flyer is a member of CSPA or USPA they can't compete in an FAI sanctioned event.

The simple solution is to allow tunnel flyers to join our national organizations. I have no problem with this. The problem for me is when resources of a national skydiving organization are used for non-skydiving activities.

If a tunnel flyer pays their dues, gets a CSPA or USPA membership and goes off to compete in an FAI sanctioned tunnel event that's cool by me. I won't raise a stink until tunnel flyers want more than just a membership card.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[billvon 2,384]

Quote

The simple solution is to allow tunnel flyers to join our national organizations. I have no problem with this. The problem for me is when resources of a national skydiving organization are used for non-skydiving activities.

I don't have a problem with that provided it helps skydivers.

Spending USPA money and time to integrate tunnel into AFF training? Sounds like a good idea, and will help students.

Spending USPA money and time to come up with judging guidelines and competition standards for tunnel meets? Also a good idea; most tunnel competitions include skydivers.

Spending USPA money and time to train tunnel flyers on tunnel-specific skills? That wouldn't make sense.

[IanHarrop 37]

What "makes sense" is subjective and that's where the arguments start ;-)

The rules for indoor skydiving already exists. The IPC has done that part


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiBy7qkyv_UAhUJ64MKHdBlBZgQFghAMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fai.org%2Fdownloads%2Fipc%2FIAE_D2and4_cr_2016edition&usg=AFQjCNFvYPbokFzdE9ij-VTBbvNn16ONmw

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[Ron 7]

Quote

Spending USPA money and time to train tunnel flyers on tunnel-specific skills? That wouldn't make sense.

But that is where this will go.... And if they are paying their money, why shouldn't they get the basic same type of services?

I disagree with it on the very face. Paragliding is as much skydiving as tunnel flying.... Let the tunnels create their own org.

As a bandaid, have the USPA sign off once.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnMitchell 14]

kat00

Most of us concluded that new revenues would exceed new expenses.

That is kinda how I see it. More people = more revenue.

So . . . do you think if the USPA does this, they WON'T raise my dues again?

[riggerrob 558]

Warning: historical trivia.
Jerry's rumour is based on facts.
NACA (Langley, Virginia) built its first vertical wind tunnel in 1935. It was only 15 feet in diameter and was used to spin-test model airplanes. These models closely matched loft lines of full-sized airplanes and had adjustable internal weights that permitted testing at a variety of weights and balances.
In 1941, it was replaced by a 20 foot tunnel that is still used for spin-testing.
Rumour has it that a variety of US military jumpers experimented in NACA's vertical wind tunnel.

The first civilian/sporting wind tunnel was the Aerodium built in Quebec circa 1980.

[riggerrob 558]

If American parachutists are worried about tunnel-rats, why not include an end date?
USPA's BOD would be forced to re-examine the new policy two years down the road and decide whether to continue allowing tunnel-rats to join.

[yoink 321]

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.

This is the dumbest reason ever.

Change the USPA name to US Skydiving Association. That solves that non-issue and is more representative of, you know, skydiving.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

yoink

***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.

This is the dumbest reason ever.

Change the USPA name to US Skydiving Association. That solves that non-issue and is more representative of, you know, skydiving.

And how is tunnel flying "skydiving"?

It involves neither "diving" nor the sky.

It's simulated freefall, and for that it is an awesome tool.

But actually jumping from a plane involves a lot more than freefall.

How many topics are typically covered on Safety Day?

Freefall safety is just one of them.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Ron 7]

yoink

***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.

This is the dumbest reason ever.

Change the USPA name to US Skydiving Association. That solves that non-issue and is more representative of, you know, skydiving.

Worst comparison ever.

Flying in the tunnel is just as much skydiving as paragliding is skydiving. Why isn't the USPA trying to get paraglider's to join?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[TriGirl 268]

billvon

>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.

^^^this^^^

Disclaimer: the following is an opinion of a multi-rated judge:

I understand the other issues/concerns posed in this thread. However, the comments about money being the motivating factor are cheap (no pun intended). Randy Connell is the director of competition. He's in charge of how competitions are run and how they are judged (and qualifications of said judges).

If you look at his question from that point of view, and by what Chuck mentioned regarding FAI rules for international competition qualifications, I hope you all then can see the purpose behind the honest question. I've seen what both DZOs and tunnel managers have to try to facilitate to host a competition as well, so having a standard of judge training and an established pool from which to invite helps the competitors. Competitors love to complain about the judging, but they don't see the hours spent in seats looking at video. And when they're taking a year off, don't want to get a rating and help out in the "fishbowl."

So those who still want to have competitions, indoor or outdoor, and want the opportunity to represent the US on the international stage, please consider the limits the FAI have put on USPA and re-consider what you may or may not choose to reply to Randy. He's trying to represent the members to the FAI by either figuring out how to incorporate tunnel flying, or really starting a huge fight against FAI's edict. Can we have a productive conversation about the issue?

[/rant]

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[jlmiracle 7]

yoink

***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.

This is the dumbest reason ever.

Change the USPA name to US Skydiving Association. That solves that non-issue and is more representative of, you know, skydiving.***

Well bless your heart and thank you for your opinion.

Let the tunnel start their own organization and they can call it whatever they want....It just one of many reasons I believe the USPA should not include the tunnel. If tunnel people want to join the USPA, no one will stop them. If a 1 yr old want to join the USPA, no one will stop them.

The USPA will address at the next board meeting renaming the BSR from Basic Safety Requirements to Basic Skydiving Requirement or Basic Safey Rules. Why do this? Will it make people safer? Does it have something to do with including the tunnel?

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

[yoink 321]

I don't think the USPA should become involved in tunnel regulation.

But I do think that people using the semantics of what the organization is called is a stupid point in the argument - there are so many better ones.

Let me as you a question; When you describe what you do for a sport to other people, what do you call it? I bet you $100 99% of people say they do 'skydiving' not 'parachuting'. You could make the argument that 'parachutists' include BASE, Paragliders and Speed Flyers.

I don't think that flying in a tunnel is skydiving. But then I don' think that going on a Tandem ride is skydiving either, so I'll upset both groups with my opinion on that.

[danielcroft 2]

If you focus too much on the words people use you'll never understand what they're trying to say.

The question is whether or not an organization focussed on one sport should branch out (or annex?) another. Is there sufficient overlap between the two to make that a logical, efficient or practical thing to do. For example, would you vote for the same BoD members if you knew they were making decisions that impacted tunnel activities (competition or otherwise)? I know I wouldn't.

If we're only talking about a new license type, purely for tunnel flying, for the purposes of competition at FIM sanctioned events for people who aren't already skydiving/parachuting for some nominal amount to cover what it *actually* costs to issue said licenses then I'm in favor, otherwise, no.

The IPC already issues judging rules and guidelines, I don't see why the USPA needs to be added.

... currently the FAI's page for indoor skydiving is "Under construction" http://www.fai.org/ipc-our-sport/indoor-skydiving

[jlmiracle 7]

yoink

I don't think the USPA should become involved in tunnel regulation.

But I do think that people using the semantics of what the organization is called is a stupid point in the argument - there are so many better ones.

Let me as you a question; When you describe what you do for a sport to other people, what do you call it? I bet you $100 99% of people say they do 'skydiving' not 'parachuting'. You could make the argument that 'parachutists' include BASE, Paragliders and Speed Flyers.

I don't think that flying in a tunnel is skydiving. But then I don' think that going on a Tandem ride is skydiving either, so I'll upset both groups with my opinion on that.

Of course I say skydiving. And I also told my directors if you are going to include tunnel, then you need to include base, paragliders and parasailing for that matter.

Skydivers can compete in tunnel competitions as tunnel competitors. If from a "competition" point of view this is the same as skydiving, then Nationals and all other skydiving competitions (other than canopy) should be held at tunnels to guarantee no weather delays, no landing injuries, daylight issues or aircraft issues.

The tunnel discussion is a waste of time. These meeting are only twice a year. They don't have a lot of time to discuss the real important things. They will be wasting their time deciding to rename Basic Safety Requirements too and a few other things that if I brought up might get this bumped to speakers corner.

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

[billvon 2,384]

> And I also told my directors if you are going to include tunnel, then you need to
>include base, paragliders and parasailing for that matter.

That makes no sense. If we include freestyle with skydiving, does that mean we have to include gymnastics?

I don't see any reason for USPA to "take over" tunnel flying. I also don't see any reason for USPA to not get involved with the aspects of tunnel flying that cross over into skydiving.