0
Recon424

USPA .. Are they worth it ??

Recommended Posts

Quote

It sounds like your argument is "the DZ's closest to me are USPA DZ's, so it would inconvenience me to have to jump somewhere else." That may well be true. But "inconvenient" does not equal "mandatory."



No, my argument is that USPA does not primarily serve its individual members.

The best example is the one you ignore, the GM Aircraft Maintenance program.

The next best example is lowering the AFFICC standards in response to the instructor shortage.

Quote

You can join or not.



Not if I want to jump at USPA GM DZ.

Quote

DZ's can join or not.



Not if they want to be sanctioned by the USPA.

Quote

You can jump at other places if you like.
You can start your own organization if you like that would carry as much weight as the USPA (if you develop it to the same extent that USPA has done, of course.)
All up to you.



I want USPA to put their skydiver membership first. You know, the people that are paying them.

Derek V
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Hmmm. 'Voluntary' but 'require membership'.

Right. An amateur radio ("ham") license is entirely voluntary - but it is required if you want to operate in certain bands.



Pirate DZs. Pirate comm bands. Reserves that have not be I&R'd in years. There are always ways around "mandatory''. Many of the workarounds are crimes, but outlaws never think they will get caught.

https://radiofreeq.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/survivalist-ssb-cb-freeband-channel-frequency-list/

There are more than a few unlicensed pilots in AK. No FAA ramp checks at the more remote strips.

The USPA is tasked with herding ornery cats. It is a no win no matter what they do. When you have an org that represents "rugged individualists" dissatisfaction and criticism is inevitable. I've seen the exact same dynamic in commercial fishing orgs.

Sure the USPA could improve, be less wasteful and bloated, etc. but I'll still renew as I have for decades.

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>No, my argument is that USPA does not primarily serve its individual members.

I was discussing your claim that USPA has "mandatory membership." They don't.

>The best example is the one you ignore, the GM Aircraft Maintenance program.

I have no experience with that, so I can't comment intelligently on it. It's something I have not used, seen in action or needed.

>Not if I want to jump at USPA GM DZ.

Correct! And if you don't join your local soccer club you might not be able to play in their games. But that doesn't mean that membership in your local soccer club is mandatory.

>Not if they want to be sanctioned by the USPA.

Correct. If a drop zone wants to be sanctioned by the USPA, they have to join the USPA.

To me it's a pretty simple decision. Is what I get from USPA worth the cost of membership? To me, it is. For other people, it's not. Both are OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>No, my argument is that USPA does not primarily serve its individual members.

I was discussing your claim that USPA has "mandatory membership." They don't.

>The best example is the one you ignore, the GM Aircraft Maintenance program.

I have no experience with that, so I can't comment intelligently on it. It's something I have not used, seen in action or needed.

>Not if I want to jump at USPA GM DZ.

Correct! And if you don't join your local soccer club you might not be able to play in their games. But that doesn't mean that membership in your local soccer club is mandatory.

>Not if they want to be sanctioned by the USPA.

Correct. If a drop zone wants to be sanctioned by the USPA, they have to join the USPA.

To me it's a pretty simple decision. Is what I get from USPA worth the cost of membership? To me, it is. For other people, it's not. Both are OK.



If a jumper has access to a non-GM DZ, then they have a choice. If they don't they must join USPA. It's that simple.

Certainly the cost of membership is worth it when amortized over the year to jump in the US. I just wish USPA, as much as they spout they are here for the members, have really become an organization that serves too many masters.

top
Jump more, post less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's kind of like the government, the people get the leaders they deserve. Apparently the membership is happy enough with the leadership. Unless they are too shy to get out and change it.

But what actually happens is that those who care most make the investment in time and energy to get involved, volunteer, and run the organization. They spend time studying the issues and making the best decisions they can. Then some members, who have not made this effort, come along and criticize those decisions. Because they can, and because it feels good to gripe. They also care, just not enough to actually do the work.

Been there, done that. From both sides.





Quote

USPA's leadership begins with its members who elect a 22-member board of directors to represent their interests. Elections are conducted every three years. The board members, who live throughout the country and work without compensation, hire an executive director, who in turn hires a staff. The executive director and the staff work at USPA Headquarters in Fredericksburg, Virginia, just a short ride from the government agencies and Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

The USPA Board is comprised of eight national directors and 14 regional directors who all serve three-year terms. The regional directors are elected from the members in the USPA region where they reside; national directors are elected at-large. Twice each year, the board meets to review and develop programs, set policy and guide the organization. The headquarters staff carries out the policies of the board, administers USPA programs and provides daily management needs.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Hi Derek,

Quote

Isnt demo insurance a separate, additional cost from regular USA membership?



I believe that is the situation today.

My incident occurred in 1965.

Jerry Baumchen



Hi Jerry,

My understanding is that the USPA coverage is only for incidents that happen at "sanctioned DZs", although I'm not sure if "sanctioned" means only USPA GM DZs, or not.

From the USPA site:

Quote

USPA members receive third-party liability insurance to include bodily injury and property damage while skydiving at a sanctioned drop zone. USPA members must separately purchase through USPA, the third-party liability insurance coverage for exhibition jumps not covered by the regular third-party liability membership insurance program.


"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Joe,

Quote

My incident occurred in 1965.



Quote

My understanding is that the USPA coverage is only for incidents that happen at "sanctioned DZs", although I'm not sure if "sanctioned" means only USPA GM DZs, or not.



A little more info. I had about 40 jumps and was not allowed to do a demo jump. About nine months after I hit the kid, I got a letter from a law firm informing me that they were going to sue me for $50k. I hired a local attorney who had previously defended a local instructor when he had been sued by one of his students who had gotten injured on landing. My attorney was able to 'convince' the PCA's insurance carrier to cover the incident. About 2-3 yrs later I received a letter from PCA's insurance carrier that they had settled the matter & that I no longer had to be concerned about it.

So, 50 yrs of PCA/USPA membership = about $1500 total ( just an estimate ) vs losing $50k in a lawsuit. Yep, the membership fees are well worth the money.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

***

Quote

The liability insurance that comes with membership is well worth the fee



USPA membership liability insurance is third party insurance. Google "third party insurance".



Correct. It covers damage done by a jumper to someone else's stuff ("someone else" being the 'third party') So when someone screws up and, say, bounces off a car in the parking lot, it's covered.

Or damages crops on an out landing.
Or kicks the dorsal fin on a KA on exit.
Or forgets to pull the seatbelt in on a Helicopter jump and the buckle bounces off the outside and chips/scratches the hell out of the paint (happened recently - airplane paint shop located on the airport had the heli painted and ready to go by next morning).

If that car is owned by another jumper who is also a USPA member it is not covered.

Quote

A third party insurance claim is made by someone who is not the policyholder or the insurance company (the insurance company can be referred to as the second party). ... A third party claim is commonly referred to as a liability claim because someone else is liable for the injuries suffered by the third party.



Both jumpers are "policyholders" under the same group policy.
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then it appears as though a benefit of not being a member is that if you park in the landing area you might end up with a new car. Thanks, USPA!! Maybe we'll see this happen when people's memberships expire.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Both jumpers are "policyholders" under the same group policy.



This doesn't pass the smell test to me. "The" policy holder is you, the Insurance company is the second party. I am the third party. If you land on my car, I would think it would be covered. IMHO, if you land on your own car, it won't.

There must be some skydiver who is an insurance professional who can clarify this.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DiverMike

Quote


Both jumpers are "policyholders" under the same group policy.



This doesn't pass the smell test to me. "The" policy holder is you, the Insurance company is the second party. I am the third party. If you land on my car, I would think it would be covered. IMHO, if you land on your own car, it won't.

There must be some skydiver who is an insurance professional who can clarify this.



That was my understanding. Landing on my own car wouldn't be covered. But landing on another jumper's car (or another jumper landing on mine) would be.

Although I'm a policyholder under the same group, I'm not the policyholder.

Again, I have heard/read that the ventral fin on a King Air (ventral, not dorsal as I wrote above) is one of the most often claimed items under the insurance.
If the plane is owned by a GM DZ, which would mean owned by a USPA member, then the idea that other USPA members couldn't make a claim would mean that the claim wouldn't be paid.
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, under the "I hate to guess on these kinds of things" and "If you don't know, ask" categories, I figured it would be simplest to ask someone who would actually know.

You know, like maybe USPA.

So I sent an e-mail to the general address this morning, asking "If I land on a car in the parking lot at the DZ, does it matter to the insurance company if the owner is a USPA member or not".

2 1/2 hours later (not an unreasonable response time IMO), Clint Vincent answered:

Quote

So, if you & a teammate (both USPA members) make a “legal” jump (no FAR/BSR violations) & you land on his 64 Corvette, your insurance would cover the damage you did to the car. It does not cover the damage your teammate inflicts on you afterwards.



So the answer to the insurance question is that DiverMike and I were correct.

And I have to say, that although I disagree with some things they do and dislike others, the fact that they responded fairly quickly with a clear answer says something about 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


And I have to say, that although I disagree with some things they do and dislike others, the fact that they responded fairly quickly with a clear answer says something about them.



It seems like the people who have the worst things to say about USPA usually do the least to engage either them or the situation they have an issue with, much like the OP who said he saw a TI smoke pot before a jump and did nothing to stop it.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

Quote

Again, the question isn't is USPA worth it for DZ's. Is it worth it for the individual members?




Well, in that case the answer is simple. Yes it is. Or else the membership, who have voting rights, would reject it.



If you are not a USPA member, you can't jump at a majority of DZ's.

Remove that requirement (that the USPA requires) and see if membership numbers increase, decrease, or maintain.

I know which would happen, and so does the USPA. Which is why they make it so group members require USPA membership from anyone that wants to jump there.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop



Want to find out if skydivers really think membership is worth the cost? Eliminate mandatory membership.

Derek V



Bingo...... Remove the monopoly and watch the membership drop. Which is why the USPA requires it.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you are not a USPA member, you can't jump at a majority of DZ's.

Remove that requirement (that the USPA requires) and see if membership numbers increase, decrease, or maintain.

I know which would happen, and so does the USPA. Which is why they make it so group members require USPA membership from anyone that wants to jump there.



Well, back when I helped run a DZ we would definitely have still required USPA membership if only for the liability insurance. We got stuck with a bill after a visiting jumper swore up and down that he'd renewed his membership (the internet was out so we couldn't check) and we let him jump. He landed on a spectator's car in the parking lot and then high tailed it out of there. Of course he had lied about his membership.

I'm pretty sure we would have also required USPA rated instructors, so I doubt anyone, staff or fun jumpers, would have been allowed to not be USPA members.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, back when I helped run a DZ we would definitely have still required USPA membership if only for the liability insurance.



So you were concerned about the insurance, not the membership? If a jumper could show proof of liability insurance, would you have let them jump without being an USPA member?

For Instructors, what are USPA's minimum performance standards for an AFFI to renew their rating each year?

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So you were concerned about the insurance, not the membership? If a jumper could show proof of liability insurance, would you have let them jump without being an USPA member?



Insurance was certainly part of it. Licensing was another part. If someone shows up with a USPA license you can be reasonably assured they have received at least the basic training and demonstrated some proficiency. Without some license (USPA or foreign) it is very hard to determine if someone is competent or not.

As far as the personal liability insurance question, I think the answer would be maybe. The problem with personal policies is that it is very hard for the layman to determine what is and isn't covered. I suppose if the jumper had a coverage document that specifically stated that skydiving related claims would be covered, then it would be acceptable.

One of the advantages of USPA membership is that all the manifest worker has to do is look at a single piece of paper (the USPA license) to know that the person in front of them is insured and trained. Without it, you ask the DZ to do a bunch of paperwork and still potentially expose themselves if the jumper turns out to be a liar.

Quote


For Instructors, what are USPA's minimum performance standards for an AFFI to renew their rating each year?



I don't think there are any, but I was never an Instructor. What does that have to do with my statements about the advantages of USPA membership?

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek,
How much do you think a stand alone "skydive third party liability" policy would cost a jumper that has no USPA membership per year?

Without the insurance, how many airports would allow non insured jumpers to skydive?

Who would stand up for our rights as skydivers without the USPA? This means standing our ground with airport sponsors, the FAA, state governments such as Indiana and a host of other people/organizations/governments that would like skydiving to just go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Insurance was certainly part of it. Licensing was another part.



So if someone had a license and insurance, but their membership wasn't current, they would be OK to jump?

I am not saying this is a better system. I have advocated voluntary membership. It may be that providing proof of insurance not through USPA may be difficult, more expensive, and even not possible to get. But it would allow for voluntary membership.

Even if nothing actually changed, removing the requirement for mandatory USPA membership form the GM Pledge, but adding either USPA membership OR requiring proof of proficiency and insurance would be better than requiring membership.

Quote

I don't think there are any, but I was never an Instructor. What does that have to do with my statements about the advantages of USPA membership?



Because you said;

Quote

I'm pretty sure we would have also required USPA rated instructors



Just demonstrates that a rating doesn't necessarily mean anything. The recent tandem rating fiasco also.

To be clear, USPA membership does have advantages. Especially to DZ's.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Derek,
How much do you think a stand alone "skydive third party liability" policy would cost a jumper that has no USPA membership per year?

Without the insurance, how many airports would allow non insured jumpers to skydive?

Who would stand up for our rights as skydivers without the USPA? This means standing our ground with airport sponsors, the FAA, state governments such as Indiana and a host of other people/organizations/governments that would like skydiving to just go away.



I am not saying to eliminate the USPA. I am saying the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

1. Eliminate the GM program. Or require the Inspection Program for membership.

2. Eliminate the mandatory membership

3. Eliminate the maintenance reporting system.

4. Return the AFFICC standards to the pre-2001 level.

And I'll add one;

-Add a performance standard to rating renewals.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That would solve that problem.

Have you ever tried to get liability insurance for an easy demo?



And if membership was voluntary and USPA offered the lowest cost for the required insurance, I am sure I would pay to be a member without it feeling like extortion.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop

Want to find out if skydivers really think membership is worth the cost? Eliminate mandatory membership.



..as if the average skydiver thinks any further than their next jump. :)If they can save a few bucks, they will. Probably without even thinking about it. Until it bites them in the ass, that is. Then they'd be all like 'why isn't [the USPA] doing anything about this?'
"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

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