USPA Membership

[mjosparky 3]

USPA not only does not verify the accuracy of the completed forms they discard them after receiving them. What is the purpose of going to the trouble and expense of producing a form that is not kept for future reference? It would be cheaper to just call it in.

How in good conscious say Group Member DZ’s are held to a higher standard when there is no way to verify it. But yet the DZO’s have access to the data on every Individual Member. But the Individual Members don’t have access to this information. Do you see a pattern here? DZO’s run the show and Individual Members are left out in the cold. It is a case of the tail wagging the tail. I find it hard to support an organization that does not support me.

The last two Board Members that were responsive to the needs of Individual Members Were Pat Moorehead and John DeSantis.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[gowlerk 1,914]

In Canada skydive operations are considered air commercial operations and aircraft are maintained to commercial standards. A jump ticket in Canada cost about 30% more than a jump ticket in the US as a direct result. It's not just the cost of the maintenance, most jump operations in the US have just as high standards. It's also the cost of compliance and bureaucracy.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

In Canada skydive operations are considered air commercial operations and aircraft are maintained to commercial standards. A jump ticket in Canada cost about 30% more than a jump ticket in the US as a direct result. It's not just the cost of the maintenance, most jump operations in the US have just as high standards. It's also the cost of compliance and bureaucracy.

The cost to skydivers to ensure that jumpships are maintained to Part 91 is $0. If the jumpships are being maintained then the increase in cost to DZO's is $0.

Derek V

[gowlerk 1,914]

Quote

Overall, when flying with a registered aircraft in the US, you are 12 times less likely to have an accident or incident if you charter a part 135 aircraft when compared to flying with a privately managed part 91 aircraft. This is proven by the fact that there were no fatal accidents with US registered part 135 aircraft at all in 2014.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

I would be happy if USPA didn't help hide the operators that don't meet Part 91.

Derek V

[gowlerk 1,914]

Hooknswoop

I would be happy if USPA didn't help hide the operators that don't meet Part 91.

Derek V

You are probably correct. I don't know that much about the difference. But I would assume that a part 91 operator must meet the standards. While a part 131 operator has the additional burden of more oversight and a requirement to not just meet, but prove that they are meeting the standard. And having that signed off by someone with a license on the line.

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

[kallend 1,623]

gowlerk

Quote

Overall, when flying with a registered aircraft in the US, you are 12 times less likely to have an accident or incident if you charter a part 135 aircraft when compared to flying with a privately managed part 91 aircraft. This is proven by the fact that there were no fatal accidents with US registered part 135 aircraft at all in 2014.

Misleading. Registered part 91 aircraft include homebuilts, experimental aircraft, antique aircraft, aircraft being flown by novice pilots, etc. so you are comparing apples with oranges.

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

I would be happy if USPA didn't help hide the operators that don't meet Part 91.

Derek V

How exactly is USPA supposed to evaluate whether an operator is meeting FAA maintenance requirements (which are in FAR Part 43)?

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

How exactly is USPA supposed to evaluate whether an operator is meeting FAA maintenance requirements (which are in FAR Part 43)?

They aren't. They should drop their maintenance self-reporting program that doesn't do anything to ensure that the aircraft are being correctly maintained and gives the appearance that USPA is checking on aircraft maintenance.

Derek V

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

Quote

How exactly is USPA supposed to evaluate whether an operator is meeting FAA maintenance requirements (which are in FAR Part 43)?

They aren't. They should drop their maintenance self-reporting program that doesn't do anything to ensure that the aircraft are being correctly maintained and gives the appearance that USPA is checking on aircraft maintenance.

Derek V

OK. But I'm not sure that a self-reporting program constitutes hiding anything. Any hiding being done is by the DZO, not by USPA.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

OK. But I'm not sure that a self-reporting program constitutes hiding anything. Any hiding being done is by the DZO, not by USPA.

They give the membership and the FAA the impression they are checking on jumpship maintenance with their self reporting program. This reduces, by design, FAA ramp checks. It does not ensure that the jumpship maintenance is actually done. USPA is complicit. How does the program benefit members?

If a DZO is doing all the required maintenance on their jumpships, I would think they would welcome the FAA doing more ramp checks on DZ's. This levels the playing field and prevents a competitor from being able to compete by offering cheaper prices and making up the difference in less jumpship maintenance.

USPA has proven ove and over again that when choosing between DZO's and members, DZO's always win. "What's good for DZO's is good for members" is USPA unofficial motto.

Derek V

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

Quote

OK. But I'm not sure that a self-reporting program constitutes hiding anything. Any hiding being done is by the DZO, not by USPA.

They give the membership and the FAA the impression they are checking on jumpship maintenance with their self reporting program.

I (a member) certainly was never given that impression and I doubt the FAA was either.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I (a member) certainly was never given that impression and I doubt the FAA was either.

Then I guess it doesn't happen.....

"It's true that USPA dz's are held to certain standards and requirements. So you expect to get that at a USPA affiliated dz."

You didn't answer how this benefits the membership.

Derek V

[mjosparky 3]

One thing that hasn’t been brought up is the cost to the membership for the suit brought against Skyride. This suit was not for the benefit of Individual Members but for the benefit Group Members. Skyride did not present a threat to Individual Members but their business model was a problem for Group Members, DZO’s.

As I understand it USPA was handed their ass. The judgement was sealed and settlement was never revealed to the membership.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[peek 20]

Derek,

In response to your post #51 above-

From the Group Member pledge: "Establish landing procedures that will include separation of high-speed and normal landings.These landing procedures must be prominently displayed and communicated to all jumpers at the drop zone."

To all: How many dropzones have this in place?

A dropzone's web site would be an obvious and efficient place to have such a thing. Can anyone point to a dropzone web site where such a thing exists? Or do they have something physically displayed on a wall at the dropzone?

[skyjumpenfool 2]

peek

Can anyone point to a dropzone web site where such a thing exists? Or do they have something physically displayed on a wall at the dropzone?

Skydive Twin Cities has several Large aerial photos with the individual landing spaces clearly marked on the main wall. It's used to train students and clarify zones for the up-jumpers. So..... Yes!

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[peek 20]

skyjumpenfool

Skydive Twin Cities has several Large aerial photos with the individual landing spaces clearly marked on the main wall. It's used to train students and clarify zones for the up-jumpers. So..... Yes!

Good for them. Keep 'em coming.

[CrashProne 4]

skyjumpenfool

*** Can anyone point to a dropzone web site where such a thing exists? Or do they have something physically displayed on a wall at the dropzone?

Skydive Twin Cities has several Large aerial photos with the individual landing spaces clearly marked on the main wall. It's used to train students and clarify zones for the up-jumpers. So..... Yes!

Same at Skydive Kapowsin, large aerial photo with landing zones and hazards marked. Students are brought to the board to review landing patterns and procedures before their jumps.

[FlyLikeARaven 0]

peek

Derek,

In response to your post #51 above-

From the Group Member pledge: "Establish landing procedures that will include separation of high-speed and normal landings.These landing procedures must be prominently displayed and communicated to all jumpers at the drop zone."

To all: How many dropzones have this in place?

A dropzone's web site would be an obvious and efficient place to have such a thing. Can anyone point to a dropzone web site where such a thing exists? Or do they have something physically displayed on a wall at the dropzone?

Skydance and Skydive California both have these aerial photos prominently displayed and every new jumper at the DZ gets a thorough briefing at each. I started AFF at Skydance and took a long break from there, but when I went back for a Flight-1 course asked for, and got, a very detailed briefing of the LPs, despite the fact that everyone knows I started there. No one batted an eyelash at giving me a second briefing. Is this not common practice?

I'm not a lady, I'm a skydiver.

[peek 20]

FlyLikeARaven

Skydance and Skydive California both have these aerial photos prominently displayed ... Is this not common practice?

Aerial photos are common. I'm asking about separation of high speed landings from normal landings.

[FlyLikeARaven 0]

Sorry, reading comprehension fail. In my experience, this is common (and strictly enforced) at both DZs as well. I would probably side-eye a DZ that lets HP and normal landings happen in the same space.

I'm not a lady, I'm a skydiver.

[jlmiracle 7]

peek

Derek,

In response to your post #51 above-

From the Group Member pledge: "Establish landing procedures that will include separation of high-speed and normal landings.These landing procedures must be prominently displayed and communicated to all jumpers at the drop zone."

To all: How many dropzones have this in place?

A dropzone's web site would be an obvious and efficient place to have such a thing. Can anyone point to a dropzone web site where such a thing exists? Or do they have something physically displayed on a wall at the dropzone?

Just wondering if the GM pledge covers sexual assault? Just noticed a recent review of a GM dropzone. I sent the reviewer a message to make sure she contacts the USPA (ed, Chuck and Shawna). Hope they investigate these claims and take appropriate action.


Judy

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

[377 21]

USPA, like all such orgs, has become bloated and less efficient over the years, but it still serves a valuable function in lobbying to keep skydiving legal, affordable and hard to arbitrarily exclude from federally funded airports.

The liability insurance is a good benefit. If, for example, you ding someone's vehicle on a landing, its covered.

I'd join even if my DZ didn't require it.

377

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

[BIGUN 1,053]

OK, I'll play.

If the USPA were to implement regional S&TA's to perform audit reports on Group Members sent directly to the USPA; how well would that go over?

I ride a motorcycle. When shopping for helmets there's a DOT certification and an ECE certification or both (Wherein ECE is automatically DOT). DOT is an in-house quality program by the manufacturer. ECE is an external quality audit program brought in by the manufacturing council. Hence, ECE is accepted in 70+ countries, whereas DOT is not.

Therefore, I'll buy an ECE/DOT certified helmet.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If the USPA were to implement regional S&TA's to perform audit reports on Group Members sent directly to the USPA; how well would that go over?

It wouldn't. So let's drop the charade.

Quote

I ride a motorcycle. When shopping for helmets there's a DOT certification and an ECE certification or both (Wherein ECE is automatically DOT). DOT is an in-house quality program by the manufacturer. ECE is an external quality audit program brought in by the manufacturing council. Hence, ECE is accepted in 70+ countries, whereas DOT is not.

Therefore, I'll buy an ECE/DOT certified helmet.

Right, DOT certification means nothing. When tested, DOT helmets routinely fail to meet the standards to be DOT certified.

USPA GM for DZ's = DOT certification for helmets. This is worse than not having anything because it gives the appearance that they meet a standard, when, in reality, they may or may not.

Derek V