USPA BOD meeting changes

[topdocker 0]

TomNoonan

Thanks for the questions and feedback from everyone. I'll try to answer it all in one post here before I hop on a flight home this afternoon.

- The manufacturers have been trying to educate the end users about turns over 90 degrees through tandem manufacturer efforts in many ways since mid 2011, like the 16 Commandment presentations, disseminating the information to federations, and I believe USPA even published the info in the Professional Newsletter. Concern about these turns isn't new. The manufacturers tried the "educate the users approach", but it still fell on deaf ears in certain places.

- As for incident numbers, suffice to say, more than 1 fatality from a turn over 90 degrees. THANKFULLY this is not a common occurrence, (otherwise the FAA would probably be taking over tandems), but there continue to be a growing number of grave/serious injuries from big turns gone wrong. Broken femurs, shattered hips, shattered coccyx, spinal injuries and so on. (We cover a lot of these incidents in our tandem examiner meetings in a training environment.).

At the end of the day, as I tell everyone, being a tandem instructor is one of the best jobs in the world that requires very little compliance: We list a small number of "must follow" criteria that are not hard to follow, and in return, tandem instructors have the opportunity to make a living doing something rewarding and exciting. And while most people do the right things, there is always that person or group that says "if its not a BSR, we don't have to follow the regulations." To me that is not just a safety concern, its a complete lack of professionalism. Do the simple tasks we ask of you and have a safe, long career in an awesome sport. That small list still seems to be too much for some "professionals" out there....now its a BSR. Now we (USPA) have the power to correct this unsafe behavior.

- Recommendations: Great idea in theory, the manufacturers have been making safety based recommendations for a few years now. As recommendations though, they simply get ignored when they become inconvenient.......

"Who is bought and paid for?"

You cannot deny that DZO's and those involved in instructing students are often times dealers for equipment. Even getting a ten percent better deal on equipment than a competitor is a huge edge in the business when selling gear. Buying just a few new tandem rigs a year, one can save thousands of dollars with a "super-thank-you" dealer discount. While these relationships may or may not exist, the proliferation of rules that aid and protect manufacturers and the expense of members calls into question those relationships. And without ANY disclosure whatsoever, it calls into question the very core belief that the BOD is working in favor of the membership.

The last three BSR's are all about tandems. While the age restriction affects all of us, it was the tandem manufacturers that pushed that one hard. And now these two show up at a BOD meeting held in conjunction with the PIA meeting. How many more are in the works?

Honestly, the real problem now is any dweeb with five hundred jumps, a logbook of lies, some cash, and the ability not to die on a few training jumps can become a TI. Twenty years ago, a TI was one of the best skydivers on the DZ, someone who was seasoned beyond reproach. Now you are having to make rules because the competition between Tandem I/E's creates a "don't fail candidates because it will hurt my business" attitude.

Train better, tougher examiners, you will get better, smarter TI's, and we wouldn't need these rules. But then there wouldn't be as big a market for tandem gear.... Oh wait.... I see the issue.

Essentially, you are telling the S&TA's to clean up the mess you have created. S&TA's everywhere are now going to get to look at hours of video looking for handle touches and small turns because the training system has failed to weed out those that just couldn't follow your commandments. Very simple commandments.

When an S&TA grounds a fun jumper for a BSR violation, it just means someone can't have fun. But if I go out as S&TA and ground a TI for a 100 degree turn at 300 feet, he/she loses his/her job. In some states that can have serious legal ramifications. Again, sticking the unpaid volunteer out there in legal limbo.

But there is more....Just imagine how much fun its going to be in places where two DZ's are next to each other!!! Instead of sending video to the FAA of cloudbusting, all sorts of videos of landings are going to be coming to the RD's. You have elevated the feuding to a much higher level.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't disagree with the idea of safety or the intention of these rules, but it just seems USPA and the manufacturers have become too cozy at the expense of our membership. That USPA has handed enforcement of micromanaging TI's to the lowest rung of enforcement without thinking of the ramifications completely. That this behavior will continue blindly unless some of us say something.

BSR's are so important, so sacred, that they should be passed or modified only with a roll call vote of the BOD after being open to member comment since the last BOD meeting.

top

Jump more, post less!

[TomNoonan 1]

Craig,

You still have not answered the question, who is bought on the board, and what was paid?

You keep making these broad stroke assumptions without any fact or basis, all you have is conspiracy theory. I have been on the board twice now and can tell you that between that and my nine years experience working in different areas of the manufacturing side of the industry, I have never seen a single instance of anything you postulate.

Call to question whatever you want, all I am asking for is facts, not conjecture.

I ask for facts because we've all seen on this forum/board far too many times what false accusations can do to people and DZs.

As for your stance on S&TAs, I am admittedly confused.....the S&TA, like the BOD, are volunteer positions. No one is forced to do it, they choose to do it because they believe in what they are doing. So, to put in BSRs that basically everyone at the Instructor/Examiner level agrees is the right thing to do, is putting S&TAs at risk by asking them to uphold the very reason they posses the appointment in the first place? Shall we only ask the S&TAs to uphold easy things to uphold? It has been stated for a while that some people just want the title, others want the job, this BSR will help define both groups. (From my perspective though, I choose to believe that all S&TAs are capable of upholding these (and all) BSRs quite easily and successfully.

Quote

But there is more....Just imagine how much fun its going to be in places where two DZ's are next to each other!!!

Good lord, you have me there Craig. I imagine the easiest way to keep the Hatfields and McCoys at bay is to follow these incredibly simple BSRs. If everyone complies, there is nothing to Hatfield or McCoy about......

Quote

Please don't get me wrong. I don't disagree with the idea of safety or the intention of these rules, but it just seems USPA and the manufacturers have become too cozy at the expense of our membership.

So you agree with the need to improve safety but don't agree with the way safety is achieved. Fair enough. Provide an alternative solution with the same accountability and enforcement capability and present it at the next BOD meeting, and you'll have my vote. You can't though, because it doesnt exist (short of the FAA taking over) the BSRs are the only means to self police those that refuse the idea of self policing.

And there are not any other BSRs in the pipeline that I am aware of. [email protected] is the place to contact if you want to ask across the board.

And lastly regarding the BSRs in general. The BSRs are supposed to be pillars of safety and procedure, I agree. What you fail to see is that as the sport expands and exhibits new areas or disciplines, they may or may not need additional oversight. The BSRs should be reflective of the sport we live in today, not the sport we lived in decades ago when most of them were first created.

Namaste,
Tom Noonan

www.everest-skydive.com

[gowlerk 1,903]

Quote

And lastly regarding the BSRs in general. The BSRs are supposed to be pillars of safety and procedure, I agree. What you fail to see is that as the sport expands and exhibits new areas or disciplines, they may or may not need additional oversight.

And this is the crux of the matter right here. The BSR system, and the whole USPA structure is not adequate for the demands of an ever increasing tandem world. DZs are getting larger, the operators and the equipment makers have a larger and growing stake in these issues. And they DO dominate the BOD. Even if the board is not truly "bought and paid for" (and it isn't) it is dominated by those who hold an increasing financial stake in a growing industry.

It is unavoidable, but it is and will continue causing resentment among the rank and file membership. However, they do enjoy the turbines and employment opportunities that come with the changes, so they will largely shut up and jump!

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

[peek 20]

gowlerk

The BSR system, and the whole USPA structure is not adequate for the demands of an ever increasing tandem world. DZs are getting larger, the operators and the equipment makers have a larger and growing stake in these issues. And they DO dominate the BOD. Even if the board is not truly "bought and paid for", it is dominated by those who hold an increasing financial stake in a growing industry.

Good observation, sir, and well put.

[Dutton 0]

Yes. Good point.

We used to just kill each other, and the FAA and general public isn't too concerned about that. With Tandem, we are now killing the general public, that's a whole different deal.

Take a look at the current Title 14 CFR book (FAR's). It's huge. That is the result of 100 years of pilots killing people with airplanes. A wise Instructor told me that 100 hour pilots don't kill people. It's the pilots with 5,000 hours that cause the worst accidents, and he is right. Same thing in skydiving. What is in Tandem's interest is now in ours, like it or not. If you don't want the rules, don't screw up.

I'm going to be responsible for yelling at people for this now and I don't mind one bit. Why are people hooking Tandems anyway? Would you want someone doing that to your child or mother? That is someone's family member, remember that.

[stayhigh 2]

it is going to be impossible for USPA to enforce this when FAA can't even enforce the DZ to use seat belt.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[normiss 620]

Tandem video is amazingly common, boarding and seat belting videos....not so much.

[ufk22 32]

1. The "twenty years ago TI's were better" arguement isn't the truth. I was there.
2. If TI's were better twenty years ago, how is this possible since back then they were trained by manufacturer appointed examiners. Those examiners surely were sell-outs, only interested in doing what the manufacturers wanted.
3. The suggestion that the courses need to weed out more TI's seems to be made by some of the same people that DON'T believe a 3rd class medical should be necessary. If it's proper for Tandem-E's to cull those who might make hook turns or not do handle checks, how can it not be proper for USPA to cull those who can't get a medical?
Having seen the introduction and the spread of hook-turn landings for tandems over the last number of years, my only question has been why it has taken USPA this long.
The root cause of these problems isn't the gear manufacturers, it's the money generated by tandems. It's the blessing of the sport (turbine aircraft everywhere, jump prices relatively cheap), but also the only way to make real money in skydiving.

To Tom;
Thanks for having the courage to push this forward.

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[jlmiracle 7]

Hi Tom,

First, thank you for all your very informative posts.

I was wondering if the S&TA's have ever been given any guidelines on how to handle any jumpers that violate the BSR's whether they are instructors or not?

Do they get a warning first, then suspension for the second violation, 3rd violation ratings/membership pulled? Has anyone ever thought of introducing a fine? (not sure how that would be collected)

Judy

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

[skytribe 16]

Interesting points, although some of this appears incorrect.

I don't necessarily agree with all of craig's point but I believe that the change still leaves a question about who will enforce the new rules.

SnTA - are they really going to ground people on a busy day and piss the DZO off. My thought is they wont be at the DZ for too long if they keep grounding the staff.

DZO - they always have had the opportunity to enforce further more stringent rules for there business - if they haven't now and have turned a blind eye to these practices do you really think things are magically going to change.

Tom has said this is a small group of people/DZ's that don't want to play by the rules - adding an additional rule which is a duplicate of manufacturer rules. Suddenly you expect these hard-core group of individuals to change there ways.

Instructor Quality - I don't believe this is just related to tandems but I believe that experience levels are just too low these day. I'm seeing coaches with minimal jumps numbers who quite frankly don't have much experience and it shows. These are the people that want to do tandems at 500 jumps. I'm sure they will find and examiner to get a rating. I think we have better training methods than 20 years ago - but we have also not increased our experience requirements.

As for the medicals issue - I think the question is not necessarily about whether TI should have medicals or not but why the FAA medical is required. I have a FAA medical as it is what is required - however I don't believe it accomplishes as much as you think it does. My standard medical was much more thorough on detecting actual illness/conditions. The fact a BOD member said they used it for tracking DUI's was a worrying point - who gave the USPA this mandate ?

[chuckakers 369]

stayhigh

...when FAA can't even enforce the DZ to use seat belt.

Can't or doesn't?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[topdocker 0]

TomNoonan

Craig,

You still have not answered the question, who is bought on the board, and what was paid?

You keep making these broad stroke assumptions without any fact or basis, all you have is conspiracy theory.

The level of indignity that you speak with does lend credence to my argument.

What is bought... the ability of the manufacturers to have rules brought before the BOD and they pass. Three BSR's in the last few years. The underage jumper rule is about liability pure and simple, not about safety. The fact that the BSR is written for within the US and outside the US shows its not about safety one bit, but covering the asses of manufacturers with USPA's assets. These latest two BSR's came up and passed quickly.

What was paid... Almost everyone on the BOD has an interest in equipment as dealers, or as sponsored jumpers, or as employees. When someone who sets your price or determines if you get sponsorship makes a request, it probably receives a little more attention than if Joe Jumper requests it. After all, there is a relationship there. Someone does not have to receive cash in an envelope to be influenced, there are way more perks than cash.

And the fact that it is so hard to prove makes it even more dangerous. The problem is that this situation isn't discussed by the BOD in the meeting before votes are cast is an issue. In many states, this would violate or Not-for-profit status. By not even having a frank discussion of the relationships between BOD members and how they serve or are served by the manufacturers puts the very viability of our organization at risk.

You want the TI's to be better, to be more professional, to be honest in their evaluation of their own abilities. Then set the example of how to be professional and self aware by admitting the PIA has a real influence on our organization. It has been happening and it continues to grow. You can state over and over again how its about safety, but ultimately it is about the PIA being so fearful of lawsuits that they are sucking in USPA to cover them.

You work for UPT in the tandem operations department. Your very livelihood relies on UPT being viable. Are you telling me the fact that if UPT gets sued and you loose your job never enters your mind?

A standing member who has served on the BOD is calling a question that may or may not have some validity. Other members have raised this same question, but to no avail. Instead of denying this exists, show how those relationships are and how BOD members are working with, for, or sponsored by manufacturers and then the decision process will at least be more transparent. Every BOD member fills out a form that states these, but it is not made available to other BOD members or members. Obviously, those are a matter of form, not function.

I don't really have the time or energy to discuss all the issues here. I have two real jobs, plus I am going to have to spend more time at the DZ watching tandem videos so I can strictly enforce these new rules. As the guy in the trenches fighting to keep those jumpers I can safe, I just feel chucked under the bus. Between GoPros on low time jumpers, people down-sizing too rapidly, self-described coaches teaching licensed jumpers poorly or wrongly, and tandems needing more supervision it may just be too much. Maybe the real problem is the SnTA system was great back when you just policed jumpers, but we are powerless to really intervene in the money making machine that tandem operations have become.

top

Jump more, post less!

[TomNoonan 1]

Quote

The level of indignity that you speak with does lend credence to my argument.

That I continue to ask you to site your allegations that everyone is bought and paid for with specific examples that you continue to be unable to provide is indignant? I disagree. So be it.

Quote

By not even having a frank discussion of the relationships between BOD members and how they serve or are served by the manufacturers puts the very viability of our organization at risk.

Everyone on the board shows up Day 1 and fills out a document that details any and all affiliations they have within the industry. I have done it twice now having been elected twice. You even cited it in your post. If you want it available to the membership (I wasn't aware it wasn't) then ask your RD to bring that up to the next meeting and get the rule changed. I'd vote for it.

Quote

You work for UPT in the tandem operations department. Your very livelihood relies on UPT being viable. Are you telling me the fact that if UPT gets sued and you loose your job never enters your mind?

Nope. Not at all. But thank you for suggesting that you think I must be thinking that way. While I certainly enjoy my job and my career, I have degrees and interests outside of tandem. If the tandem industry ever imploded, I'd be fine.

I find it odd that you accuse me of indignity, yet your the one telling me how you think i must be thinking and operating, without ever actually taking the time to talk to me directly about it. Another assumption of yours on a public forum.

Quote

I don't really have the time or energy to discuss all the issues here.

Your the one that brought up the question. And in doing so basically questioned the integrity of everyone on the BOD that volunteers their time. All I am doing is providing fact and standing up for a process that I believe to be fair and just. I'm sorry if having to defend your statement is so indignant to you.

And to fair, if I just wanted to politic and keep your vote (if I ever even had it), I could have just nodded my head and let your statement stand. But I'd rather lose your vote for standing up for something I believe in, than win your vote by remaining silent.

Call it a draw Craig. All the info is out there for all to see now, the membership is fully capable of drawing its own conclusions.

Namaste,
Tom Noonan

www.everest-skydive.com

[Slater 0]

topdocker

***Craig,

You still have not answered the question, who is bought on the board, and what was paid?

You work for UPT in the tandem operations department. Your very livelihood relies on UPT being viable.



top

I guess he is answer pretty straight about one who, at least.

Slater

McConkey es Dios

[DSE 3]

As a point of order, Tom doesn't need to be on the BOD, nor an employee of a company in the tandem skydiving industry to present/request a BSR.

I wasn't (and am not) an employee of any skydiving-affiliated company, yet I requested, presented, and succeeded with the BOD enacting a BSR for 200 jumps prior to flying a wingsuit.

As an S&TA at Large, I'm not paid by, affiliated with, sponsored by anyone who benefits from my position as an examiner, S&TA, AFFI, etc. I've given bowling speeches, grounded, banned, and disciplined people for doing stupid things.

I guess I fail to see the evil of the manufacturers behind what the BSR's are for. Who disagrees with no hook turns for tandems? Who disagrees with handle checks in freefall and under canopy? Who disagrees with the unfortunate need to REQUIRE basic accountabilities that are beneficial to safety?

At the end of the day, does it matter who proposes, as long as it's sensible and the BOD disposes?

[MakeItHappen 15]

topdocker

***Craig,

You still have not answered the question, who is bought on the board, and what was paid?

You keep making these broad stroke assumptions without any fact or basis, all you have is conspiracy theory.

The level of indignity that you speak with does lend credence to my argument.


Interesting dialogue between you two.

From my POV, the 'bought and paid for' is a more appropriate description of the TIs that use handycams and skip the handles check because it makes poor video.

The TIs with handycams that skip handles check because it ruins a few seconds of video are doing a great disservice to themselves and their customers.
They are jeopardizing the safety of two people every time they do that. For what? Some extra money from the video.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[jlmiracle 7]

jlmiracle

Hi Tom,

First, thank you for all your very informative posts.

I was wondering if the S&TA's have ever been given any guidelines on how to handle any jumpers that violate the BSR's whether they are instructors or not?

Do they get a warning first, then suspension for the second violation, 3rd violation ratings/membership pulled? Has anyone ever thought of introducing a fine? (not sure how that would be collected)

Judy

With zero response to this I will assume that there are no written guidelines for the S&TA's, and its just another free-for-all.

If the USPA wants to be taken seriously, they really need to show that they WILL discipline those that break BSR's (and not secretly behind closed doors).

Judy

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

[TomNoonan 1]

Hi Judy,

My apologies, I attempted to respond to everyone's questions in a single "catch all" reply above, apparently I left out responses to your question.

USPA provides the S&TA Handbook via PDF from www.uspa,org that has basic guidelines.

Namaste,
Tom Noonan

www.everest-skydive.com

[chuckakers 369]

jlmiracle

***Hi Tom,

First, thank you for all your very informative posts.

I was wondering if the S&TA's have ever been given any guidelines on how to handle any jumpers that violate the BSR's whether they are instructors or not?

Do they get a warning first, then suspension for the second violation, 3rd violation ratings/membership pulled? Has anyone ever thought of introducing a fine? (not sure how that would be collected)

Judy

With zero response to this I will assume that there are no written guidelines for the S&TA's, and its just another free-for-all.

If the USPA wants to be taken seriously, they really need to show that they WILL discipline those that break BSR's (and not secretly behind closed doors).

Judy

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel disciplinary actions should be public?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[SkyRedneck 0]

chuckakers

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel disciplinary actions should be public?

I would think it would serve as a good lesson to others who are breaking the same rules, to straighten up their acts.

Unless the punishments don't amount to anything, or are uneven depending upon the personality involved. Then I would want to hide it, so people wouldn't find out the rules aren't being enforced, are enforced unfairly, or with favoritism.

"Transparency" is big word that gets thrown around a lot these days, to mean that our government and organizations should be open with their records and actions, so that the people can see that they are acting well on their behalf. That's what we should expect of USPA.

[jimjumper 25]

I think that some of the problem is that there are no requirements to be an S&TA. It's difficult to listen to an S&TA that doesn't have the experience or background to dispense advice and much less when given a safety position where they are enforcing rules they don't understand the underlying reasons for. It used to be S&TA's had to be at least an I. Right now you just need to be a USPA member and be a buddy of the DZO and their Regional Director. I see USPA pushing more safety enforcment onto S&TA's and since they are appointed by Directors I also see a direct legal and liability path to USPA. I think eventually USPA will no longer be able to disavow their liability in the area of instruction and safety, especially tandems, and will be forced to decide whether it's a member organization or a DZO/Manufactuer group.

[chuckakers 369]

SkyRedneck

***Just out of curiosity, why do you feel disciplinary actions should be public?

I would think it would serve as a good lesson to others who are breaking the same rules, to straighten up their acts.

Unless the punishments don't amount to anything, or are uneven depending upon the personality involved. Then I would want to hide it, so people wouldn't find out the rules aren't being enforced, are enforced unfairly, or with favoritism.

"Transparency" is big word that gets thrown around a lot these days, to mean that our government and organizations should be open with their records and actions, so that the people can see that they are acting well on their behalf. That's what we should expect of USPA.

Disciplinary actions are part of the minutes of board meetings as are the results of appeals, although the governance manual prohibits the details of investigations to be released to anyone not a party to the matter for the protection of the accused. If disciplinary action is dished out it's there in the minutes for all to see.

If no disciplinary action is taken I do not believe that fact would be listed in the minutes.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 2,380]

>Honestly, the real problem now is any dweeb with five hundred jumps, a logbook of lies,
>some cash, and the ability not to die on a few training jumps can become a TI. Twenty
>years ago, a TI was one of the best skydivers on the DZ, someone who was seasoned
>beyond reproach.

I have to call BS on that. I got my tandem rating 20 years ago, and I certainly was not "one of the best skydivers on the DZ." I was a newly minted SL instructor with about 100 students worth of experience - and I was one of the more experienced jumpers in the course I was in.

Part of that was due to the shitty gear. With the F111 tandem mains we had, each opening was painful, you needed a lot of upper body strength to flare, and malfunctions were common (about 1 in 200 at our DZ.) So few people were eager to take that on.

>When an S&TA grounds a fun jumper for a BSR violation, it just means someone can't
>have fun. But if I go out as S&TA and ground a TI for a 100 degree turn at 300 feet,
>he/she loses his/her job.

If that's something you don't want to have to deal with, don't be an S+TA.

[jlmiracle 7]

chuckakers

******Hi Tom,

First, thank you for all your very informative posts.

I was wondering if the S&TA's have ever been given any guidelines on how to handle any jumpers that violate the BSR's whether they are instructors or not?

Do they get a warning first, then suspension for the second violation, 3rd violation ratings/membership pulled? Has anyone ever thought of introducing a fine? (not sure how that would be collected)

Judy

With zero response to this I will assume that there are no written guidelines for the S&TA's, and its just another free-for-all.

If the USPA wants to be taken seriously, they really need to show that they WILL discipline those that break BSR's (and not secretly behind closed doors).

Judy

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel disciplinary actions should be public?

Peer Pressure. I think people will behave better if they know that there are consequences...We have alot of hearsay with the USPA so we don't really know if they disciplined anyone or not and how severe their punishment was.

Judy

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

[chuckakers 369]

jlmiracle

*********Hi Tom,

First, thank you for all your very informative posts.

I was wondering if the S&TA's have ever been given any guidelines on how to handle any jumpers that violate the BSR's whether they are instructors or not?

Do they get a warning first, then suspension for the second violation, 3rd violation ratings/membership pulled? Has anyone ever thought of introducing a fine? (not sure how that would be collected)

Judy

With zero response to this I will assume that there are no written guidelines for the S&TA's, and its just another free-for-all.

If the USPA wants to be taken seriously, they really need to show that they WILL discipline those that break BSR's (and not secretly behind closed doors).

Judy

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel disciplinary actions should be public?

Peer Pressure. I think people will behave better if they know that there are consequences...We have alot of hearsay with the USPA so we don't really know if they disciplined anyone or not and how severe their punishment was.

Judy

Actually when a member's ratings or membership are suspended either temporarily or permanently it becomes part of the minutes of the BOD meetings, all of which are available at uspa.org. The reasons for the actions are not listed, but given the open nature of communication in the sport it isn't hard to figure that out.

Is that what you are asking for or do you want the gruesome details directly from the head shed?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX