Chuck Akers wants you to know

[JoeWeber 2,299]

Chuck, you might have been asked this before but: "Can you show where it (swooping) has grown the sport to such a degree that the fatalities and horrendous injuries are worth it?"

As you might recall that was a part of this post:"

Finally in that you don't like to answer questions. I'll ask again: "Can you show where it has grown the sport to such a degree that the fatalities and horrendous injuries are worth it?" You are an announced proponent of CP which,  those of us on the sharp end of the stick call swooping. Also, you believe that USPA should promote it for the better good of all. Obviously, you must believe that the inelegant and sometimes bloody consequences of swooping at the introductory level where some of us live are worth it for what the sport gains. That, or you haven't actually thought about it seriously. So please answer the question. "Can you show where it (swooping) has grown the sport to such a degree that the fatalities and horrendous injuries are worth it?"

[billvon 2,400]

Did you post this in the wrong forum?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

Did you post this in the wrong forum?

Probably. Are USPA Presidents allowed to reply to questions here?

[billvon 2,400]

Of course.  But  that question belongs in a forum like General Skydiving, Questions and Answers or Safety and Training.  It would be better asked there.

[wmw999 2,122]

This is where Chuck suggested moving the discussion in Incidents; there’ll be more engagement with swoopers here, so it might be the best place. We’ll see  

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

This is where Chuck suggested moving the discussion in Incidents; there’ll be more engagement with swoopers here, so it might be the best place. We’ll see  

Wendy P. 

We've had plenty of engagement with swoopers. They aren't bad or evil or criminal or anything negative. Mostly they're just cool people doing what they consider fun at places that still allow it. Also, at the top levels it is nothing short of spectacular to watch.

Like the rest of us did during our long skydiving careers, they tend to live in self validating bubbles and believe that what they do harms no one but themselves and that they should not be held back by rules designed to protect those with lesser skills. After all, it's an adult sport and adults die and yada, yada, yada. It's the square reserve argument, the AAD argument, the RSL argument, the landing in opposite directions argument, the wearing a camera at 50 jumps argument, the downsize your parachute or upsize your wing suit arguments and on and on and on. We've all pushed our limits and been bit along the way. I'm certainly no exception and I'll guess you aren't either.

I'm looking for something different from Chuck. If it turns out to be an education I'll take it. After all, that's why we're here.

[wmw999 2,122]

You’ve had far more one on one interaction as a DZO, especially one that had one of the earlier swoop ponds from what I understand. Me, I just am concerned about sharing airspace when one or another member isn’t perfect in their understanding of “above here”’ when viewed offset from above. And, of course, the dz.com folks.

Wendy P. 

[chuckakers 370]

14 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Chuck, you might have been asked this before but: "Can you show where it (swooping) has grown the sport to such a degree that the fatalities and horrendous injuries are worth it?"

As you might recall that was a part of this post:"

Finally in that you don't like to answer questions. I'll ask again: "Can you show where it has grown the sport to such a degree that the fatalities and horrendous injuries are worth it?" You are an announced proponent of CP which,  those of us on the sharp end of the stick call swooping. Also, you believe that USPA should promote it for the better good of all. Obviously, you  must believe that the inelegant and sometimes bloody consequences of swooping at the introductory level where some of us live are worth it for what the sport gains. That, or you haven't actually thought about it seriously. So please answer the question. "Can you show where it (swooping) has grown the sport to such a degree that the fatalities and horrendous injuries are worth it?"

You made a very incorrect statement that I don't like to answer questions. The reality is that I refuse to get suckered into dead-end conversations with the "yeah, but" crowd. Look through the forums and you will see that I answer questions routinely for anyone with a desire to have a sincere conversation on any subject. When I sat down to write this, I planned to address your post in great detail. After re-reading my own words, I've changed my mind. I will not take the bait.

You know as well as I do that there is no acceptable level of injuries or fatalities in skydiving. There is no skydiving discipline designed or intended as a tool for growth, so making a connection between them and any intended promotional value is a false narrative. Here are the facts:

CP is a legitimate, internationally recognized discipline. In accordance with USPA bylaws, we support all ISC recognized disciplines.

CP is dangerous. Statistically it's more dangerous than other skydiving disciplines. Welcome to reality.

All forms of skydiving are dangerous. I wholeheartedly support all of them.

Finally, you suggested that I must either believe that CP injuries and fatalities are "worth it", or that I haven't "actually thought about it seriously". Brother, you are way off base. There is NOTHING in skydiving that I haven't thought about seriously. Pretty much every moment of every day. Anyone who knows me and my priorities knows that.

Five left and cut.

 

Edited October 20, 2023 by chuckakers

[Bluhdow 31]

15 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

"Can you show where it (swooping) has grown the sport to such a degree that the fatalities and horrendous injuries are worth it?"

Your question cannot be objectively answered because it teeters on a subjective measure. That is, your personal opinion on what constitutes a level of growth that is "worth it."

The logic can be extended to anything and everything. Is driving really "worth it" with all the fatalities and injuries? What about running? What about living? 

Stupid question. Stupid thread.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, Bluhdow said:

Your question cannot be objectively answered because it teeters on a subjective measure. That is, your personal opinion on what constitutes a level of growth that is "worth it."

The logic can be extended to anything and everything. Is driving really "worth it" with all the fatalities and injuries? What about running? What about living? 

Stupid question. Stupid thread.

Okay, it's a stupid question. And, yes, it is a personal opinion, I wanted Chucks opinion. I was an early supporter, built a big ass pond, and promoted the practice. My personal opinion was that it was a lot of fun. Then after enough carnage I decided it wasn't worth it. If to you that is being stupid I accept your judgement.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 hours ago, chuckakers said:

CP is dangerous. Statistically it's more dangerous than other skydiving disciplines. Welcome to reality.

 

Right, that's my point; and a hell of a lot more dangerous than the statistics show due to gross under reporting of injuries. At the level of International Competition it's all art and beauty, for sure. But that's not how it is at the start of the pipeline and that's reality.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

On 10/20/2023 at 11:44 AM, chuckakers said:

You know as well as I do that there is no acceptable level of injuries or fatalities in skydiving.

This statement runs counter to what else you post just below it. 

"CP is dangerous. Statistically it's more dangerous than other skydiving disciplines. Welcome to reality.

All forms of skydiving are dangerous. I wholeheartedly support all of them."

Literally, by your own words, you accept a certain attrition rate. Of course all of us, weekend skydivers and industry professionals alike, accept a certain attrition rate. When I say you aren't thinking seriously I am simply observing what seems to be a blind spot you have when adding in CP and Swooping. 

I've twice asked : "Can you show where it (Swooping) has grown the sport to such a degree that the fatalities and horrendous injuries are worth it?" Again and again you do not answer the question. If you support it at the level of the first time swooper, as President of USPA, you should have a ready answer. And the answer really isn't observing that spectators like to watch it at the level of competition. Those are different paradigms. Wing suiting has added participants as have wind tunnels. As President of USPA you should be able to provide data that clearly shows that swooping is bringing in skydivers. Please do so.

[wmw999 2,122]

Is the purpose of USPA to grow the sport, or to support activities that significant numbers of members engage in, while encouraging safe practices? Probably both, but maybe neither to the exclusion of the other. How would you regulate swooping if you were in charge — given that actual people actually do it. It was hard enough to get DZ’s to start enforcing traffic control areas, and that appears to have cut down on in-air collisions under canopy.

Yes, they have to adhere to certain standards to be USPA members, but since there are successful non-USPA DZ’s out there, the stick approach to enforcement won’t work for very long. Used to be that advertising in Parachutist was how people found out about DZ’s; with the net, that’s effectively useless.

Personally, I’d like to see the same sort of emphasis on minimum number of jumps and/or canopy classes before people are allowed to use the swoop lanes. It’d be a start. Forbidding swooping at commercial DZ’s is probably a non-starter.

It sounds like the most recent Eloy fatality was doing all the right things for education; swooping just doesn’t forgive mistakes, any more than proximity BASE does.

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

On 10/20/2023 at 11:44 AM, chuckakers said:

When I sat down to write this, I planned to address your post in great detail. After re-reading my own words, I've changed my mind.

I spent a lot of time writing this speech but (sound of blank sheet of paper crumpling) I've decided to speak from the heart.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Is the purpose of USPA to grow the sport, or to support activities that significant numbers of members engage in, while encouraging safe practices?

Door #2, it seems to me. USPA is great for keeping the government at bay. Chuck opined on the entertainment value of CP. To ask him to what end, is it singing to the choir or expanding the sport seems fair to ask given his position and support. As far as banning it goes I know of no one suggesting USPA do so; that's for each independent business to decide. 

Edited October 22, 2023 by JoeWeber

[chuckakers 370]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:42 AM, wmw999 said:

Is the purpose of USPA to grow the sport, or to support activities that significant numbers of members engage in, while encouraging safe practices?

Directly from the USPA Governance Manual....

https://uspa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=g27h2pZ-sjw%3d&portalid=0

"The purposes for which USPA is formed are as follows: To
encourage unity among all persons interested in skydiving;
to promote safety in all skydiving activities in the United
States, to sanction skydiving competitions; to document
officially all national and world skydiving records set by
citizens of the U.S., to promote and encourage the study
and knowledge of skydiving among the membership and the
public at large; to cooperate with all government agencies
connected with aeronautics or aeronautical activities; to
compile information regarding the science of skydiving
and to edit, publish, and disseminate the same; to select
and train the United States Parachute Team for world
competition."

[BMAC615 205]

This comment about USPA was made by @NickDG in 2008:

Before forums on the internet completely imploded into anonymity and incivility we urged the USPA Board to use the net to open a dialogue with its members. They didn't, and it was a combination of some not being computer savvy enough, or if they were, thinking it a severe breech of USPAs bunker mentality. And by bunker mentality I mean a combination of hiding most of the year in a cold weather state, allowing their RDs, ST&As, and (as we see here) their candidates to shield them from the heat on a day to day basis. And when they do make a public appearance en masse they use secrecy to shroud their inner workings. Now I'd think secrecy is sometimes called for in cases like fatalities so board members can speak frankly without the worry of offending long time friends or the deceased's families. But they surely abuse the secrecy thing and they use it for every hot button issue. 

Now a word or two on the first time candidates and the threads here where we're supposed to ask them questions. To the folks asking the questions - ease up a little bit. The candidates are the least culpable in anything the USPA has done in the past. And the candidates, even though they realize there are issues and problems, may think of the USPA like a benign and friendly member association when it's really more like the Mafia or the Hells Angels. What will happen is once elected the hierarchy of USPA will endeavor to convince them it's not them against USPA, it's USPA against the great unwashed, which is us - the rank and file members. So like freshman Congressmen they will either drink the kool-aid and get onboard or life will be made miserable for them. And being onboard means survival of the USPA is job one. And believe it, the board does hears us when we say things like we should drop USPA and go with AOPA, and it scares them. 

I suppose like many long time members I have a love/hate relationship with the USPA. In my first few years of the 70s, I loved them, I devoured every word in the magazine, and USPA was my hero and champion. Then slowly and through the 80s I saw the cracks began to appear, the nepotism, the old boy network, the don't rock the boat, and the propensity to hang individual jumpers out to dry when that was the easiest thing to do. And while I didn't realize it at the time USPA was becoming less a member's representative and more a trade group for people in the business of skydiving. 

So when we write long, pointed, almost accusatory posts, asking questions and demanding answers of our candidates we are already starting them down the road where it becomes easier for them to believe USPA and its methods are more sanctuary then adversary. And a lot of people here help that along by saying, "run for USPA office or shut the hell up!" That's B.S. It's like saying run for Congress or you have no right to voice opposition to your government. Yet, where we do fail is we don't confront the USPA enough with our concerns. So where the candidate's forum could work is in just listing our concerns for new candidates to become familiar with. Such as pure tandem mills getting association protection and benefits while excluding up-jumpers, a group member program that should be strictly a member to member program, and the fact USPA pretty much pulled the covers over their heads concerning the swoop death rate issue. 

I'd also like to see groundings come back. And not on a DZ level, but on a USPA level. People do get kicked off DZs these days, but it's usually for wacky ground antics and not wacky air antics. And anyway the offenders just move on to another DZ. I think any ST&A or Instructor should be able to document a jumper who's an accident waiting to happen, and if they prove their case, the aberrant jumper's USPA card would be flagged as grounded, not for 30 or 60 days, but if warranted for six months, or even forever. One thing that we accomplished when we grounded people all the time is sometimes it kept them from killing themselves in the next few jumps and it matured them a little bit. 

Another issue is USPA HQs very location. When they moved from San Francisco to the DC area many many years ago it sort of made sense. It was to be near the seats of power, and indeed Bill Ottley like to portray himself as running down to the halls of Congress (sometimes through the snow) for a beat down every time legislation that could possible affect skydiving popped up. But that was flawed reasoning and if you go along with it then USPA HQs should really be located across the street from FAA HQs in Oklahoma. But even that's a stretch in these days of instant communication and cheap airfares. USPA should be where the members are. 

I believe USPA HQ should be located in a Sunbelt state and next to a large DZ like Eloy, Perris, or Deland. A place where many members rotate in and out of, a place where the most members can knock on USPA's door year round with their concerns. As it is now it seems to me like they're hiding out in the DC area during the winter. 

Besides that there are other issues. I've watched USPA sit by and watch Instructors have their power stripped away, I've watched the various methods of instruction, the product of years of research and refinement turn into a hokey hodgepodge of hybrid programs designed to favor a DZOs bottom line rather than students and teachers. We totally allowed our AFF certification courses, once a flagship program copied the world over, to be dumbed down to the point of being toothless. There were I know issues with it but the answer was making the AFF cert course real schools on instruction and not just cert courses. But they skipped over that and just made the cert easier to get. 

Another thing I hear people say all the time is, "I'd rather have the USPA regulating us rather than the FAA." So let's examine that for a bit. This is a USPA scare tactic that works and they count on it. But the FAA, or more specifically the FARs, already does regulate the sport of skydiving, and also more importantly, they protect it. The feds recognize skydiving as a legitimate aeronautical activity and it's the reason we can't arbitrarily be banned from airports that accept federal funds (and that's the majority of GA airports.) Generally, Part 105 of the FARs is all we need to regulate skydiving. The USPA is just a façade built upon those federal regs. And if the USPA did all of sudden disappear and the FAA felt the need to get deeper into skydiving it would not be the end of the world. I'm sure like they do in other areas they'd hire experienced parachutists to oversee things and I could finally get my dream job. A skydiving instructor with a badge! 

Besides, rarely does an entire week go by without a General Aviation accident that results in fatalities. And most of the time it's not only a licensed pilot who dies, but they take one or more innocent passengers with them. The FAA understands well that when people fly people die. So I doubt they would overreact and start strictly over regulating skydiving. 

And seriously, if the FAA tried to do anything detrimental to skydiving there is actually more of a re-course already built into federal rule making system, and even more so than what we have with USPA. Thirty five or forty thousand of us could actually get the FAA to do something we wanted in the long run. They are bound by law to consider our concerns. Thirty five or forty thousand of us can't get the USPA to do anything. They can simply throw our concerns in the shitcan and there's nothing we can do about itl. 

I know many will say, "Who cares about all this?" And don't think the USPA doesn't count heavily on that. They know most of their members stay in the sport for seven years or so and those members just want to go to the DZ on weekends and make some jumps. And that's fine and dandy but who's watching the store? It used to be USPA printed a detailed line item budget every year in the magazine and any member could see where every penny went. They still run it but now it's so general in nature you really can’t tell where the money goes. 

There's no doubt Bill Ottley saved the USPA in the 80s when they didn’t have two cents to rub together. They were actually cancelling general membership meetings for a time because they couldn't afford them. But through some good real estate and investment deals Bill turned all that around. But the down side is now we have $100,000 per year Executive Directors camping out and collecting that money for years and years. The Executive Director slot shouldn't be a Pope for life position. Term limits should be in place and I'm not so sure letting the Board decide who gets the ED position is all that wise. But I don't know how to fix that as the general membership is too apathic to cast an informed vote in that regard. One thing maybe we could do is let any member run for the job of ED, and have the board vote rather than just decide like they do now. (BTW, I pretty sure that's the way it works so let me know if I'm wrong). And as it stands now the job of ED surely calls for someone who's not necessarily a very experienced jumper but more someone who's an experienced administrator. And in our ranks at large we have plenty of those folks. 

I've learned and taught others to always end a critique on a high note so here goes. The new website is great, a big improvement, and Shirley has made the magazine into a thing of beauty. But it's just lipstick on a, - Whoa, almost blew it there . . . 

 

NickDG

August 7, 2008

 

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/138544-example-of-uspa's-problems/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-3090631

[Jyadz 9]

On 10/20/2023 at 9:42 AM, JoeWeber said:

We've had plenty of engagement with swoopers. They aren't bad or evil or criminal or anything negative. Mostly they're just cool people doing what they consider fun at places that still allow it. Also, at the top levels it is nothing short of spectacular to watch.

Like the rest of us did during our long skydiving careers, they tend to live in self validating bubbles and believe that what they do harms no one but themselves and that they should not be held back by rules designed to protect those with lesser skills. After all, it's an adult sport and adults die and yada, yada, yada. It's the square reserve argument, the AAD argument, the RSL argument, the landing in opposite directions argument, the wearing a camera at 50 jumps argument, the downsize your parachute or upsize your wing suit arguments and on and on and on. We've all pushed our limits and been bit along the way. I'm certainly no exception and I'll guess you aren't either.

I'm looking for something different from Chuck. If it turns out to be an education I'll take it. After all, that's why we're here.

Where is it being banned? I’ve jumped at most of the major dropzone’s in the US and never once been to one that doesn’t allow big turns. Maybe not on an altitude pass but never seen it banned on a low pass. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

26 minutes ago, Jyadz said:

Where is it being banned? I’ve jumped at most of the major dropzone’s in the US and never once been to one that doesn’t allow big turns. Maybe not on an altitude pass but never seen it banned on a low pass. 

For a bonus, do some research and tell us which major dropzone has these rules:

• Fly a predictable pattern with long straight legs.
• The base leg should begin approximately at the triangle heading West towards the runway.
• No greater than 90 degree turns are allowed below 1500 feet/450 meters

   

[JoeWeber 2,299]

9 hours ago, chuckakers said:

Directly from the USPA Governance Manual....

https://uspa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=g27h2pZ-sjw%3d&portalid=0

"The purposes for which USPA is formed are as follows: To
encourage unity among all persons interested in skydiving;
to promote safety in all skydiving activities in the United
States, to sanction skydiving competitions; to document
officially all national and world skydiving records set by
citizens of the U.S., to promote and encourage the study
and knowledge of skydiving among the membership and the
public at large; to cooperate with all government agencies
connected with aeronautics or aeronautical activities; to
compile information regarding the science of skydiving
and to edit, publish, and disseminate the same; to select
and train the United States Parachute Team for world
competition."

Do you believe there is an under reporting of swooping injuries at most Dropzones, USPA or not?

[billvon 2,400]

On 10/21/2023 at 6:23 PM, JoeWeber said:

Literally, by your own words, you accept a certain attrition rate.

What is an acceptable level of death at your DZ, or with your aircraft?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

41 minutes ago, billvon said:

What is an acceptable level of death at your DZ, or with your aircraft?

Aircraft, zero. Swoop, zero. Post skydive canopy issues, I know it’s possible. Suicides, they can happen. 

[billvon 2,400]

23 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Aircraft, zero. Swoop, zero. Post skydive canopy issues, I know it’s possible. Suicides, they can happen. 

But your DZ hasn't had zero fatalities - or even zero swoop fatalities.  Are the fatalities and horrendous injuries worth it for you?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

24 minutes ago, billvon said:

But your DZ hasn't had zero fatalities - or even zero swoop fatalities.  Are the fatalities and horrendous injuries worth it for you?

No, they are not and thank you for the questions. We had a suicide, not much you can do there unless the person is exhibiting self destructive behavior. We had a no canopy out fatality where the visiting jumper took a piece of gear from our gear room without permission when no one was looking, didn't turn on the AAD and met the turn aircraft while staff were helping a tandem land. We relocated things and added procedures to reduce the chance of that happening again. We had a pro swooper who we brought in to help raise our swoopers skill level hit 3 feet short of the pond and kill himself. Another hit the water and nearly drowned. Several more were hurt bad, a few permanently. Filling on the pond and banning turns above 90° in the main landing area and above 180° in the "high performance" area several years ago seems to have ended those injuries and fatalities. They were definitely not worth it to me. 

 

[billvon 2,400]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

No, they are not and thank you for the questions.

Well, but you kept the DZ open after the first one, so the risk of another one was acceptable to you.  (Which, sure enough, happened.)