0
NWFlyer

FAA Proposal on Landing Area Requirements (USPA Call to Action)

Recommended Posts

True, but "We" are the USPA, we elect the BOD, we go to the GM DZ's, and We are the ones jumping.

It is a total team blame.

My observations are from my 15+ years (yes a youngster) and 100+ DZ's jumped at. And just last night I was sent 5 videos from USPA GM DZ's, in TX, AL, TN and OH. All doing what I wrote about, all within the last month.

We are a self policing organization, we are not well liked at small airports who think we "take" business from them. WE need to address this amongst ourselves and as an Organization. This landing area issue is one we should work WITH the FAA to address.

Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


We are a self policing organization, we are not well liked at small airports who think we "take" business from them. WE need to address this amongst ourselves and as an Organization. This landing area issue is one we should work WITH the FAA to address.

Matt



I agree. I'd even offer that this (landing area recommendation) could be seen as a positive...

Do we need a minimum landing area? Um, yah! Pretty much! It takes X amount of room to land a canopy. We need to work with the FAA at this point to establish what that area should be.

Are all airports appropriate for skydiving activity? No, probably not. That may not be a popular opinion, but not every airport would make a good DZ. Safety should be a consideration when opening any DZ. I would, however, add that if an airport is not safe (area wise) for skydiving, it may not be safe for GA.

The biggest positive here is that the “good old boys” on the airport commissions will not be able to arbitrarily deny parachute operations based on the blanket statement that there is “not enough room”. This proposal will establish a standard to be used by DZO’s and the FAA so we can call bullshit! Those DZ’s that do not meet the new standard may be required to change for the good? This may not necessarily be a bad thing. IMHO as always.B|
Birdshit & Fools Productions

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

True, but "We" are the USPA, we elect the BOD, we go to the GM DZ's, and We are the ones jumping.

It is a total team blame.

Quote



Not true. Our history is full of of DZ's and individual jumpers who act in ways contrary to what "we" would consider proper. That is exactly what you described in you previous post.




My observations are from my 15+ years (yes a youngster) and 100+ DZ's jumped at. And just last night I was sent 5 videos from USPA GM DZ's, in TX, AL, TN and OH. All doing what I wrote about, all within the last month.

Quote



Really? DZO's in 4 states sent you videos a single day of jumpers acting like jackasses? I'd love for you to post those videos so we can see them. It would really help me believe that statement.



We are a self policing organization, we are not well liked at small airports who think we "take" business from them. WE need to address this amongst ourselves and as an Organization. This landing area issue is one we should work WITH the FAA to address.
Quote



You are speaking out of turn here. There are 300+ DZ's in the US, many on public or private GA airports, and most of those are getting along very nicely with airport management.

I think you have decided for yourself that we are not "well liked" by airport management. The truth is skydiving operations are perceived in a lot of different ways across the country. The fact that the vast majority of them are NOT in significant disputes with their hosts kind of blows your argument out of the water.

And by the way, "we" ARE working with the FAA on the landing area issue. We have no choice. If the FAA decides to make something an issue, we have to deal with it. What you don't understand is that if we allow landing area sizes and margins to be carved into stone with the feds, it becomes one more RESTRICTION, not a way to protect us.

Your government will always see regulation as the best way to advance a mutual cause. Unfortunately the mutual cause is seldom real.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I never said DZO's sent the video links, but they are also all over Facebook and Youtube, no secret.



No, you said they sent you the actual videos. From your post...

"And just last night I was sent 5 videos from USPA GM DZ's, in TX, AL, TN and OH. All doing what I wrote about, all within the last month. "
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And this comes as a surprise? Some people are just dense. The FAA Administrator did all but come out and say if we didn’t clean it up he would.

Sparky

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4286900#4286900



Clean up what,Sparky?

How many interactions between skydivers and GA are you awa of? The reports that was linked to is not very damming.
Remster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I never said DZO's sent the video links, but they are also all over Facebook and Youtube, no secret.



No, you said they sent you the actual videos. From your post...

"And just last night I was sent 5 videos from USPA GM DZ's, in TX, AL, TN and OH. All doing what I wrote about, all within the last month. "



Sorry for the confusion, the DZO's did not send them, and to be clear I never wrote DZO, they came from staff and jumpers at the GM DZ's.

And then the reply was how they are all over fb and youtube, the jumpers, staffers etc, are proud of them, or do not understand they are causing the sport the heart ache.

Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

And this comes as a surprise? Some people are just dense. The FAA Administrator did all but come out and say if we didn’t clean it up he would.

Sparky

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4286900#4286900



Clean up what,Sparky?

How many interactions between skydivers and GA are you awa of? The reports that was linked to is not very damming.



27. You should read the OP complete post.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read it. I browsed the reports, and I also read the comments that stated that most of the 27 reports were stretching it.

And if all it takes is 27 supposedly reported issues, I'd have United grounded on my own on the basis that they can't manage their fleet appropriately without delays.
Remster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I read it. I browsed the reports, and I also read the comments that stated that most of the 27 reports were stretching it.

And if all it takes is 27 supposedly reported issues, I'd have United grounded on my own on the basis that they can't manage their fleet appropriately without delays.



Those "27 supposedly reported issues" have been written up by the FAA and the NTSB. Those 27 issues are now part of the FFA Accident and Incident Database (AIDS) with a 15 digit reports number. The FAA is using these reports to support implementation of AC, AC 150/5300-13. Remi, do you think they are going to all this trouble to make it easier for jumpers to gain assess to airport? I don’t think so.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I read it. I browsed the reports, and I also read the comments that stated that most of the 27 reports were stretching it.

And if all it takes is 27 supposedly reported issues, I'd have United grounded on my own on the basis that they can't manage their fleet appropriately without delays.





Those "27 supposedly reported issues" have been written up by the FAA and the NTSB. Those 27 issues are now part of the FFA Accident and Incident Database (AIDS) with a 15 digit reports number. The FAA is using these reports to support implementation of AC, AC 150/5300-13. Remi, do you think they are going to all this trouble to make it easier for jumpers to gain assess to airport? I don’t think so.

Sparky



Due to the rather tenuous nature of the incidents, could the FAA not be showing how infrequent problems are? Sometimes a case study with few incidents over a 30 year time frame is a powerful positive argument.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I read it. I browsed the reports, and I also read the comments that stated that most of the 27 reports were stretching it.

And if all it takes is 27 supposedly reported issues, I'd have United grounded on my own on the basis that they can't manage their fleet appropriately without delays.





Those "27 supposedly reported issues" have been written up by the FAA and the NTSB. Those 27 issues are now part of the FFA Accident and Incident Database (AIDS) with a 15 digit reports number. The FAA is using these reports to support implementation of AC, AC 150/5300-13. Remi, do you think they are going to all this trouble to make it easier for jumpers to gain assess to airport? I don’t think so.

Sparky



Due to the rather tenuous nature of the incidents, could the FAA not be showing how infrequent problems are? Sometimes a case study with few incidents over a 30 year time frame is a powerful positive argument.




At the end of the day, is matters little what the FAA has or hasn't got by way of evidence.
What DOES matter, is how the USPA members respond to it.
To paraphrase"

Cleaning up your back yard must not only BE DONE, it MUST BE SEEN to BE DONE.

So unless there are some overt measures taken by GM DZs, the FAA is most like going to be taking a more hands on approach than most USPA members would like.

There is very little point pissing and moaning on this forum about it.
It's time to start taking an active role in protecting the things you value as a skydiver or DZO.
One way of doing this is addressing the issues that the FAA raises and show them they you are taking it seriously. Moreover start being PROACTIVE and don’t wait for the slap down from the Govt.
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squeak, having had a chance to digest what has been said, it looks like the driver for this is airport access.

I honestly don't know enough about which dz's will be negatively affected. As far as I can tell the US dropzone closest to my heart will benefit as the skyride one nearby operates into a tiny landing area at the airport (not entirely sure if it is federally funded though). As a USPA member I'm prepared to do my bit to help fellow skydivers.

I think the USPA members are going to have to 'grow up' though and lose some of the attitude that all rules are bad.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it'd help to read this thread...

"FAA's new proposed "PLA's" what it all means."

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4339091;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread
Every fight is a food fight if you're a cannibal

Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man. - Anthony Burgess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those "27 supposedly reported issues" have been written up by the FAA and the NTSB. Those 27 issues are now part of the FFA Accident and Incident Database (AIDS) with a 15 digit reports number. The FAA is using these reports to support implementation of AC, AC 150/5300-13. Remi, do you think they are going to all this trouble to make it easier for jumpers to gain assess to airport? I don’t think so.

Sparky



Time and again, the most successful way to crush something is to "allow" it, under ever more stringent and restrictive rules. That's what's happening here. The FAA would only love to get rid of us altogether, but they can't overtly do that. But by imposing "reasonable" regulations, they can strangle us, explaining all the while that we simply can't conform to their ever more "reasonable" restrictions.

USPA is failing to provide LEADERSHIP. Ed Scott is an ineffective fool. In the old days Bill Ottley would've sounded the alarm and led the charge. Ottley wasn't always well liked, but he sure as hell was effective !

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

USPA is failing to provide LEADERSHIP. Ed Scott is an ineffective fool. In the old days Bill Ottley would've sounded the alarm and led the charge. Ottley wasn't always well liked, but he sure as hell was effective !



Mr. Brown, with all do respect, can you please enlighten us all to your personal first hand experience and in depth knowledge as to how much or how little, as you claim that USPA has been failing to lead on this issue.

You sir don't clue as to the many hours or meetings and dealings with a whole host of FAA people, the person, who's job it is to deal with the FAA, Mr. Randy Ottinger, and not Mr. Scott, has put into this issue, daily and for the last 2.5 yrs alone on just this PLA study/issue!!!

You like a many other people posting in this thread, , hate to say it, but, y'all need to get your collective heads out of the sand and start to get educated on this important issue now facing skydiving on public use, federal funded airports and how this can effect you.

For many years I have not been a big fan of many a USPA BOD, still don't care for a few current sitting ones... however I personally, along with at least 15 other members who have been seeking airport access in just the last 5 yrs, know all too well how much time USPA HQ staff have spent on this ever pressing issue. There also are a handful of people in this industry who have spent countless hours dealing with this.

Mr. Brown, your out of line with your insults towards USPA on this issue, and I advise you talk to someone like Rich Grimm, Pat Garcia, Urban Moore, Greg Upper, Chris @ Skydive Columbus, to name a few, before you post again such, sorry to say, stupid comments. Please take the time learn the facts and get educated on this matter, have a good day.

Thank you USPA

Urban Moore

Pat Garcia & others
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USPA is failing to provide LEADERSHIP. Ed Scott is an ineffective fool. In the old days Bill Ottley would've sounded the alarm and led the charge. Ottley wasn't always well liked, but he sure as hell was effective !

Quote



Well...from what I've been following IMHO the USPA is doing about the best they can with the resources they have, there are a lotta things being done in a lot of different areas of concern.

I too get frustrated at times wishing faster action or more streamlined and efficient approaches, but almost invariably when I dig into the facts I realize MY perception was skewed a bit.

'WE' quite often don't know what all is being done, when, where and by whom until well after the fact...that's government, and either ya trust 'them' or you dont.
If ya don't wanna be a 'WE' then get elected and be a 'them' & get to work, is what I always figured.

While I don't know Ed Scott personally, and I have disagreed with him strongly & publicly on a few issues...I do have at least a small incline of some of the things he deals with on a day to day and respect his efforts, I certainly wouldn't characterize him as a fool by any means.

On the other hand... i DID know Bill Ottley fairly well both during his time at USPA and after, he was a guest in our home a few times and a very interesting & intelligent man.

Were Bill alive today, I'm sure he'd tell you as he had me on several occasions...it's a whole different ballgame now then when he was in office.

The world has changed, as has the sport the industry & most certainly the governing body.

It's a bigger more complex machine now and as such it tends to move slower and have some problems operating in areas that didn't even exist 20 years ago.

I know it's an emotional issue, but perhaps constructive criticism and well thought out / discussed ideas and alternate suggestions would be more beneficial than personal attacks...just sayin' ;)











~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I speak by phone or e-mail with Randy Ottinger nearly every week. Luckily for me those conversation will mostly be to say hello and not for business now that USPA helped me gain access to Oceanside Municipal Airport. Without USPA's involvement we would still be fighting city hall and the FAA on issues.

I can assure ALL of you that USPA is on top of every issue coming down the road and currently on the table.

Skydiving isn't a magic thing that we all have a right to do anywhere we want. It takes a lot of hard work on many levels to keep us in the sky.

300 million people in the US and we have 36,000 members. We're lucky we have the voice we do at FAA HQ.

We can all be part of the problem or part of the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When the USPA starts listening to the FAA on other issues, I might start to give a crap about the USPA's opinion on the FAA's opinion.
"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
If the FAA gets their hands into our landing areas (as this proposal does) it is another piece of the camel under the tent. This may allow them to make other decisions for us without due process, simply as part of the their scope over landing areas.
Randy always has a grip on these issues; please help yourself and the sport via the USPA call-to-action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If the FAA gets their hands into our landing areas (as this proposal does) it is another piece of the camel under the tent. This may allow them to make other decisions for us without due process, simply as part of the their scope over landing areas.



And yet you approve of the Govt being involved in your health care - Funny.

Simple fact is that the USPA didn't act for YEARS until the FAA warned us that they were paying attention to us. Airports that don't want skydiving will use "landing issues" as the excuse unless the FAA has a standard. But the USPA does not want to follow the FAA standard on this case (which seems to be the USPA standard anyway), yet ignore the FAA standard in other areas - Again, funny.
"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 the FAA gets their hands into our landing areas (as this proposal does) it is another piece of the camel under the tent. This may allow them to make other decisions for us without due process, simply as part of the their scope over landing areas.
Randy always has a grip on these issues; please help yourself and the sport via the USPA call-to-action.



I can't speak to how well USPA is handling this particular issue, but I completely agree the rest of your comments.

If the feds get to carve this one into stone, it will be yet another way for them to restrict us on federally funded airports. Not good.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

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.

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