Sad news for tandem

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

There are a lot of 'skydivers' with Tandem ratings. Very few Tandem Masters. We(skydivers) are naturally on the fringe of aviation as a whole and our penchant to be yahoos is evident. I/we have been saying for years that the attitude that must be created during the training of TM's is that when you go from an AFF jump to a Tandem jump, your attitude needs to change from 'I am a skydiver with an instructor rating' to 'I am a professional pilot in command of a commercial passenger flight'. And act accordingly. That is why Tandem must be the LAST rating available, period. With the manufacturers giving it up to the uspa and the uspa having a lot in common with AAA when it comes to regulatory strength, these results are to be expected.

Actually the USPA assuming the rating responsibility has not led to any lowering of the bar. Neither SE nor UPT have been willing to allow national organizations to to go below their qualification and training minimums. They still demand approval of each I/E.
In fact when you look around the world the opposite is true; a factory rating can be obtained by jumpers not qualified to obtain one in many countries. The 1000 jump minimum is the most obvious case.
When I took my SE course in Canada the TE Bill Morrissey gave a concurrent USPA course for the Americans who were there. There was nothing in the SE course that was not required for the USPA rating, but there were parts that I didn't bother to attend as I was not a USPA memeber.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Wonder how the DZO's that pay group member fees to be "USPA certified"(which no one gives a shit about anyway) feel about that?

I, for one, would like to see the USPA BOD man-up and grow a set and start to take punitive actions, even if they're for small infractions. The Governance Manual allows for it, and sets up specific scenarios under which they may act. But...other than a recent redaction of membership because a nutjob used bad language, what punitive action has USPA undertaken? Until they do, it's a free-for-all for attorneys. The "self-governing sport" has to start at the top. I prefer how NZ and Australia manage themselves.

[utahsteve1 0]

This is some correspondence regarding what I have seen the last 22 years of doing tandems. This also went to the USPA (read bottom up) All a TM has to do is get a rating from UPT once. From then on UPT has nothing to do with them. Scenario: 5 years after getting the rating from UPT and USPA, whose guidelines is he going to follow? The path of least resistance and let's him/her getaway with the most. It's just natural... As an UPT I/E there's not jack shit I can do with a TM following USPA guidelines such as deciding to jump with a coach with 200 jumps total When UPT says 500 min... That's just one example of many.

From: [email protected]
Date: September 29, 2009 9:13:39 AM EDT
To: "Mark Procos"
Subject: RE: USPA/UPT Tandem minimums

Thanks for getting back to me, Mark.

This dumbing down and graying of the requirements for tandem masters is not healthy for the general public(our passengers). I could not find anywhere in the SIM or IRM any words that states that a USPA TI must follow the Manufacturers minimums. This just helps to degrade the respect that tandem requires. It seems strange to me that it took 25 years to drop 2 passengers, 15 years to get into ADD firings into deploying mains, etc. The last couple of years, I've been amazed at the number of young divers with the perception that the skill set required to be a TM is less than that of an AFF I. They(through ignorance) profess to me that they want the TM rating first while they generate the skills and confidence to take on the AFF rating! In all my years, I've had not heard anything like this until recently.

Most of us understand the progression of the Manufacturers desire to distance themselves from the day-to-day regulation of TM's. However, old guard folks like me have warned of the degradation potential in this. Now it is in writing. I would like to suggest a public written statement by the manufacturers stating the absolute requirement to follow manufacturers standards. We need this to solidify the field. As you said "go figure". Well, I am and I do not like what I'm seeing...


Steve Webb
914-588-0190
[email protected]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: USPA/UPT Tandem minimums
From: Mark Procos
Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 11:58 am
To: Webb Steven R.

Howdy Steve

Yes, USPA is misguided in certain areas including this one. They also tell us the minimum age is 16. Go figure. That said uspa only places a minimum standard and the TI has to follow the guidelines laid out by the manufacturer. That is why a person has to go through a manufacturers course first.

Mark


On 9/25/09 8:53 PM, "Webb Steven R." wrote:

Hi Marks...

Mark K, the page in the IRM concerning minimums is 171. Mark P., I
emailed Mark K. earlier with this discrepancy. I also copied to Mark K
some text messaging between Kip and me. All I've got to say is 'this
is bullshit, fire me". I watched Buddy go in at Sandwich in '88, the
3rd Tandem double fatality and test jumped his gear when it came back
from RWS with blood stains on the main lift web. The guy that hit him
had almost 200 jumps. This 300 jump USPA min is disrespectful to
people who paid the price for our advancement. If you read the IRM
closely, It says Coach OR 300 jumps. You can get a Coach rating with a
100 goddamn skydives!!! Excuse the fact that I've had a martini, but
WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE...

Sorry I'm such an asshole,

Steve Webb
914-588-0190
[email protected]

Utah

[wildjump 0]

No offense to anyone. This is the funniest thread I have ever read. I was going to read some more of my book tonight, but I started reading DZ.com. So much for the book. We should publish this thread. You know, sell at Barnes and Nobles at Christmas time. Coffee and a transcript $5. What a deal!

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE...

Hey Steve,

What you ought to do is send in a change request for that part of the IRM (pg 171) to EVERYONE on the S&T Comm.
State how you would like it to read and why.
It is not enough to just send it to HQ. Crouch sits on a lot of stuff until the BOD mtg.
Then when the agenda comes out 15 days before the next meeting make sure it is listed on the agenda.
The idea is to get some input and dialog going on before the meeting so that USPA does not make knee jerk decisions.
Even better measure is to send it to the FB, so you can get feedback from those not on the S&T Comm.
But in reality most won't reply at all. You can use uspabod_AT_skydivehard.com _AT_ = @ for the FB.

The change for the prerequisite for the TIs changed when USPA did that BIC crap. That was last century.
But you can raise the issues and cite examples of where the educational system is failing.
I think the wording was originally
"holds or has held any USPA instructor rating"
now it reads
"holds or has held any USPA instructional rating" and that includes coach.
Also note that going back to the way it used to be will screw up the pretty picture on page 202 of the IRM.

It is important to contact as many BOD members as possible because so many of them have personal agendas that act as filters to ignore members. In the Ottley days, letters addressed to the BOD were sent out on a regular basis to the board. Now, letters or emails addressed to committees are not forwarded on. HQ or the Chairs filter things from the rest of the board. The only way to make sure the FB has received what you write is to send it to them all.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[utahsteve1 0]

I have been...


As you can tell, I do not want nor am I getting paid to be a politician... I've been watching this shit regarding tandem go downhill for a long time. Problem is people at the top act as if a TM doing a first jump passenger has anything to do with being an instructor. A first jump tandem is an introductory flight. A demo. A very lucrative demo. Tandem is a completely different animal than any other inductive/instructive situation. Whether SL, IAD, AFF, AFP, IAF, KMAss, MFU, or any other type of program, it's all the same; solo gear, self-responsibility. I have said this before; there should be no TI or TI/E rating. It confuses the situation. There should be Tandem Masters and Tandem Master/Examiners. To get to TM you must do Coach for a season and at least 50 jumps, then AFF for a season( could be same season) for at least 50 jumps, then qualify for TM etc.


There should be only 1 USPA I/E rating covering everything (and you have to achieve everything to get it). There should be a coach rating, combined SL/IAD rating, AFFJM, AFFI. We have made this more complicated and convoluted than going to get your private pilots license. We have NO real authority to make anybody do anything. The FAA does. Try as they might the USPA has the same real authority as AAA. You don't have to join to drive... Tandem is too dangerous and too deadly to be dumbed down like it is. Just listen to the storys and watch the videos. Then look for the results. No crack down, no cracked heads. blah, blah ,blah... just a lot of yahoos going 'fuck you tryin' to get in the way of MY fun... (while we kill and maim unnecessarily, in my opinion and experience)

Utah

[utahsteve1 0]

Martini Time; it's all downhill from here...

Utah

[tetra316 0]

You make some good points but one I question. If, as you say, a tandem is completely different than any other instructing and is only a demo, not an instructive jump, why then do you advocate getting an AFFI rating for 50 jumps before getting a tandem rating? Most tandems are not instructive in solo skydiving. I think those two rating should be kept separate. A very broad generalization is tandem instructors do it for the money and AFFIs do it for the love of instructing. One rating should not be dependent on the other.

[utahsteve1 0]

It's all about getting and proving experience. It's all about having to learn and earn respect. It's all about raising the bar. It's all about REALLY understanding what you are asking yourself to do. The general public deserves no less; and generally, tandem is their first experience in the sport. TM's should aspire to be the best; and shut down if they are not...(how's that for Dudley Do right). Once again, unfortunately there are a lot of skydivers with TM ratings; precious few Tandem MASTERS...

'nuff said...

Utah

[JohnDeere 0]

Very well said! I like your ideas and agree with you. You should post more. We need more people with great idea's around here ( and less noise ) to keep the sport headed in the right direction.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

With so many calling for change, I'd like to offer this question as "devil’s advocate"....

So, we all start doing these things to make positive change in the system. We create a “safety first” minded community of instructors/DZO's/jumpers with everyone watching out for one another. There'll still be the one in a million chance of one individual getting away with a one-time complete act of stupidity! (As we may have seen in this incident)

The trouble with one in a million chances is that they happen all the time. And it only takes one to bankrupt a small company.

...

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

[MotherGoose 0]

+++++1

You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

[Para5-0 0]

Hey Steve,
At the risk of getting involved in another 17 page, thread. I have been screaming this on the other thread, "Is the AFF rating too easy". I have sent my proposed changes for the coach rating, c license 200 jumps, the one year as coach requirement for any Instructional course, and bring back the AFFJM for oversight.
This will definatley impact tandems. I also personally would like to see the min brought up to 1000 but that will never happen. At least requirring 1 year as a coach will give the student theoretically 20 jumps if they want to stay current before taking the TM course.
I have giving the Tandem course to guys with wet ink on the coach rating, I call bullshit.
Check out the petition: We are onthe same page attacking from two different angles. Bottom line we may need a overhaul of the system.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/instructorchanges/

[billvon 2,396]

>It's all about having to learn and earn respect. It's all about raising the bar. It's
>all about REALLY understanding what you are asking yourself to do. The general
>public deserves no less; and generally, tandem is their first experience in the
>sport.

While I agree, that will be a very hard sell. Tandems aren't marketed to experienced jumpers; they are marketed to complete beginners. Thus two factors come into play:

1) The school/operation that offers them. They have a financial incentive to do them as cheaply as possible, and often that means using less experienced TM's.

This isn't as much of a problem with experienced jumpers. Have enough aircraft incidents/crashes, or have enough fatalities with rental gear and/or a terrible landing area, and word will get around - and the problem will fix itself as experienced jumpers move on to better DZ's. This, unfortunately, does not work with tandems.

2) (and this is the bigger problem) the people that buy them. Price is still the #1 consideration, and potential students price shop on tandems as they do on everything else. So the school that offers the more-experienced TM's by paying enough to attract the cream of the crop is rewarded by being driven out of business.

How do we deal with this? Education is the #1 way, but unfortunately those with the most money (i.e. Skyride) get the most number of ears. Improving experience levels required for USPA certification will help, but only if a) people understand what USPA is, b) most DZ's remain USPA members and c) DZ's observe and enforce USPA's BSR's.

I think one of the more important things we can do as jumpers is to try to support enforcement of USPA rules and regulations, both as they apply to students and as they apply to us. Because while it's easy to hammer a DZ for not enforcing tandem rules (after all, it doesn't affect us) it's a lot harder to give up a jump (and a jump ticket) if the load takes off a little late and you don't get to altitude before sunset, or if you are over wispy clouds right before exit. This strengthens the respect USPA has both among jumpers and the FAA, and makes it easier to enforce other USPA rules.

[riggerrob 558]

"... As an UPT I/E there's not jack shit I can do with a TM following USPA guidelines ... "

.....................................................................

Maybe this is where UPT standards differ from Strong's standards???
When I earned my Strong Tandem Examiner rating, they told me that it was very easy for a Strong-rated TI to lose his rating. All he had to do was something stupid in front of me and all I had to do was write one nasty letter to SEI, recommending that he lose his factory rating.

Maybe UPT should revise its procedures so that any UPT TE can revoke the (factory) rating of any UPT TI????

[ozzy13 0]

This typic is the same. If USPA doesnt see that something has to be done. I dont know!!!

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2469164;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[goobersnuftda 0]

Quote

How is justice served if a defendant has to spend $500,000 to defend himself even if he's done nothing wrong?

Things are a little bit different in Canada (and Austria, Sweden, Australia and about 10 other countries). Sue anyone you wish but be aware... LOSER PAYS !!!

Sue if you wish but if you are wrong and the other side did nothing wrong, LOSER PAYS. You can go after the other side for court costs and legal fees. Sure that has a down side (as most whiners will complain) that poor people can not "afford" justice but that is a compromise I am willing to deal with.

There has never been a $10 million law suit in Canada because someone’s McDonald's coffee was spilled in their lap. There was a time that there was not a single drug pharmacy in all of East St. Louis (even courier companies refused to do drug deliveries there) because the copious and over generous population in the jury pool there gave out hundreds of millions of dollars per drug law suit. Every single ambulance chasing lawyer sued in East St. Louis because that was the highest rate of over the top claims that were awarded.

Lawyers settle medial malpractice suits for $30,000 because the procedure to remove an appendix had the initial incision going from right to left when they wanted left to right. Cheaper to pay out the frivolous lawsuit because it was cheaper than paying legal bills. Not right but that is how the rules exist.

No legal system is perfect (much like the US medial care program) but it is time to fine tune it and fix what is wrong. In the mean time, Strong Enterprises get swept up in the same dumb ass, non logical legal drag net. Wouldn’t be the first company to go out of business and fire everyone even though they did nothing wrong.

[utahsteve1 0]

Look at aspects regarding learning how to fly an airplane. There is a clear, defined progression. Look at beginner CFI's. you CAN'T(not shouldn't) go directly from freshly minted CFI in a 152, to multi engine instrument instructor in a week. The reasons and dangers should be obvious. What's the difference when a freshly minted coach can go from not being allowed to be with or touch an AFF student in the air, but can go and get a rating involving the most complex gear the sport has, the most complex environment an instructor will be subjected to; the whole situation needing a seasoned professional to get it right over and over and over... Seasoning and aspiration is what develops respect in any sport. Whoever got rid of AFF JM's was an idiot for one reason. It was the only way to take a freshly minted JM and put him/her in the air with a AFF I and begin really teaching them what's what in the real world. They had to develop respect.


You want to be a captain of a commercial passenger aircraft? Aspire to it and EARN IT. You want to be a Tandem Master? Aspire to it and EARN IT. The system we have evolved in this sport(for whatever reason) has not developed this type of progression and I feel has undermined it. I'm really happy with the idea of the coach program. Beats the shit out of BIC, or nothing to AFF JM(which is where I came from in '87). The rest of what we have developed is garbage and like it or not, aware or not, we are reaping what we have sown; cows are coming home...


Finally, here's your real problem, one I have been alluding to; If a DZO or Manager of whatever size DZ doesn't like what a TI/E or S&TA is doing regarding enforcement or discipline, all they have to do is uninvite(Get off my DZ) the enforcer/whistle blower with NO real ramifications. Try doing that to the FAA guy doing a ramp check. Right. We fear the FAA because of what they CAN do, not WHAT they do. Who is going to set the standards and enforce the standards when the standard bearer can be told to fuck off with impunity?


Ya ever wonder why people get shit on? Simple; shit rolls downhill. Why? Gravity, of course. in order for shit to roll downhill under the force of gravity it must start at the top. Good shit rolls downhill and bad shit rolls downhill. There is a of bad shit at the top we are atoning for down here it seems...


Good Luck waiting and hoping for an idiot system to reach a collective epiphany...


Like I said, "'nuff said" HAPPY NEW YEAR Y'ALL!!!!

Utah

[douwanto 22]

Steve I respect your opinion but to me what you are saying is like saying you need to learn to drive an automatic before you learn to drive a standard..it does not compute to becoming a better standard driver. Respect comes from being good at what you do not how many ratings you have.

I agree that coaching and teaching skills need to be cultivated after safe skydiving practices need to be second nature before attaining any instructor rating.

I also agree that the minimum jump numbers could go up to 1000 but for both AFF and Tandem.

The 2 AFF and Tandem are completely different animals and I would much rather see people dedicate their efforts to one or the other for at least another 500 to 1000 to develop a professional skill level before trying to become a professional at both.

I do not have nor do I want an AFF rating. I love Tandem and know having an AFF rating would not make me a better Tandem Master.


I know many AFF I's who are awesome but just dont seem 100% on tandems. Switching hats many times during the day is an accepted practice but that does not make it the best choice or safest.

edit; Wanted to add that if a TI must maintain manufactures currency requirements and can maintain their rating with them yearly as I do if they choose or the DZ requires them to..

Uncle/GrandPapa Whit
Unico Rodriguez # 245
Muff Brother # 2421

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I love Tandem and know having an AFF rating would not make me a better Tandem Master.

As some one who had 2000 tandems before getting my AFF ticket, and now having 6000 tandems, I disagree. I don't think you can know that until you've been there. The way you teach changes. The way you see the "student" changes.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[douwanto 22]

TK thanks for speaking up and helping keep skydiver informed. I would like to comment briefly on MG, not that he needs my voice.

He has earned the right to be a TM and S&TA threw his actions since the accident in my opinion. There is nothing he can do to change what happened but he is active in preventing future incidents. He spoke candidly about his mistakes and their consequence with my TI candidates during my last course at the Farm. His sincerity impacted their attitudes and perceptions toward Tandems more than anything I could have said. I am certain he approaches S&TA duties the same.

Also it should be clear the Sigma harness was fitted correctly, the incident manifested itself in such a way that in hindsight is easy to prevent but until the moment it happened was an easy oversight for any seasoned TI under the specific circumstances.



JM2C

Uncle/GrandPapa Whit
Unico Rodriguez # 245
Muff Brother # 2421

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Also it should be clear the Sigma harness was fitted correctly, the incident manifested itself in such a way that in hindsight is easy to prevent but until the moment it happened was an easy oversight for any seasoned TI under the specific circumstances.

If that really is the case, then logically the design of the system should be one of the multiple possible factors investigated. I'm not trying to point fingers; I'm simply saying that in any incident of a jumper having fallen out of and/or been ejected from the harness, an investigation that does not objectively include an examination of the design of the system may be seen as less than fully thorough.

[rhys 0]

Quote

It seems strange to me that it took 25 years to drop 2 passengers, 15 years to get into ADD firings into deploying mains, etc. The last couple of years, I've been amazed at the number of young divers with the perception that the skill set required to be a TM is less than that of an AFF I. They(through ignorance) profess to me that they want the TM rating first while they generate the skills and confidence to take on the AFF rating! In all my years, I've had not heard anything like this until recently...

Hi steve,

You will find that you would have seen and heard of these incidents coming to be more common due to various reasons, not just lower standards of training and supervision.

In the last 10-15 years, the movents in the amount of people tandem jumping, internet use, and the size of archives will have made it seem that there has been a significant increse in incidents.

Really there has probably been much less.
Sidespins are no longer a phenomenon anymore(at least not for most!), through understanding of flying in other orientations other than on you belly.

Many incidents from around the world would not have came to be know by most without the increase in internet use.

I was talking to a TM at work just yesterday about how he used to have his milk delivered to the door by horse and cart (late 50's), this was in sydney not in a rural area.but now we can't even have home deliveries...

Time goes on and 25 years is a long time.

I was talking to a TM at work just yesterday about how he used to have his milk delivered to the door by horse and cart (late 50's), this was in sydney not in a rural area.but now we can't even have home deliveries...

Times have changed, there are a number of DZ's around the world doing more than 15-20,000 tandems a year where this was unheard of only 10 years ago...

Welcome to the future!


I am one that also believes that tandem flying is 'much' easier than aff instructing.

There is much less responsability in tandem instructing and the type of flying skills that one needs to perform the job adequately is much more advanced in Aff instruction than it is in tandem.

Both techniques are quite different and each individual will find a particular flying skill easier or harder than someone else.

I believe tandem and aff jumpmaster ratings should be limited to people with at least 1000 jumps, some people are nowhere near ready at these jump numbers.

500 for tandem and less for AFF is quite simply 'A BAD IDEA', I did not do my tandem rating until 2200 jumps and had filmed anout 1600 tandems at that point, the experience gained and situations I observed in that time made it possible for me to progress and feel confident and competent in a reasonably short period of time.

each DZ is different and small cessna DZ jumors will find it more difficult ot gain the same levels of confidence and competence due to not being as current.

Each individual is different and with different circumstances.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

The 2 AFF and Tandem are completely different animals and I would much rather see people dedicate their efforts to one or the other for at least another 500 to 1000 to develop a professional skill level before trying to become a professional at both.

a very good point!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Also it should be clear the Sigma harness was fitted correctly, the incident manifested itself in such a way that in hindsight is easy to prevent but until the moment it happened was an easy oversight for any seasoned TI under the specific circumstances.

The harness that MG put on Bo was not properly fastened. The video clearly shows Bo slung very low and partially out of the harness before exit.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker