0
DBCOOPER

Group Member pledge about pilot and maintance

Recommended Posts

Ed Scott is attempting to advert actions by the feds concerning aircraft maintance and pilot training by having group members sign a pledge which includes specific statements concerning which maintance program is used and who will be doing it. I hope this action will help placate the feds but I don't think it goes far enough as the DZO that is not willing to comply with the current Federal Aviation Requlations will just lie on the form, and continue on knowing that the odds of being inspected by the feds are slim at best, unless there is an incident.

I think that it is pretty sad that it has come to this and I don't know what the right answer is, so I put it out for dicussion here.

Pilot training is a whole nutter dicussion......
Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that it's not as much as we could do, and it would be easy for someone to falsify, but it's a start, and it may increase awareness, and that should begin to change things.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ed Scott is attempting ...

... as the DZO that is not willing to comply with the current Federal Aviation Requlations will just lie ...

.. slim at best, unless there is an incident.

... that it is pretty sad that it has come to this ...

Pilot training is a whole nutter dicussion......



Ed Scott was weak at Government Relations.
When Colonel Needles stepped down and your BOD moved Ed up, eD hired his own replacement.
"Weak" is woefully inadequate to describe your future representation in the face of Uncle Sambo.
You got soldiers, a pencil pusher and ... uh ... Randy as poster children ... no, make that RECEPTIONISTS for the FAA's views on your hobby.

And I'll do MY part to help FAA understand what's actually going on. I write to FAA almost daily nowadays.

Watch for articles on how to DEAL AROUND USPA and stand firmly in aviation as an EQUAL with the AVIATORS who ARE FAA.

We are mistaken if we believe USPA is not one of TWO big balls and chains keeping our sport SMALL.

Please stay tooned for now.
I'm just getting tuned up.
m~

Think about your Gold Standard.
Coincidence?
I think not.
Learn to soldier. Become a marketer ... I mean a skydiver.
... nawww
that's one won't fly yet either
so much time
sew few seams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DB

The feds (SEC) tried this type of a program before and ended up with the Bernie Madoff scandal. Bernie wasn't operating in a vacumn he was being audited annually, had a full time complience officer he was even investigated by the SEC in reponse to whistle blower complaints.

USPA is lobbying for this same type of self regulation for it's Group members:|

Will the FAA buy it:|

Will the proposed program improve acft safety on the dz:|

Time will tell:)

One Jump Wonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The USPA Group Member pledge is - for most DZ's - complete bullshit. For most DZ's, USPA is just a monthly magazine to get listed in and a silly certificate to put on the wall that makes some people believe the DZ is safe.

USPA shouldn't even have a group member program. It's pretty clear that the program hasn't done anything to improve the sport. We still die in poorly maintained planes sometimes flown by idiots, we still see blatant BSR and FAR violations, and all the same old blah, blah, blah.

Safety has nothing to do with mandates or pledges. Safety starts with you and me. If we keep getting on shit airplanes, DZ's will keep flying them. Same with every other safety issue in the sport.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is anyone else getting tired of the growing number of anonamous posters on this forum??????????
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a chance to read over this new pledge last week. I think personally that until we operate at or near a part 135 system we will continue to see more of the same. As an A&P with a small fleet of 182's its very costly to do things right even when you are only paying for parts at a discount. For most DZ's that hire out work its very costly. I think that USPA is doing what it can to try and get the industry to clean up their acts, however looking at the past along with an industry that can no longer "wing it" as it has in the past 3 decades of operating. I see only one other option in the long run and that is higher operation costs to give you the skydiver's and students a safe and reliable ride to alt. Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Skyride case proved that the USPA Group Member Pledge means absolutely nothing.

USPA should eliminate the Group Member Program and replace it with a department that provides safety-related services to any U.S. dropzone.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's Mark Schlatter (I may be misspelling the name). He's registered a number of ID's here to continue his incoherent ranting. If you want to bitch about someone ruining relations with the FAA, he's a great place to start. His daily letters to the FAA make us all look like a bunch of loons. Just my opinion.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding comments made by the OP, neither I nor the USPA staff have the authority to implement any new program or policy on our own. New programs require approval by a majority of the board of directors. Fortunately, the board adopted, with modifications, the staff-generated proposal to implement changes to the Group Member Program to address some very serious recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board. So everyone can see all aspects of the program, here’s a link to the packet materials recently sent to all Group Member DZs. Part of the problem has been that the Federal Aviation Regulations are easy to misinterpret, even by some in the FAA. We’ve found several DZs that were just conducting annual aircraft inspections with the full knowledge and consent of their overseeing FAA flight standards office. With the USPA narrative and the changes to the pledge, there should be no more confusion. You’ll also see that the Aircraft Status Form requires the operator to indicate not only which inspection program each aircraft complies with, but also asks the date or hours of the last and the next inspection. Finally, the FAA is still responsible for enforcement of the regulations, and the NTSB also recommended that the agency conduct more direct surveillance of jump plane maintenance and operations. An operator that participates in the USPA program should fare better as a result of such surveillance.

Ed Scott
www.uspa.org

Read the USPA blog!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a few questions:

1. How does this affect non-USPA Group Member drop zones?
2. What happens if the drop zone does not return the Aircraft Status Form?
3. If the drop zone does return the form, will it be verified for accuracy?
4. If yes, how?
5. What will be done with the information on the Aircraft Status Form?
6. Will USPA maintain a database that USPA Members can check to see what a drop zone is reporting?
7. Will a drop zone’s Group Membership not be renewed or revoked for failure to submit or falsifying the Aircraft Status Form?
8. If there is a lawsuit resulting from a jump plane incident, will the Aircraft Status Forms be made available to either party involved in the lawsuit?
9. If the last addition to the Group Member Pledge, separating landing areas by either distance or time was a dismal failure with many DZ’s failing to separate landing areas, how will this be any different?

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Regarding comments made by the OP, neither I nor the USPA staff have the authority to implement any new program or policy on our own. New programs require approval by a majority of the board of directors. Fortunately, the board adopted, with modifications, the staff-generated proposal to implement changes to the Group Member Program to address some very serious recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board. So everyone can see all aspects of the program, here’s a link to the packet materials recently sent to all Group Member DZs. Part of the problem has been that the Federal Aviation Regulations are easy to misinterpret, even by some in the FAA. We’ve found several DZs that were just conducting annual aircraft inspections with the full knowledge and consent of their overseeing FAA flight standards office. With the USPA narrative and the changes to the pledge, there should be no more confusion. You’ll also see that the Aircraft Status Form requires the operator to indicate not only which inspection program each aircraft complies with, but also asks the date or hours of the last and the next inspection. Finally, the FAA is still responsible for enforcement of the regulations, and the NTSB also recommended that the agency conduct more direct surveillance of jump plane maintenance and operations. An operator that participates in the USPA program should fare better as a result of such surveillance.

Ed Scott***

As soon as I recover from the laughter I'll respond! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ok I think I can type now! Sorry that was a good one! WELL!

Question? How does USPA plan to verify Aircraft hours and Flight crew names that are offered?

So this new Pledge will be supervised and conducted by USPA at the same standards as the old GM Pledge?

Come on people on a good day USPA does not, and cannot, enforce the basic GM Pledge, if they ever did and violated the offenders there would be only a hand full of USPA DZ's in operation!

OH! ya I remember this is an "Ethics" commitment! and we all know, and support the fact that Business and Ethics are always found to be offered hand in hand!

I have heard this excuse from USPA over and over!

Its better to attempt to bring them (the violators) into the fold????

Its not like they didn't read and understand the GM Pledge when they signed it??? OH! Yes! I forgot! It's easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission!

Truth is USPA needs the membership and the CASH! they cannot afford to pissoff anybody! They need the numbers and financial support! This is the biggest reason they choose the Liberal approach!

The BSR's should stand for Baby Setter Recomendations, Why are people unable (and unwilling ) to exercise some common sense when jumping? Oh yes! the everyday answer to a major poor decision! "I Didn't Know!" If you choose to risk your life to experience the sport, and do not arm yourself with some knowledge, and excercise some common sense, Than maybe you are just Stupid!

I guess as long as the powers that be ( FAA & NTSB ) buy this approach it is ok?? Damn! I feel so much safer now!!!!!

So I guess our GM's will sign the new Pledge, and things will go back to business as usual until the next major F--k Up! Than we will be blessed by some new rules that will be enforced by some alphabet organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All fair questions, Derek. Here are the responses:

1. How does this affect non-USPA Group Member drop zones?
USPA can’t compel participation by non-GM DZs, but they may want to use the guidance to ensure they comply with the regs.

2. What happens if the drop zone does not return the Aircraft Status Form?
Renewal of the Group Membership requires completed, returned forms.

3. If the drop zone does return the form, will it be verified for accuracy?
USPA will ensure that the form is accurately completed, e.g. that a Twin Otter operator doesn’t indicate that it is on annual/100-hour inspections, that an operator lists the FSDO its program has been filed with, that all “last” and “next” inspection blocks are completed, and the certifying IA or repair station is listed.

4. If yes, how?
USPA isn’t the FAA; we won’t be conducting surprise inspections or demanding logbooks. Though, as the result of a recent NTSB recommendations, the FAA might.

5. What will be done with the information on the Aircraft Status Form?
We’ll note that the DZ provided the information for the aircraft they list.

6. Will USPA maintain a database that USPA Members can check to see what a drop zone is reporting?
No. But a skydiver has always had the right to ask a DZO about their maintenance.

7. Will a drop zone’s Group Membership not be renewed or revoked for failure to submit or falsifying the Aircraft Status Form?
Completed forms are required for Group Membership. USPA’s by-laws already allow for sanctions on any member who intentionally falsifies a USPA form.

8. If there is a lawsuit resulting from a jump plane incident, will the Aircraft Status Forms be made available to either party involved in the lawsuit?
The form will be discarded after being received and checked for accuracy.

9. If the last addition to the Group Member Pledge, separating landing areas by either distance or time was a dismal failure with many DZ’s failing to separate landing areas, how will this be any different?
We don’t agree that BSR has failed. Many DZs have chosen to separate landings by time, if not distance. Canopy collision fatalities are not only down in number, they are substantially down as a percentage of all fatalities; they were 30% of the total in 2007, 13% of the total in 2008, and so far are 8% of the total in 2009.

The program may not be perfect, but it will clarify what the regulations require and it will urge the operators to make sure they comply. And it will accomplish this without heavy-handed government action.

Ed Scott
www.uspa.org

Read the USPA blog!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you want USPA to be a Federal agency, just like the FAA, that will totally regulate our sport???
Personally, I don't agree with some of the things USPA has done over the last 20 years, but I think the underlying assumption, that we are rational adults and should be treated as such, is what I want.
This new program seems to be more of an informational thing than anything else.
Here (FAA regs)are a bunch of poorly worded regulation that are interperted in many different ways in many different places and by many different people.
Here (USPA) is a straightforward interpretation of what these rules actually mean.
Signing the group pledge simplly means you have seen and understand what these ambiguous regs should mean to your operation. Anyone that choses not to abide by them is "on their own" and at the very least can't say "I didn't know"
________
If you choose to risk your life to experience the sport, and do not arm yourself with some knowledge, and excercise some common sense, Than maybe you are just Stupid!
Quote

And if you expect someone to be responsible for forcing you to do this, YOU are stupid.
______________
I guess as long as the powers that be ( FAA & NTSB ) buy this approach it is ok?? Damn! I feel so much safer now!!!!!

If you don't feel safe, either go elsewhere or call the FAA and ask for ramp checks at you drop zone. I'm sure they would be happy to comply
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After looking at the form USPA needs to add one more line for A&P mechanic's name and Certification number.
Not all inspections require an IA's signature.

A 100 Hour Inspection, Manufacture's Program (i.e. Twin Otter EMMA) and AAIP can be signed off and the aircraft returned to service by an A&P mechanic. No IA needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

All fair questions, Derek. Here are the responses:

1. How does this affect non-USPA Group Member drop zones?
USPA can’t compel participation by non-GM DZs, but they may want to use the guidance to ensure they comply with the regs.

2. What happens if the drop zone does not return the Aircraft Status Form?
Renewal of the Group Membership requires completed, returned forms.

3. If the drop zone does return the form, will it be verified for accuracy?
USPA will ensure that the form is accurately completed, e.g. that a Twin Otter operator doesn’t indicate that it is on annual/100-hour inspections, that an operator lists the FSDO its program has been filed with, that all “last” and “next” inspection blocks are completed, and the certifying IA or repair station is listed.

4. If yes, how?
USPA isn’t the FAA; we won’t be conducting surprise inspections or demanding logbooks. Though, as the result of a recent NTSB recommendations, the FAA might.

5. What will be done with the information on the Aircraft Status Form?
We’ll note that the DZ provided the information for the aircraft they list.

6. Will USPA maintain a database that USPA Members can check to see what a drop zone is reporting?
No. But a skydiver has always had the right to ask a DZO about their maintenance.

7. Will a drop zone’s Group Membership not be renewed or revoked for failure to submit or falsifying the Aircraft Status Form?
Completed forms are required for Group Membership. USPA’s by-laws already allow for sanctions on any member who intentionally falsifies a USPA form.

8. If there is a lawsuit resulting from a jump plane incident, will the Aircraft Status Forms be made available to either party involved in the lawsuit?
The form will be discarded after being received and checked for accuracy.



I still don't see how USPA is doing anything substantial here.
USPA is not calling up to check with the A&Ps or IA or repair station to see if the DZ really has their AC checked out with them.
It looks like a liability protection act for USPA.
"Hey - the DZO told us this" and we believed him, then we discarded the paper that said that.
All I can see is "The DZO told us this. That was not true, so USPA is not accountable. Now that we know, we'll kick them out."


Quote


9. If the last addition to the Group Member Pledge, separating landing areas by either distance or time was a dismal failure with many DZ’s failing to separate landing areas, how will this be any different?
We don’t agree that BSR has failed. Many DZs have chosen to separate landings by time, if not distance. Canopy collision fatalities are not only down in number, they are substantially down as a percentage of all fatalities; they were 30% of the total in 2007, 13% of the total in 2008, and so far are 8% of the total in 2009.



Psst, Ed. The separate landing areas was/is not a BSR. But your phraseology really makes me think that you think the gm pledge is or acts as part of the BSRs???
You have to give credit where credit is due.
Danny Page was the guy that got a bunch of dzos to separate their low & high performance landing areas.
I don't condone his methodology, but he did get results.


Quote


The program may not be perfect, but it will clarify what the regulations require and it will urge the operators to make sure they comply. And it will accomplish this without heavy-handed government action.



Deja-vu here Ed. Same old same old from after the Perris crash.
The FAA's job is to make sure AC owners/operators run their AC properly. That is not the job of USPA.
Maybe some heavy handed FAA types shutting down AC ops that do not comply is what is needed to get all DZOs to 'straighten up and fly right'.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The separate landing areas was/is not a BSR. But your phraseology
>really makes me think that you think the gm pledge is or acts as part of
>the BSRs?

They do function the same way the BSR's do.

Why are the BSR's at all enforceable? Because DZO's agree to comply with them. Where do they agree to comply with them? On the GM pledge.

The GM pledge is nothing more than a piece of paper saying "yes, I will enforce the BSR's, separate landing areas, use rated instructors etc." You can lie - sign that paper and violate BSR's anyway, use unrated instructors etc. As several people have pointed out, the USPA does not have much in the way of 'teeth' and doesn't police any of this very actively.

But by and large it does seem to work OK, because most DZO's who sign it really do make an effort to follow what it says.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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