USPA Solo Challenge

[billvon 2,379]

>I don't think it's USPA place to spend membership money on a
>program that is clearly aimed at assisting DZs (the vast majority of which
>are profit ventures) in their marketing efforts.

Would you be in favor of cancelling the PRO rating program, then? After all, it is clearly aimed at professional, for-profit demo teams; they make up the vast majority of demo jumpers.

I actually don't think the TC marking, as currently described, is a good idea; many of the reasons why have already been listed. But I also don't have a problem with USPA acting in the best interests of DZ's, because most of the time those interests are the same as (or similar to) skydiver's interests.

[chuckakers 369]

>>>Would you be in favor of cancelling the PRO rating program, then? After all, it is clearly aimed at professional, for-profit demo teams; they make up the vast majority of demo jumpers.<<<

Actually the PRO rating program was USPA's answer to pressure from the FAA to better certify those wishing to perform demos. It was/is not aimed specifically at commercial demo teams, but rather anyone who wished to perform jumps that fall into the category of "exhibition jumps" as defined by the FAA. In case you haven't noticed, that includes a lot of Sunday afternoon "you guys jump in and we'll provide the beer" demos. In fact, it was the amateurs botching demos that caused the pressure in the first place, which tells me that the intent was tighten up on those not already tight...the wannabees. Additionally, the PRO program clearly fits into USPA's purpose...

"The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs; to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system, and to promote competition and record-setting programs."

Looks like the PRO program is covered by 2 of USPA's stated purposes.



>>>>I actually don't think the TC marking, as currently described, is a good idea; many of the reasons why have already been listed. But I also don't have a problem with USPA acting in the best interests of DZ's, because most of the time those interests are the same as (or similar to) skydiver's interests.<<<<

I don't take issue with USPA doing things in the best interest of DZs. I take issue with USPA spending member resources to do it.

My opinion comes from a very foundational position. USPA has slowly evolved to become something it was not intended to be, and this program is another step in the wrong direction, according to the organization's own stated purpose statement.

USPA needs to stick to what it does best. Train us, license us, and keep us in the air.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 369]

Quote

"to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system"

This is the part that really requires more membership. With out a substantial membership it will be hard to keep the Gov regulations at a minimum and reasonable.

That's a reach. The Congress has deemed skydiving an "aeronautical activity" and thus we are protected in the same way all aeronautical activities are without respect to the amount of "users" within the activity. Besides, "substantial" is arbitrary. Who's to say 30,000 skydivers isn't enough to pull the right strings. We're still jumpin', ain't we?

Nice try, though.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[beowulf 1]

Actually I was thinking of access fees.

[AggieDave 6]

The USPA wasn't able to do much of anything for us the one time that skydiving as a whole was shut down. The GA lockout after 9/11 was resolved partially by the lobbying power of the AOPA. Something like the USPA Solo Challenge won't boost membership numbers even *near* the numbers of the AOPA.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[CSpenceFLY 1]

That was an extreme case and I dought AOPA had much to do with when the planes were let back in the air.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

That was an extreme case and I dought AOPA had much to do with when the planes were let back in the air.

They were the reason why GA was allowed back in the air with in the month! They did more for skydiving that week then most skydivers realize. Sure its an extreme example, but its also the perfect study in lobbying powers. The USPA will never have the membership numbers or lobbying money behind it the AOPA will, so in my opinion the arguments in regards to lobbying powers of the USPA are moot.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[beowulf 1]

Yeah well, my biggest reason for wanting more skydivers is to have more people at the dropzone, bigger parties, bigger formations. We have had days this year where the weather was great but not enough people to keep the Otter running. Yeah we have a Caravan, but to train for Nationals we really need the Otter. We need more skydivers so that we more people that would be interested in competitions. I would like to see a 4 vrw competition league started up. There are a lot fewer regular skydivers around then there were 5 or 6 years ago at Skydive Dallas. This year my team was the only team from Skydive Dallas to go to Nationals. Hopefully this year we will see more teams with Nationals being in Houston.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system"

This is the part that really requires more membership. With out a substantial membership it will be hard to keep the Gov regulations at a minimum and reasonable.

Actually, the FAA already guarantees our place at federally funded airports. Yes, USPA calls on the FAA to enforce their own rules. But that has nothing to do with the number of members.

We had access when there were fewer members. More members didn't make more access.

There are no guarantees of anything. We need our membership to keep our voice heard.

I think you far overestimate our influence of our voices.

I do not believe that the levels of USPA membership much impress the FAA.

We've got what 30,000 members? You think 35,000 will make much of a difference?

The GA numbers far exceed ours. They still have their problems. We ride on their coat tails.

As long as the FAA legally recognizes us, as in making rules for us, they are legally bound to guarantee access. Sure, the USPA helps by pressing issues, but they do that fine at our present membership levels.

As long as the FAA is in the business of guaranteeing access to federally funded facilities, we'll get what little we need. But no matter how big we get, we'll never get a DZ at any major facility. If they recognize us at all, they cannot exclude us. We won't make a bit of difference when a city wants to put up a control tower. That's a different question, and we lose. We will no longer be compatible with the use of that airport. Our increased numbers won't change that one iota.

Our increased numbers are not going to make a bit of difference if they decide to drop the equal access policies.

So I don't believe your argument holds any water at all.

[ficus 0]

Quote

The big profit margin of tandems is what funds most of what's been mentioned. Up-jumpers are not a big profit margin.

This is true if interpreted literally, as "margin". Of course the profit margin on upjumpers is lower than that of tandems. But that doesn't mean they are not profitable.

The canonical tandem passenger who comes and does his jump and gets a video and a t-shirt may represent $100 in profit. Compare that to a random upjumper who maybe earns the DZ $2 a jump. But that upjumper is going to generate $2 100+ times a year. Their overall contribution to the bottom line is not as close to nil as you are making it out to be.

Quote

Okay, I'll grant you that getting big ticket sponsors would make competitions have bigger purses. But most of us are not competitors.

You are thinking only one move ahead here. The long-term goal is not to get Airspeed driving BMWs to the DZ. The point is that corporate sponsorship comes hand-in-hand with publicity. More publicity means more skydivers. More skydivers means more money in the skydiving industry, which in turn means more incentive for R&D. This would result in cheaper and better gear, more funds for developing educational programs, and so on.

Whether or not this plan would actually work or not is another issue. But there is some logic to it.

You say everyone who's going to become a regular skydiver already will. I'm not so sure of that. A few years ago, one of my friends brought up the idea of doing a tandem. I had always wanted to try it, but never got around to it, and his mentioning it was enough to finally motivate me. I did my tandem, thought it was fun, and had no idea why anyone would do it again and again. I was done with it. But my friend badgered me into attending ground school with him and doing AFF level 1. I landed my own parachute and suddenly -- I understood. You are well aware of how that turned out :)

It took two swings to get me. I'm glad it happened. Maybe more people should have that chance.

[DanG 1]

I can't believe I'm back in this thread, but here goes:

As chuck has repeatedly quoted, one of the purposes of USPA is to "promote safe skydiving". Why do you (not necessarily you, Paul, but folks in this thread) feel promoting skydiving to people who have already jumped is somehow not "promoting safe skydiving". I'm pretty sure this effort falls within USPA's purpose.

Also, when Randy or Ed go to the FAA and lobby, you're right that having 30k voices behind them is probably no different than having 35k voices. But if USPA shrinks to 10k or 5k people, who will be the voice then? You think the dues generated by 10k people are enough to pay for lobbying efforts? If USPA membership shrinks, the staff will have to shrink (even more than it already has) and eventually our voice will disappear. My Mom worked for a couple medical associations for about 20 years. One of the organizations she worked for is essentially gone now. Once the membership started to drop, for whatever reason, there came a critical level where staff support could no longer be afforded. Once that happens, the organization dies.

I see the Solo Challenge as more of an effort to maintain membership levels instead of increasing them. There are a lot more activities out there competing for people's time. "Back in the day" if you wanted to experience the thrills of speed and adrenaline we get you pretty much had to choose between sking and skydiving. Now you have tons of other "extreme" sports that have become popular and are competing for the same people. Even if you disagree that the Solo Challenge idea is sound, we have to do something to get people in the door. "We" are USPA.

- Dan G

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I can't believe I'm back in this thread, but here goes:

As chuck has repeatedly quoted, one of the purposes of USPA is to "promote safe skydiving". Why do you (not necessarily you, Paul, but folks in this thread) feel promoting skydiving to people who have already jumped is somehow not "promoting safe skydiving". I'm pretty sure this effort falls within USPA's purpose.

Also, when Randy or Ed go to the FAA and lobby, you're right that having 30k voices behind them is probably no different than having 35k voices. But if USPA shrinks to 10k or 5k people, who will be the voice then? You think the dues generated by 10k people are enough to pay for lobbying efforts? If USPA membership shrinks, the staff will have to shrink (even more than it already has) and eventually our voice will disappear. My Mom worked for a couple medical associations for about 20 years. One of the organizations she worked for is essentially gone now. Once the membership started to drop, for whatever reason, there came a critical level where staff support could no longer be afforded. Once that happens, the organization dies.

I see the Solo Challenge as more of an effort to maintain membership levels instead of increasing them. There are a lot more activities out there competing for people's time. "Back in the day" if you wanted to experience the thrills of speed and adrenaline we get you pretty much had to choose between sking and skydiving. Now you have tons of other "extreme" sports that have become popular and are competing for the same people. Even if you disagree that the Solo Challenge idea is sound, we have to do something to get people in the door. "We" are USPA.

If we end up getting more jumpers who are accidents waiting to happen, then we were not successful in promoting safe skydiving.

Yes, maybe that is a training issue. Somebody said that, and to some extent it is true.

But skydiving used to be hard to learn. People who were not well suited would weed themselves out in the natural progression of things.

Now it is too easy to get marginally involved, and I think that the overall quality of the skydiver has been hurt. People can't pack, they get a paid packer. People can't take care of their gear, they find me looking over their shoulder correcting things before they end up as accidents.

I don't see many new people coming up to fill these rolls. Sooner or later, there will be nobody looking over their shoulders. What happens then?

There is a small pool of people who are lifetime skydivers. Someday, maybe already, we will have a sport where the vast majority will be a group who is in it for a few years and leaves. The ones who stay for the long haul can only take care of so many casual jumpers.

If you want to improve the sport for the long haul, stay in it and become one of the old timers. We have plenty enough jumpers to get that done if more of who we have stayed.

Responsible growth must be a long term thing, and it must be managed if we don't want it to cause trouble. Simply snagging a few more tandems to say a few years is not the answer.

I would much rather find out why people only stay a short time. Those people who leave after a few years are the ones whose retention will result in responsible growth.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

If we end up getting more jumpers who are accidents waiting to happen, then we were not successful in promoting safe skydiving.

And what if we end up getting more dedicated, caring riggers, AFF instructors, and long time jumpers?

You can't predict who is going to stick around and who's going to go out with a flash. Every time someone takes an FJC, he/she could be either one. Only way to get the good people into the sport is to get people into the sport.

Dave

[riggerpaul 1]

The big problem is not retention of a few of the tandem students.

Our big problem is that we lose the person who leaves after 2 or 3 or 4 years.

Simply front loading the queue will not fix the problem.

If we keep losing the person of moderate experience, we will still never get a sustainable group of long timers who will help keep things from imploding.

Don't focus on the new jumper. Focus on the guy who exits just when he has learned enough to be helpful.

Somebody said it was a training issue. He is not wrong.

But the most important part of our training does not come from the first jump class.

The most important part of our training comes from being around the dz and learning through the process of being there, watching the more experienced jumpers and being mentored by them.

Our biggest problem is that we continue to lose the people who should be taking over the long term training of the new jumpers.

If we cannot stop losing them, then swelling the membership rolls will result in more injury and death, because there won't be enough mentors for the people who need them.

After we figure out how to keep the mentors, we can worry about keeping more new jumpers.

Keeping new jumpers without having the support for them in place is irresponsible, and will cause us harm in the long run.

[beowulf 1]

From what I have seen the top three reasons for those people leaving is

1. Family reasons(starting one or new child)
2. Money issues(lack of)
3. Death or major injury of someone they knew well

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

The big problem is not retention of the occasional tandem.

It is the retention of the person who leaves after 2 or 3 or 4 years.

Simply front loading the queue will not fix the problem.

If we keep losing the person of moderate experience, we will still never get a sustainable group of long timers who will help keep things from imploding.

Don't focus on the new jumper. Focus on the guy who exits just when he has learned enough to be helpful.

There is nothing you can do about people going on with their lives. I spent every weekend for 5 yrs at the DZ and the next 4 yrs boogie hopping and organizing events. It was time for a change. I'm still jumping but it does not rule my life. I don't plan much around the DZ anymore but jumping still has a place in my life. There is very little you or USPA could do to move skydiving to a higher spot on my priority list right now.

I do believe the motivating the new people is where it is at but you are not going to do that with some half baked program like this, that is going to back fire as soon as they come up with what ever hoops you have to jump through to keep this TC status.

If you want to do something, stop charging these new people to jump with these 100 jump wonder coaches and start jumping with the new people for free(like we did in the old days,way back in 2000). That one single thing will do more for this sport then any USPA program could possible do. Oh wait, where did the coaches program come from again? Oh yeah, it came from the many DZOs that were on the board at the time.

[pilotdave 0]

I paid for a couple coach jumps before there was such thing as a USPA coach (2000ish). They weren't required, but it's not like experienced jumpers were lining up to jump with (male) newbies.

I think that kind of thing depends on the DZ, not on USPA. Sure, coach jumps aren't cheap for the student, but the realistic alternative is more solos... the way it was in 2000, at least where I jumped. I moved and switched to a DZ where solos were almost unheard of for licensed skydivers unless they want to. Coach jumps also help with that... students are so much better when they get licensed that more people want to jump with them. And since a lot of the ordinary jumpers are coaches, the students get to know a lot more people they can jump with later on.

I wouldn't want to go back to the way things were in 2000.

But I do agree with your main points. Retaining experienced jumpers isn't something the USPA can really do, and this program isn't likely to retain students.

Dave

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

The big problem is not retention of the occasional tandem.

It is the retention of the person who leaves after 2 or 3 or 4 years.

Simply front loading the queue will not fix the problem.

If we keep losing the person of moderate experience, we will still never get a sustainable group of long timers who will help keep things from imploding.

Don't focus on the new jumper. Focus on the guy who exits just when he has learned enough to be helpful.

There is nothing you can do about people going on with their lives.

I have a whole life. I have a family, I have a home. I am still at the dz most weekends. I don't have a lot of money, and I don't jump much at all. But I am still there because I have committed myself to skydiving. It defines me.

If there aren't enough people who make this commitment, then it is irresponsible to fill the queue with people who cannot manage on their own.

If it is true that we can do nothing about people going on with their lives, maybe we should stop being so focused on bringing in the new people. They cannot teach themselves.

If what you say is really true, and it may well be, then we should accept that the responsible thing is to let our sport go through its cycles of expansions and contractions.

If it means a few dropzones close, and we jump Cessnas again for a while, I can handle that. I'd rather make a couple of nice Cessna jumps than see people getting hurt or killed.

I know far too many dead people already.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I don't really understand your argument. People are going to come and go. Nothing you can do about it. That is not a reason to quit promoting the sport. It sounds like what you are saying is since people are not going to stay for life we should shut the sport down.

[MakeItHappen 15]

To get sort of back on track to the original issue.

The USPA BOD passed a motion that said DZs that wish to participate in the Solo Challenge would be designated as a training Center (TC).
The Solo Challenge was billed as sending certificates/pin or patch to the DZ to give the persons that did their first solo jump.
That comes straight from official USPA doctrine that was quoted in the OP.

What happened after that was that there was a sentence added to the definition of TC that had no authority from the BOD and implied that DZs without the TC designation did not provide training beyond the first jump. Then there was a sentence in the Oct Professional that stated that TCs were REQUIRED to provide FJS (not the solo ppl, but FJS) name and email to HQ.

Then the ED says, the info distribution is really optional and the person is fully informed about this. That is good news. He also said there is an opt-out mechanism in the emails sent to the person, even though it is not on the web site. That is more good news. However, the emails are generated by a third party and have substantial tracking on the end users activities.

I think this will be discussed at length at the next BOD meeting. BTW, that was scheduled to happen, but without these additional things HQ did.

Let me bring up one more point and DZOs should pay attention to this one.
Let’s say DZ A gives (not sells) their FJS name/email, via a voluntary opt-in card that the customer fills out, to the USPA. USPA sends these customers an email every so often. Now DZ B, a nearby competitor of DZ A, buys advertising space in the USPA newsletter targeted to these NGs. (DZ B does not necessarily have to be a TC) What has happened here?

DZ B gets in on the distribution list of DZ A. DZ A and USPA actually help DZ B, a competitor of DZ A, in recruiting the NGs to go to DZ B.

Many of these programs start off as a very innocuous plan. It seems simple enough and appears to be fair. But later a slight modification changes the entire structure.

The plan to give the new solo jumper a certificate is ok.
But then the added sentence in the mag is not so ok.
The added sentence in the Professional that says TCs are REQUIRED to send info in is not ok.
The advertising aspect – I think that is going to be a TBD thing at this stage.

I think people need to look at the bigger picture here and look at what has happened historically. This is a recurring theme. You get a toe in, then by the time people start realizing it wasn’t what we thought it was, it’s too late to undo it.


.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[pilotdave 0]

Why is this so complicated? If the USPA (BOD) just wanted to challenge jumpers to continue their training, why not just print up a bunch of solo challenge certificates and send stacks to every GM DZ? The program was flawed as soon as you guys decided to put a special label on participating dropzones.

Dave

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Why is this so complicated? If the USPA (BOD) just wanted to challenge jumpers to continue their training, why not just print up a bunch of solo challenge certificates and send stacks to every GM DZ?

That's what I thought it was. Then they said they'd add a TC to a DZ that says they'd distribute these certificates.
That didn't seem too bad.

Then all this other stuff and the stuff I had no idea about because I don't get the GM renewal packages appeared.

Quote

The program was flawed as soon as you guys decided to put a special label on participating dropzones.

I agree with that. But there is more that is flawed in what has happened so far.
Wait till you hear about the 'USPA Gold Seal Instructors'

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I don't really understand your argument. People are going to come and go. Nothing you can do about it. That is not a reason to quit promoting the sport. It sounds like what you are saying is since people are not going to stay for life we should shut the sport down.

No, that's not at all what I am saying.

I am saying that we've come this far without the Solo Challenge, for example. We are not vanishing by any means.

Our sport is small because it is not suitable for most people. Making it bigger for the sake of being bigger is not the best thing for anyone involved.

Simply snagging more of the tandems to do an AFF class and get into the sport is not going to be good for us, or for them.

Before we start pulling in more people for the real student process, we have a responsibility to have a system in place to support them.

If we don't have that, we should just accept that our sport is small and should stay relatively small.

In the USA we seem to have developed and attitude that you are a failure if you are not growing all the time. If businesses aren't growing, they are failures. Growth seems to be everything.

I don't think this attitude maps well onto our sport.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Wait till you hear about the 'USPA Gold Seal Instructors'

Er.....what?


Sarcasm, hypothetical foreshadowing, under the radar rumors, or fact?

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

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Quote

Wait till you hear about the 'USPA Gold Seal Instructors'

Er.....what?


Sarcasm, hypothetical foreshadowing, under the radar rumors, or fact?

Maybe they are going to start a drug testing program.