0
smiles

save Canadian Skydivers...

Recommended Posts

Quote

There was more than one individual at the meeting. The whole committee for NPA 99-148 which I was one of the original people had the individuals at the meeting.



Re: Are you suggesting you attended the meeting I refered to??

A Parachute Training Risk Assessment Committee was assembled at the request of Manzur Huq – Director, General Aviation (Transport Canada) regarding NPA 99-148 were directed to review NPA 99-148 and determine if it addressed the risks in skydiving, and identify residual risks attributed to the NPA. This committee consisted of the following representatives.

Rick McFarlane
Transport Canada – System Safety
Wayne Harper
Transport Canada – Special Flight Operations
David Dixon
Pacific Region – Technical Input
Ian Flanagan
Canadian Sport Parachute Association
Gerry Harper
Canadian Associates of Professional Skydivers
Dr. Graeme Dowling
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Alberta
Al McGee
Department of National Defense
Tony Pleasants
Transportation Safety Board

The above panel of experts extensively reviewed the proposed NPA and specifically agreed and recommended against enacting this regulation.

They proposed a “Non-Regulatory solution with an Education Program and Advisory body”.

Their investigation showed that this form of regulation will provide little to no benefit in safety to participants or to the general public.

The reasons for this determination are that Transport Canada lacks sufficient knowledge of the skydiving industry to properly understand and enforce its rules and standards.
-------------------------------------------------------

SMiles;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


the one to oppose Transport was motioned by Pacific Skydivers as articulated by Ian Flanagan. So your theory about him changing his spots is in fact wrong.
There is no doubt that he pissed a lot of DZOs off with his position on the commercial OC and I know it had a lot to do with the drop zone in Gananoque leaving CSPA (at least that's what the DZO told me some years later).



I believe Gananoque left CSPA because CSPA was not helping to solve the problem, not because someone was opposed to regulation. I'm not sure if I read what you wrote wrong, but it sounded like you were saying the DZO of Skydive Gan was for regulation and he left because someone pissed him off by objecting against regulation. I know for certain that he does not want government regulation. And that requiring a commercial operating certificate was not a good situation for business in Gan. Just clearing that up. As for the personal relationships being the problem... I can't say.

I have heard (I haven't been around long) that back then CSPA was doing what was best for CSPA and certain dropzones, not what was best for skydiving in Canada in general. Seeing the voracity of opposition against this legislation, it seems things may have changed. I hope so.

I apologize if I have overstepped my boundaries by speaking of how someone else may or may not have felt way back when, I just feel that things did not sound right there.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay.
I just sent a lengthy e-mail to my local Member of Parliament.
I started by reminding him of how I helped vote him into office and asked him to oppose NPA 99 148.


Do you have a copy of said letter that I could manipulate slightly and send to my MP? I'm not very well spoken in such matters and any letter that I compose would not have great effect.

Btw, my MP is Peter Milliken, the Speaker of the House, and votes only to break ties. So technically it could be really important, but I doubt that such a miniscule issue will divide the house 50/50 as such.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although Andrewwhyte and Beatnik have different recollections of events and different interpretations, this has been useful to help recall some of the history of the whole regulation issue.

Both CSPA and CAPS attended meetings, and I'm not too worried about exactly how many from each attended which meeting.

For example, the Transport Canada Working Group regarding Regulations Respecting Parachuting Activities, met in Feb `98 and Mar `98 in Vacouver and Alberta. Both CAPS and CSPA had multiple people each at the meetings.

Now that I`m this far I might as well add a little more history, although it is mainly info from the web, not knowledge gained in person.

The TC Working Group was formed to look at the issue of regulations. A couple quotes from the Terms of Reference document:
(at http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/carac/Technical/GOFR/WG/parachuting.htm)


Quote


Numerous Coroners Inquests held to investigate parachuting fatalities in Canada made recommendations to Transport Canada to regulate parachute training techniques and standards used in training first time and novice parachutists. In response to these recommendations, Transport Canada formed a Working Group to study the possibility, and feasibility, of incorporation of existing CANADIAN SPORT PARACHUTING ASSOCIATION safety rules and recommendations into the TCA regulatory framework.



and

Quote


It is important note that while other countries such as Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand are delegating the responsibility of managing parachuting activities to recognized national parachute organizations, the suggestion of Ministerial delegation to CANADIAN SPORT PARACHUTING ASSOCIATION was not well received and has sparked emotional debates within the parachuting community in Canada.



The Working Group's final report is also online, at
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/carac/Technical/GOFR/WG/parachuting-fr.htm


Their conclusions covered various matters, including rules that have gone into force, such as about radio coordination with air traffic control and demo jump rules.

They concluded that in general, the skydiving industry knows better than Transport Canada about skydiving:

Quote


It is the opinion of the Working Group that the risk to the experienced parachutist by participating in the sport is acceptable and would not be further reduced by additional regulation. The proposed regulations are based on the requirement to protect the public.



Similarly, for students they wrote something which is still good today in the argument against NPA 99-148:

Quote


It was the unanimous opinion of the Working Group that regulations in addition to the existing industry standards for student training was not required and were counter-productive to the parachuting sport and industry.

In addition, there is no likelihood that Transport Canada will commit the resources to adequately replicate the standards, expertise, commitment, and resources found in the two national organisations in a regulatory regime. As well, the Transport Safety Board does not consider parachuting incidents, accidents, and fatalities worthy of investigation. If the parachuting accidents are not worth investigation by the federal body delegated to investigate aviation accidents, then Transport Canada’s justification for extensive regulation and incorporated standards to govern parachuting activities is extremely weakened.

The industry adequately regulates by the compliance with industry standards, and regulations in addition to the industry standards in the opinion of the Working Group are not required and would be counter-productive.



Attached to the report is an Outline of Proposed Recommendations. About that they say:

Quote


It is the unanimous opinion of the Working Group that the proposed regulatory regime (attached) replaces the existing parachuting regulations.



In that attached outline there are eight very short recommendations, pretty much all one sentence each. A typical one is "A rule requiring information about a parachute descent to be broadcast in advance." That sort of thing is what was concluded in the working group, has since been put into the regulations, and is accepted as reasonable.

At the very bottom of the recommendations there is one on students:

Quote

Student Parachute Operations

8. A rule requiring the student parachutists to be trained in accordance with standards, procedures, and technical recommendations as developed, published and maintained by the recognized national or international parachute association.



This is the one that is at the heart of the NPA 99-148.

Notice that in the report itself they basically said, "everyone (whether from TC or skydiving) agrees that no new rules are needed for students".

Yet at the same time they are saying that "everyone agrees with the attached list", in which #8 is that students must be trained according to the skydiving organizations' rules.

That's the statement that seems so innocuous, supposedly changing nothing (just follow existing rules), but one that would change everything -- for all of us that fear that every single inappropriate rule or recommendation taken totally out of context will now be law.

Unfortunately that item #8 does make CSPA & CAPS seemingly complicit in recommending the very thing that NPA 99-148 suggests!

That sort of issue is typical of the whole regulation debate since the start of the '90s: The CSPA can say to the gov't that we don't need new rules because ours are good. And if there's an accident where rules weren't followed, the CSPA can say that we have little power to enforce our own rules. But what can the CSPA then say when the gov't replies, "OK, maybe your rules are good. Let's make them law."

The implications of that statement #8 may not have been fully appreciated at the time, and led to NPA 99-148.

We shouldn't forget that in the time between the Working Group's conclusions, and the present NPA fight, there was the additional meeting where all stakeholders (including CSPA, CAPS, and TC) concluded that the NPA's rules were not necessary. This was the Risk Assessment Committee meeting of May 2005. Their conclusions are being used as a major point against NPA 99-148.

After 3 or 4 days the Committee concluded:
Quote


The analysis of the risks involved in sport parachute activity showed that the proposed regulatory strategy produces negligible advantage over the current state of regulation within the sport parachute industry.

The residual risks remain at essentially the same level after contemplation of the regulatory initiative. As a result, a strategy for addressing this high level of risk was developed.

The risk team recommends a Non-Regulatory solution involving an Education Program and formulation of a Sport Parachute Advisory body.


(The source for is one one of Tim Grech's reports, on the CSPA email chat list, Sept 25, 2007.)

When a meeting was held to set up an advisory committee in January 2007, that was when TC informed the CSPA that they were going forward with NPA 99-148.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe Gananoque left CSPA because ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

... political problems within CSPA that date back to the 1970s.
Sorry, folks, but Tom McCarthy is one of the few DZOs who is brighter than CSPA.
Tom was responsible for introducing a variety of innovations to student training (piggyback containers, harness-hold, IAD, square canopies, etc.) back in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NPA 99 148 is a belated attempt to run Jim Mercier out of business.
Someone should tell Transport Canada that Mercier sold all his skydiving assets in the fall of 2004.

I worked for Mercier for one month (May 1992) and saw so many scary things that I quit. I know far more about Mercier's operations than I am willing to state in public.
Not that I fear the truth, rather I fear that Mercier's lawyers will sue me into silence, like they sued CSPA into silence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I believe Gananoque left CSPA because ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

... political problems within CSPA that date back to the 1970s.
Sorry, folks, but Tom McCarthy is one of the few DZOs who is brighter than CSPA.
Tom was responsible for introducing a variety of innovations to student training (piggyback containers, harness-hold, IAD, square canopies, etc.) back in the 1970s and early 1980s.



That is what I was trying to get at. He was also one of the first DZ's in Canada (if not the first, I don't know for sure) to ditch I.A.D. which rumor is he invented, and go to solely tandems for first jumps. Definately one of the first to offer tandems.

It sounded like someone was saying he was pissed off that this Flanagan guy was opposing regulation, which is the reason he left CSPA.

BTW, there is a CSPA club running at Skydive Gananoque.... so you can come jump no matter what your affiliation is.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


the one to oppose Transport was motioned by Pacific Skydivers as articulated by Ian Flanagan. So your theory about him changing his spots is in fact wrong. There is no doubt that he pissed a lot of DZOs off with his position on the commercial OC and I know it had a lot to do with the drop zone in Gananoque leaving CSPA (at least that's what the DZO told me some years later).



I believe Gananoque left CSPA because CSPA was not helping to solve the problem, not because someone was opposed to regulation. I'm not sure if I read what you wrote wrong, but it sounded like you were saying the DZO of Skydive Gan was for regulation and he left because someone pissed him off by objecting against regulation. I know for certain that he does not want government regulation. And that requiring a commercial operating certificate was not a good situation for business in Gan. Just clearing that up. As for the personal relationships being the problem... I can't say.

I have heard (I haven't been around long) that back then CSPA was doing what was best for CSPA and certain dropzones, not what was best for skydiving in Canada in general. Seeing the voracity of opposition against this legislation, it seems things may have changed. I hope so.

I apologize if I have overstepped my boundaries by speaking of how someone else may or may not have felt way back when, I just feel that things did not sound right there.


What I meant was that Flanagan's position to not fight the imposition of the commercial operating certificate is what pissed Tom (and others) off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Once the regulation is published, we will have at least 30 days and possible
60 day to object to the proposed regulation. Unfortunately, Transport
Canada will not provide us with the wording of the NPA in advance, so we can
not formulate the wording of our objection until the Gazette is published.
Once the Government has an opportunity to review the objections they can
chose to stop the proposed regulation, amend the proposed regulation or
Publish it in Gazette Two making it law. So you can see how important it is
that we react to this immediately.



Will the above timing be affected if a general election is called during the time window referred to above?

I contacted an old friend of mine who is running for Parliament--he appears to have a reasonable chance of unseating the current incumbent although of course we don't know when the election will be. (This is a serious candidate from a serious party, not the Rhinoceros person I referred to earlier.) He has been skydiving within the last year and appears somewhat sympathetic to our position.

But of course his ability to help would be largely contingent on his getting into Parliament--so anyone know if the Transport Canada deadline would be pushed back in the event of a spring general election, which seems quite likely?
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom McCarthy ... I.A.D. which rumor is he invented ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Getting off-topic ...
IAD was invented in Georgia or the Carolinas - circa 1975 and "PARACHUTIST Magazine even published an article about IAD. But Americas never did much with the new system.
Tom MaCarthy introduced IAD to Canada in 1979. Other Canadian DZs quickly copied Tom's lead, so that by the end of the 1980s only one or two Canadian DZs were still doing static-line.
As an old S/L Instructor, I applauded the transition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I wrote an email to my local MP the other day and this is the email I got back. I really don't know what to make of it.

"Thank you for your email. We value and appreciate you taking the time to write your concerns to our office.

As harming the skydiving industry will yield no positive outcome, the Government is making a great effort to balance the safety of Canadians with the wellbeing of the activity.

Your comments will be passed on. As always, it encouraging to hear from Calgary West constituents. Keep up the good work.

Sincerely
Evan Prowse
Assistant to Rob Anders MP "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the Government is making a great effort to balance the safety of Canadians with the wellbeing of the activity.



Not sure what the content of your email was, but it sounds like someone might have actually read your email - either that or they now have a standard response for comments about NPA 99-148. The piece that I quoted, however, sounds like maybe they're missing the point, since the concern in the skydiving community seems to be that the new regulation will not only hurt the industry, but also do nothing to improve safety. I guess until we see the actual text of the proposed amendment, it's hard to say for sure, but based on the comments and available information to date, it doesn't seem to be about a balancing act between safety and industry interests at all. It's more like the information available to date suggests the proposal will be bad on both sides of the industry vs safety equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the NPA was finally published:
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2008/20080315/html/regle5-e.html

I think it's a good thing. All it really does is enforce that anyone training students must comply to CSPA or CPSA rules and must be properly informed about the risks.

They didn't try to assert any rules but effectively make it illegal not to conform to the rules of which we the skydivers have complete control.

-Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While the demo and student stuff didn't bother me, I did have issues with 603.37 (2):

part (b): How can hourly wind drift indicator drops be practical, especially at turbine DZs?

part (d): Does this mean landing off without permission will be illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

While the demo and student stuff didn't bother me, I did have issues with 603.37 (2):

part (b): How can hourly wind drift indicator drops be practical, especially at turbine DZs?

part (d): Does this mean landing off without permission will be illegal?



I didn't quite understand if that section was specific to demo jumps or for everyone. It would make more sense for demo jumps that you would need permission and that you'd definitely use WDI's. I have a feeling that's what it's for...

-Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So the NPA was finally published:
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2008/20080315/html/regle5-e.html

I think it's a good thing. All it really does is enforce that anyone training students must comply to CSPA or CPSA rules and must be properly informed about the risks.

They didn't try to assert any rules but effectively make it illegal not to conform to the rules of which we the skydivers have complete control.

-Michael



The proposed regulations make frequent reference to organizations that have been "recognized by the Minister".

Does the explicit mention of CSPA and CPSA mean that those organizations are definitely "recognized by the Minister"? That's what I'd want to know--and also how easy/difficult it might be for "the Minister" to withdraw such recognition in future.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So the NPA was finally published:
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2008/20080315/html/regle5-e.html

I think it's a good thing. All it really does is enforce that anyone training students must comply to CSPA or CPSA rules and must be properly informed about the risks.

They didn't try to assert any rules but effectively make it illegal not to conform to the rules of which we the skydivers have complete control.

-Michael


It does not make any distinction between jumping from an aircraft and any other type of parachuting. The bit about needing permission to jump in uncontrolled airspace just made ground launching and base jumping illegal without a permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

While the demo and student stuff didn't bother me, I did have issues with 603.37 (2):

part (b): How can hourly wind drift indicator drops be practical, especially at turbine DZs?

part (d): Does this mean landing off without permission will be illegal?




c): Good catch!
The old 606.36 applied only where there was a Special Flight Operations Certificate (demos basically) - now it will apply to all jumping.

EDIT: Also, the old section 623 of the CARs, that explains that Standards (rather than the Regulations) for jumping into controlled airspace with an SFOC, mention "wind drift drop or procedure".

That way was flexible -- a "procedure" could be about anything to assess winds. So they changed their own terminology, which was fine as it was!


d) Landing off has always been illegal in some sense... just that if it is "accidental" and you don't damage property and leave, you'll be OK. Not sure of the exact legal justification though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It does not make any distinction between jumping from an aircraft and any other type of parachuting. The bit about needing permission to jump in uncontrolled airspace just made ground launching and base jumping illegal without a permit.



I've never been able to find a TC definition of parachuting , whether an aircraft has to be involved or not.

The rules for UNCONTROLLED airspace are completely new. In the past one could jump from a plane in uncontrolled airspace without telling anyone; now one will have to have a 2 way radio and establish communications with ATC and broadcast the jump.

TC certainly didn't tell us all this was coming!

(Edited for typo.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My MP also responded the same day with:

Quote

As you probably know, at present, there is no legal requirement for parachute operators to use certified equipment, training methods, or instructors, as no standards for these are established under the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).

The proposed NPA simply recognizes the expertise and proposed mandatory safety procedures developed by the Canadian Sport Parachuting Association (CSPA).

At this time, adherence to the CSPA's basic safety rules and recommendations is voluntary.

NPA 99-148 presents the first opportunity for compulsory student parachutist training to be conducted in accordance with standards, procedures and technical recommendations established by a parachuting organization that has been recognized by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

It also addresses the concerns of Canada's provincial and territorial coroners and medical examiners regarding safety deficiencies related to the self-regulation of parachuting.

At their recent annual conference, these medical professionals voted unanimously to support the proposed amendment to the regulations and to participate in the Sport Parachute Advisory Committee.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me. I will continue to stay abreast of this issue.

Ed Fast, M.P.
Abbotsford

Ottawa Office
Rm 754 Confed. Bldg.
Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0A6
Tel. 613-995-0183
Fax 613-996-9795
Email: [email protected]



I replied back asking him for information regarding the recent annual conference that the unaminous vote was made -re: date and location -as all I could find searching online was a "international conference." I also contacted Chief Coroners office in B.C. requesting the same info. (date and location)


In the published Gazette it states Summer 2007.
So- now waiting for replies- re: was this a "international conference of coroners and medical examiners??????

SMiles;)

Re: quote from cspa chat
Quote


We don't actually know that the coroners and medical examiners voted unamimously on ANYTHING to do with skydiving at their last International conference in June, we only have hearsay from a politician saying that they did. Not a great source when it comes right down to it.
While there are reference to various techiniqes involving processing bodies and death scene information, and one specific discussion about SIDS, I cannot find any agendas or motions in any minutes that *I* can find that say anything about skydiving. I'm sure it would have to.

This is why I figured we should pin the bugger down a bit more and see if he squirms.

Besides, I cannot imagine why a conference involving representatives from multiple counties and juristictions could even be taking a vote on something that involves a single country... unless, like I said before, as a group they are going to stuff this up USPA's ass as well.

Errol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Copied from the CSPA mail list)

6 months ago, at the beginning of the "movement" to defeat the NPA, I publicly inquired here for a list of the actual amendments that were "about to destroy skydiving in Canada as we know it". It seemed a good course of action, to take the debate from the emotional and theoretical to a more practical and intellectual level. To make that brief but painful story short, I was pilloried by a member of CSPA's executive for being too ignorant (actually, I think he
called me "naive") to recognize the problems - had my words thrown back in my face - and was summarily dismissed as a nuisance to his "voluntary efforts" on
behalf of all the jumpers in Canada.

Finally the NPA has been published and we can discuss item-by-item what these "changes" are and potentially mean.

So far, in all the chest-beating about TC's Notice of Proposed Amendment, we have only heard from ONE DZO... (Sorry TK, you don't count 'cause you're in the
States running a USPA dropzone).

I find it curious we haven't heard from the DZO's weighing in here. Perhaps here is why...

Every legitimate DZ in Canada runs on the benefit of an Operating Certificate granted, audited and policed by TC. It encompasses more than just the Para-Ops,
and extends to the aircraft, maintenance, pilot licensing, pilot training, flight schedules, Safety Management System(s), Accountable Executive, and much, much more.

And yes, Al was quite correct in his observation that "some" TC officials can be heavy-handed, ignorant and arrogant. I've had my share of those, but I have also
encountered others who are fortunately quite the opposite. I suppose it depends on the luck-of-the-draw which one is going to show up at your operation.

Speaking directly to all the quibbles posted here by rec-jumpers (anybody who has not thoroughly read the OC for their DZ), from the requirement to contact
ATC in uncontrolled airspace, the WDI procedure, land-owners consent, etc. etc. etc...

I open my OC - and... SURPRISE! Each and every item I hear all the complaints about is ALREADY in there (and so much more, BTW). And they've all been there
ever since they issued it to me back in 1997. In case you don't understand the ramification of that - it means that we've been required to have done these all
along (and have done so).

I'd go so far as to wager that every OC currently authorized in Canada carries essentially the same requirements.

So, until somebody with a current OC (the document that allows you to legally jump, folks!) shows me that the new proposals are more stringent than what they
are currently having to operate by in their OC, I'm sorry, I still don't see the issue.

Do I support additional paperwork? Hell no.

Do I support more regulation. Hell, Hell no.

Do I see (yet) that the NPA has us all closing up shop, or like Chicken Little's running for our umbrella's 'cause the sky is falling? Nope.

Let the flames begin!

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also copied from CSPA Chat from this morning, an open email to Tim Grech - CSPA Pres
------------------------------------------------
Tim,

Some of the specifics in NPA should be no problem. There have been a number of questions on the “Wind Drift Indicator Procedure” in the draft. However in PIM 1 this is addressed as a traditional WDI (which outside of competition I haven’t seen in over 10 years) or as a rate 1 turn. This section also falls in the Tech Recommendations section of PIM 1 for which there is an allowance for waivers from CSPA (I.e. if you want to include GPS in the WDI Procedure for your DZ, submit to CSPA for approval and you are off to the races).

I am not a lawyer but I have a fair amount of experience with legislation through my years in the military and the construction industry.

Reading the NPA preamble and hearing from some people involved in the edges of the discussion over the last while, it seems the intent is pretty clear – to protect the innocent newbie who has just arrived at a DZ for training (be it first jumps or tandem).

They want to know who is running the show and who’s program you are following. And they want you to follow the program you are supposed to be following. Is this a bad thing?

Stepping into the real world, there are lots of “Quality Control Systems” such as the ISO-9000 series etc. The basic principle to a quality system is that you “Say what you do” and “Do what you say”. For consistency and control, the key is to have appropriate documentation in the forms of manuals, checklists, forms and reports to support the system. Continuous improvement is from assessing your system and determining what changes need to be made to improve the end product.

I have been trying to figure out how NPA will doom skydiving in Canada

From a Quality Point of view, the Key Documents for CSPA are the PIMs. The aim of NPA involves PIM 1 (it also touches on PIM 2A but the teeth is in PIM 1).

Reading PIM 1 last night in conjunction with NPA, I kept asking “So What?”. How will this doom skydiving?

There are allowances in the PIMs for Dropzones to get exemptions for the Tech Recommendations for their specific situation (physical layout for obstacles for example). Or in the case of the Wind Drift Indicator Procedure, expand it to include GPS in addition to the WDI or Rate 1).

Again stepping into the real world, when I have an audit done on a construction site against the safety program, I am ensuring that the documentation and observations are in compliance with the Company Safety Manual (which is driven by legislation and industry. Deviations from the program are identified, a Corrective Action Plan is developed and implemented, and a follow up is done. All part of the drill. If I have a site that scores low (in my world that is below 95%) alarm bells ring and we have a hard look at the site and the supervision and the support in place cause there is a systemic problem which if not corrected will lead to accidents. (again “say what you do” and “do what you say”). The company I work for is very profitable.

So getting back to the NPA, it seems appears that Drop Zone Owners who are running training operations under the CSPA umbrella will have to know PIM 1 and follow it. Again how will this doom skydiving?

CSPA as an organization can not enforce the implementation of PIM 1 on any Drop Zone. TC knows that. If CSPA takes the position that “We can’t enforce our PIM 1 and we don’t want you to either”, that strikes me as being a pretty weak case which destroys the credibility of CSPA as the National Governing Body for the sport. That can easily be interpreted that the PIMS are nothing more than pretty manuals for the bookshelf and are not meant to be used.

For those who haven’t done so in a while, have a read of PIM 1 (on the CSPA Website).

Notwithstanding the minor gigs in the NPA, I would like the CSPA executive to explain why CSPA Dropzones following PIM 1 would destroy Skydiving in Canada. This Chicken Little Approach is wearing thin.

Regards

Phil “Major Dad” Perry
D-579
Future Former President
Alberta Sport Parachuting Association

Major Dad
CSPA D-579

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