To GM DZ or Not to GM DZ

[stratostar 5]

In my other on going poll here the numbers are showing 21% or 64, of the vote is for doing away with the GM program. And 5% or 15, Voting to keep it.

And 11% or 34 votes for an inspection program and 7% or 22 votes for NO inspection program.

However the numbers don't jive IMO, we can say it is safe to assume most DZO's 75% or more would not want an inspection program. See Pros & Cons thread and have you looked There are equal strong feelings on both sides of http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3084827#3084827" ">this issue

A lot of points of views out there, just wondering here, those of you who voted for the removal of the GM program, why and did you also vote for inspections?

Those of you who voted to have inspections, Why? and what is your expection /idea of an inspection? And by whom? Did you vote to disband the GM program?

Those who voted to keep the GM program, Why? Did you vote for inspections?

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[tdog 0]

I made this poll in December.


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3037526;search_string=group%20membership;#3037526

While I would normally say, "REPOST" - I think it is fair, as this will be a NEW POLE - a NEW snapshot in time to see if things have changed after the new BOD issues...

In my pole, with a large quantity of voters, the votes were 81% get rid of it, 19% keep it. I only say it, to archive the current moment in time as since I linked it here, now people might vote there too, to change the "previous snapshot."

Depending on your results.... I think the next step might be - put together a NON-dropzone.com petition/vote/ballot. Maybe a form that skydivers list their licence number (distributed at the DZ) - and once completed - delivered to the USPA. It would allow people to vote. Heck, I could even do a form online on a website, I already have the software...

If the USPA ignores such a petition, then.... Well... It will show who runs the place. In all honesty, the DZOs need support and the DZOs need to support the USPA... But, I don't know how to do it...

[Thanatos340 1]

One more question for those that would like to see DZ Inspections.

How much are those inspections worth to YOU? How much would YOU be willing to pay for that inspection?

IF (HUGE IF) a DZ inspection program could be created, The Jumper will be the ones paying for it one way or another.

Would you like to pay for it by paying a Higher USPA Annual Dues or Pay for it by paying higher Jump ticket prices?

[stratostar 5]

For me the first question is , why are people asking to do away with the GM program, but yet want inspections. And yes I was seeking a "snap shot in time" due to the current amount of threads on these topics. I'm also trying to keep an open mind and understand other peoples point of view that I may or may not agree with, so I can make up my mind as to how I would vote and why.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

In all honesty, the DZOs need support and the DZOs need to support the USPA...

What's wrong with the Trade Organization that already exists? The PIA? It used to have DZ's that belonged.

And who's to say that without the GM program, the USPA still couldn't manage an Airport Defense Program?

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

[boyd38off 0]

hahahah.... you said pole

Quote

I made this poll in December.


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3037526;search_string=group%20membership;#3037526

While I would normally say, "REPOST" - I think it is fair, as this will be a NEW POLE - a NEW snapshot in time to see if things have changed after the new BOD issues...

In my pole, with a large quantity of voters, the votes were 81% get rid of it, 19% keep it. I only say it, to archive the current moment in time as since I linked it here, now people might vote there too, to change the "previous snapshot."

Depending on your results.... I think the next step might be - put together a NON-dropzone.com petition/vote/ballot. Maybe a form that skydivers list their licence number (distributed at the DZ) - and once completed - delivered to the USPA. It would allow people to vote. Heck, I could even do a form online on a website, I already have the software...

If the USPA ignores such a petition, then.... Well... It will show who runs the place. In all honesty, the DZOs need support and the DZOs need to support the USPA... But, I don't know how to do it...

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out and shouting,
".... holy crap....what a ride!"

[tdog 0]

At least I did not hit a pole....

[riggerpaul 1]

I voted to drop the GM program and inspect DZs.

I think we should drop the GM program so we will not be considered a trade association. I believe USPA should be a membership organization, not a trade organization.

I think we should inspect so we will have a reasonable understanding of how the DZs operate wrt the BSRs.

The inspections could be done by Instructional Rating Holders (though maybe not Coach rating holders), and/or by USPA Directors. Regional Directors often spend at least some time at many or most of the DZs in their regions. S&TAs should be able to do this, so long as they are not fiscally affiliated with the DZ under inspection. (I generally believe that S&TAs who are DZOs or DZMs have great opportunity for conflict of interest.)

USPA should provide guidance to the inspectors so that there is a hope of evenhandedness in the process.

Or there could be a USPA Inspector rating, if you think that would give a better hope for uniform standards in inspection.

The output of the inspection program need not be black and white approval or disapproval. It could be more along the lines of a scale to indicate how much compliance is witnessed. We all know that there are group members who wiggle on the BSRs. The practical question is how much do they wiggle. Some of the input could also be based on jumpers submitting personal reports. If most reports say that a DZ complies with law and the BSRs, then it is likely that the DZ does.

All other questions aside, a lone jumper can still choose to follow the law and the BSRs more strictly than the DZ itself, should he desire to do so. It seems that a lot of people think that it is the sole responsibility of the DZ to enforce compliance with the law and the BSRs. I think this s a flawed logic. If the jumpers don't violate the FARs and BSRs, the DZs won't be either. That is, if nobody will jump when it is not legal and appropriate, the DZ isn't going to be forcing you into the airplane. True compliance is a personal thing. It is silly to expect that businesses are going to take care of us in this manner.

Tandem programs and other student programs are a whole different ball of wax, as they involve unsuspecting individuals who can easily be abused by a DZs failure to comply with applicable law and standards of operation. As the FAA regulates flight schools, so too they should be involved with regulating tandem programs and student programs. I believe that the regulation of these sorts of activities needs the weight of law to give it teeth. USPA does not and should not have that weight. But, of course, this is as much a matter of taking back our government as it is of taking back the USPA. (No, I don't really want the FAA more involved. But this is a hypothetical discussion, and I believe that if things worked the way they are supposed to, this would be part of the result. But I also believe that FAA should be LESS involved with regulation of licensed jumpers, so I hope that some reasonable balance could be struck.)

I am surprised that the whole GM program hasn't come under scrutiny for its inherent tendency towards restriction of trade. For instance, why should it be required that a GM DZ instructional staff be rating holders? Sure, it helps to create a uniform standard for the DZ, but it is not the only way to do it. Again, I think USPA should be a membership org, not a trade org.

All this requires more participation of USPAs membership in the process. I believe this is how it should be. I read a lot of stuff that says we should "take back the USPA", but there is little attention given to the fact that this implies we the membership must be more involved than we typically are. Failure to be involved is how we "gave away" USPA in the first place. There is no great conspiracy among DZOs to take USPA away from the membership. If it was "taken", it is because we let "them" take it. If we "take it back", then we had better be willing to do something with it, or it was a useless exercise in the first place.

[EDYDO 0]

Quote

And who's to say that without the GM program, the USPA still couldn't manage an Airport Defense Program?

Well, they could, but who would pay for it? If there were no GM program and DZs did not require USPA membership, there would be skydivers who just depended on the rest of us to support USPA. They would be jumping without liability insurance and in the event of an accident, they might just walk away leaving someone else holding the bag.

I suppose under these circumstances you could expect to pay $125 or more to be a regular USPA member.

Ed

[chutejump 0]

I guess what I am looking for in the responses from persons whom support a DZ inspection program, is the benefit?
Having a DZ meet spacific standards, of maintainence, equipment , landing area, staff ratings, etc. does not in reality make this approved DZ a safer place? It may give you peace of mind as to what you believe will improve your odds, but the reality is that things can and will go poorly in even the best organized and controlled situations. I am not saying to the same numbers or extent, but in this sanario if the DZ is "Approved" and the accident is the same as the DZ down the road with no approval from USPA what light does this shed upon the inspection program?
A stone cold new DZO with very little experience can kill you very quickly with his decisions and methods of operation even if he has all of the required aminities as the inspection program would require, the key which everyone continues to overlook is good judgement, and decision making qualities from the management of the operation. Unfortunately this usually only comes from time and experience! and an onsite inspection will not replace this very critical element.
We are attempting to replace knowledge skill and good decision making by DZ operators with an inspection program? sound alot like many of the current programs offered by the government? If your economy is poor, borrow money from China, refund it to the public whom will in turn spend it to purchase products produced by China? How does this address the problem? it is only a temperory bandaid, in my opinion just like an inspection program would be. We need to address the root issue and problem! Safety! and this is only offered through knowledge experience, and sound business decisions.

[relyon 0]

I voted for an inspection program whether or not the GM program is kept.

Quote

Having a DZ meet spacific standards, of maintainence, equipment , landing area, staff ratings, etc. does not in reality make this approved DZ a safer place? ...

I think it does. Of course things can and have gone wrong at even the best DZs. We all should know skydiving isn't safe.

Rhetorical questions: Do you go to board certified doctors for surgery or let your friend do it for $20? Think of the money you'd save! Do you choose to drive the most pothole riddled road to your destination or the one that was recently paved given the choice? Accidents can and do happen on either. I guessing you know what I mean.

Your comment regarding stone cold new DZO notwithstanding in the least, I still believe it would be a big step in the right direction. The biggest problem I forsee with such a program is it staying the proper size and not pissing off DZOs. I suggest it stay as a simple report (eg. items that anyone can observe), inspections done by an instructionally rated member (higher than coach), have no report card type of grade (ie. just the facts), and (most importantly) be available but not otherwise published in a magazine (USPA website?).

Bob

[chriswelker 0]

They would be jumping without liability insurance and in the event of an accident, they might just walk away leaving someone else holding the bag. ***

There is a very easy simple solution to that comment. If my memory serves me correctly, when you jump at most DZ's non- or GM you are required to fill out a waiver and show proof of rig being in date. Just ask the jumper to provide proof of libality insurance whether that be in the form of a USPA membership which provides upto $50,000 or a verifiable personal libality policy with a min of $50,000 worth of coverage.

I have no plans to be a DZO, ever; however, if I was it would not make any difference if the jumper was a USPA member or not just as long as they play by my policy and have PROOF of personal libality insurance and major medical insurance.

If somebody "walks off" I would eat it.It would be my responsobility to protect me and my business not some association or gov. agency from screw ups.


Chris

[JerryBaumchen 1,068]

Hi strato,

Here is a portion of an email that I recently sent:

I would suggest this:

1. USPA develop the standards for the program ( the criteria for the rating ).
2. Have an outside, independent agency do the inspection/survey/rating/etc.
3. Send the results into USPA who would then provide the certification, if earned.
4. It would be an annual thing.
5. The DZ would have to pay for the inspection of their business.

I would handle this just like the ISO Certification Program. ISO is headquartered in Europe and they set the standards. Then the 'inspection' part is done by companies certified by ISO.

No one sues anyone if they do not pass the ISO inspection; not that I have ever heard of anyway.

You could get some good info on this by contacting Performance Designs. Aubrey Easterlin ( sp ??? ) worked at PD when they got their ISO Certification ( he was PD's point man on their working with the inspection company ) and as a result, he then went to work for the company that did the certification inspection. I am sure PD could put you onto Aubrey. I am also sure that he would offer his thoughts on all of this concept. He did do a seminar on it at the last or next to last Symposium.

Just something to think about,

JerryBaumchen

[stratostar 5]

Thanks Jerry & Tom and others. I'm just trying to look at the facts I have not made up my mind one way or the other, I have not even voted in this poll, yet. There are many things that need to be thought out on these topics. All sides need to looked at before action is taken or a vote held.


I can say I see what looks to be more people who agree with my views, looking at the poll numbers. The only thing is the number are not broken down enough. I bet the age for those calling for no inspections and no GM's are the new kids and the ones voating clean up gm;s and inspections are the old farts.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[chutejump 0]

Quote

I voted for an inspection program whether or not the GM program is kept.

Quote

If there were some feasable and financial way to get it done I might reconsider, but as things stand currently, I must stay opposed to the idea.
There is a program exactly as has been talked about here on several threads which was created some years ago by USPA, it included all of the aspects discussed and some that were not considered by the posters. It has never been and will never be implemented, Why do you ask? First it would be very costly! (would you pay a dollar extra a lift to cover the cost of the program?) Or play extra per annual renewal to USPA to fund this project? Next, I have not found many DZOs whom were very supportive of the process, because of the negative conatation it could place on a DZ that received a poor rating. It would be simular to classifing jumpers by knowledge skill ability, and ratings, those whom are more supportive of the sport (very experienced, instructional ratings, staff member) receiving priority of use of DZ facilities and the ability to have lesser rated jumpers bumped from the aircraft, and basicly control the use of the DZ and aircraft at their location because of their status.

I think it does. Of course things can and have gone wrong at even the best DZs. We all should know skydiving isn't safe.

Quote

I don't know? It like advertising the best cheesburger in town! To some it may be, even to the adverstiers, but in reality, is it to the majority?

Rhetorical questions: Do you go to board certified doctors for surgery

Quote

NO!

or let your friend do it for $20?

Quote

NO!

Think of the money you'd save!

Quote

I don't consider the cost as an issue, if I need surgery, I look for the most current Doctors whom I can through word of mouth, contact with persons whom have had the same issues, and prior surgeries of the same or simular type provide the service I am seeking. A gold star by an organization the exists to improve the medical system and its private intities for its own personal gain or interests, would not effect or finalize my decision.

Do you choose to drive the most pothole riddled road to your destination or the one that was recently paved given the choice?

Quote

Distance to drive, time, fuel costs are the issue to me! If it is half the distance over the potholed road, I would take it for the savings on Fuel and Time!

Accidents can and do happen on either. I guessing you know what I mean.

Quote

Yes!

Your comment regarding stone cold new DZO notwithstanding in the least, I still believe it would be a big step in the right direction. The biggest problem I forsee with such a program is it staying the proper size and not pissing off DZOs.

Quote

It would piss people off notwithstanding.

I suggest it stay as a simple report (eg. items that anyone can observe), inspections done by an instructionally rated member (higher than coach), have no report card type of grade (ie. just the facts), and (most importantly) be available but not otherwise published in a magazine (USPA website?).***

Very difficult to do, you couldn't use locals, the old bud system is alive and well at DZs across America, and whom would want their home to receive a poor score on a report? and by sending one in against the DZ you frequent, would leave the agent in a very poor position with management and other jumpers.

I noticed that you are a rotorcraft pilot? Do you think the continous inspections and maintainence on the aircraft is solely for safety of operations? Yes! I agree that a percentage is, but the bulk, is to cover Liability for the Manufacture, and mandated by the Insurance carriers of said aircraft, Someone will be forced to except responsibility, if the bird goes down, the inspections if performed and current, relieves the Manufacture and Insurer of many aspects of possible cause, and will ultimately lower the cost of the action by a great extent if either the Manufacture or the Insurer were found to bear some financial responsibility..

• Quote

[billvon 2,435]

>A gold star by an organization the exists to improve the medical
>system and its private intities for its own personal gain or interests, would
>not effect or finalize my decision.

Yet we are discussing a potential organization that would exist to improve safety conditions for its member's interests. Why would a gold star from the inspection program influence you more than a gold star from a medical certification organization? In both cases, it is an outside agency certifying that someone is safe _enough_ to provide a basic level of service.

[relyon 0]

Quote

... First it would be very costly! (would you pay a dollar extra a lift to cover the cost of the program?). ...

Yes it would cost something, and yes, I'd pay a dollar per jump to fund it. YMMV

Quote

... because of the negative conatation it could place on a DZ that received a poor rating.

Exactly why I suggested no rating or approval be given, as well as available (website downloadable) but not magazine published reports. Reports contain just the facts; nothing more. Similar to USPA or NTSB incident reports. They don't say an incident was bad or good, just that one occurred and perhaps suggestions as to how to prevent it from happening again.

Quote

It would piss people off notwithstanding.

You just can't please some people, even if you're trying to prevent their potential injury or fatality from occuring.

I had a pissed off offshore platform operater tell me any pilot worth their salt could fly in the conditions that prevailed. I couldn't see the lights of a platform 1.55nm away under a 300' indefinite ceiling and all of my operations are strictly day VFR per the ops manual. I told him the keys were in the machine and took a nap. I digress ...

Quote

... and whom would want their home to receive a poor score on a report? ...

Did you read my original reply? No grades or approval ratings ("gold stars") of any kind. Just the facts by a qualified individual merely reporting (preferably anonymously) what they see and/or using publicly available credible information sources.

Quote

I noticed that you are a rotorcraft pilot? Do you think the continous inspections and maintainence on the aircraft is solely for safety of operations? ...

Depends on who you ask. Pilots, mechanics, and executives will give you differing answers. I wholeheartedly think yes. Then again, I had an incident 65nm offshore once and was damned glad the helicopter had up to date maintenance. It could have been much worse if it hadn't.

Bob

[EDYDO 0]

Well, if we did inspections, exactly what would we be inspecting? The FAA certifies the mechanics and they are already doing inspections on the aircraft. They are responsible for their work, inspections and sign offs. These inspections come around every 100 hours.

I can hear it now, "But these guys sign off on things they didn't do." Maybe, but they put a lot on the line if they do. How would another inspector know whether the work actually had been performed? Answer is, in most cases he wouldn't.

Ok, we are going to inspect the skydiving equipment. Well, the FAA is taking care of that one too. The riggers fall into exactly the same category as the mechanic. He could pencil pack one and chances are no one would ever know, certainly another inspector would never know.

So, exactly what would this inspector be looking at?

Ed

[chriswelker 0]

Well, if we did inspections, exactly what would we be inspecting?***

Why don't you ask the people who came up with the DZ Inspection program in the 1st place, the GROUP MEMBERSHIP committee.

D. provide guidance and direction for the DZ VoluntaryCourtesy Inspection Program, Section 3 of the Group Membership Manual

The GM committee came up with this self serving BS and guess what in all the years this program has been around would anyone care to guess how many USPA GM DZ's signed up for a inspection? Well the answer is ONE... and they failed miserably.

Ed, why don't you talk to the GM committee and ask them this question...So, exactly what would this inspector be looking at?

I bet they don't have a very good answer for you our the association.



7-2.3 FUNCTIONS
It will be a function of the Group Membership
Committee to—

A. promote group member adoption of policies, practices,and procedures, including the the USPA Basic Safety Requirements, that enhance the safety of skydiving

B. develop and disseminate information found in
Section 4 of the Group Membership Manual,
USPA Skydiving Aircraft Operations, concerning
the safe operation and maintenance of aircraft used
for skydiving.

C. supervise and direct the administration of the Group Member Program, Section 1 of the Group
Membership Manual

D. provide guidance and direction for the DZ VoluntaryCourtesy Inspection Program, Section 3 of the Group Membership Manual

E. instill ethical business practices among
group members

F. promote communication and the sharing of
ideas among group members

G. consider issues before the board that affect the
business interests of group members

H. assist in the planning and conduct of the USPA
Drop Zone Operators Conference


Chris

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

So, exactly what would this inspector be looking at?

Ed

Toilet facility. If it's stopped up, and full of crap, you get a brown star.

You are right to bring up the point, I'd thought it several times. Are they going to follow a Coach on a dive from "Hi, I'm Joe, and I'll be your Coach on this jump..., up on the airplane down in freefall, and through debrief? And if so, are they going to do this with every staff member, and what about the guys who aren't around this weekend? Are they going to sit through a FJC, and with every instructor? Are they going to observe a tandem student/instructor from start to hand shake? Maybe they can ask how many jumps the video guys working on any particular day have? I guess they can sniff everyone's armpits, and ask them how often they bathe. I just don't get it.

Is/was there an outline of the "USPA Inspection" somewhere?

Here's an idea, how about an instructional course inspection. Send "the guy" out to random rating courses, and grade the Course Director. Maybe we should start a "Course Director Member Program," and require them to pay a couple hundred dollars a year for the previlage of being a Course Director, and having an "official gold seal inspection program"? It seems to me that there's quite a bit of room for rubber stamp instructional courses, let's crank down the thumb screws and week out the bad apples!

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[stratostar 5]

Well that seems to be the million dollar question. And your asking the wrong person, I'm only polling and asking Q's of what I see people calling for as they storm the gates of USPA.

I can tell you, as a new board member and the rest of the freshman seat holders, that yes in fact our system is broken and the reason you see so many people asking for what seems to many to be outlandish and stupid requests.......is because in fact there are dropzone operators who have been proven to, and suspect still, of doing the many "sign off's, write off's, afro engineering, fake STC's, and long list of other FAR and BSR violations, causing the USPA to ban for life these operators and at great expense to the membership I might add, but then wouldn't release the information to the public or skydiving community.

Each and every topic being talked about here these operators were quilty of doing for a number of years and knew what they were doing was wrong, many on the full Board knew they were doing this stuff and turned a blind eye to it, till it was shoved in to thier face by members in good standing and the FAA.

Many of those members were in turn tar'd and feathered by the BOD and the operators were quitely shuned in public and few non discript stories in parachutist came out about what to look for in shitty operations, one or two of those little write ups and then right back to the standard ego stroking BS each month.

For every Martin and Tom Dolphin dzo out there doing it right and spending the money it takes, there is the last few oldtime "my way or the highway" I use duck tape and bale'n wire if I want to operator who wears every hat on the DZ, it's their lie, airplane, rigs, staff, property, logbooks, tools, hanger etc, and their name is the one signed or even yes "Capt'n Koolaid" still stops by to sign off the logbook because good old bubba would never hang and sign off a rotten R-985 or sign off the king air nose gear X-rays without having been to the special class @ beechcraft, now would he. Most the time you will find them on Private property and NEVER on public property and for a reason, when dealing with the FAA.

Many of you "insiders" don;t like it when people talk bad about your buddys, cuz you guys have a great time when you see each other at PIA or other big industry circle jerks slapping each other on the back and talking about how hot the skirts are. Yea most everyone knows what kind of BS their doing it's the hushed up little dirty secret and has been for years, and you don't really know if what people in their region are saying is true or are they just making shit up, your extent of "looking in to it" is to ask them and then take their word for it or in the case of the BOD, send out "one of the good old boys".

What many of the high up players forget is there are other pilots and A&P's and I/E and even skydivers who are real pro pilots who see the bullshit going on and are NOT fooled for a minute by the shady operators nor are they going to believe the BS stories from those DZO's or their industry friends.

The really sad part is, because of people like this in the industry, guys like Martin & Tom who strive to go by the book and play by the rules with princpals and morles, are forced to deal with the extra BS in order to combat or rid the industry of the rotten apples by using the same rule books, because those in the USPA have in the past, refuse to name names and print the documentation of the facts, after all some there are still friends or do business with said offenders or they might need one their planes for the next record attempt.

Having seen many of the voilations with my own eyes at many dz's accross the us, poping a cloud once and a while is one thing, asking a uncurrent, hadn't jumped in 5 years former military, non tandem rating holder (first time wearing the rig) to take a paying passanger so they could get it all in one load, is another thing altogether. (yes there is video)

So what are "WE" inspecting, not a damn thing and you know as well as I do that after 9-11 the FAA has way bigger things to worrie about then skydiving and if you want to be a corner cutting cheat, right now is a great time to be one because there is not the funding or staff to go around looking for BAD APPLES in the skydiving world. If your stupid enough to get on that POS and it crashes, sorry about your luck! You people nuts anyway jumping out of an airplane.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[billvon 2,435]

>causing the USPA to ban for life these operators . . .
>but then wouldn't release the information to the public or skydiving community.

Well, if they did, a lawsuit would start, someone from the BOD would post on-line slamming them, resulting in them having to settle out of court - thus forcing USPA to reinstate their group membership and apologize.

[peek 20]

Quote

What's wrong with the Trade Organization that already exists? The PIA? It used to have DZ's that belonged.

The USPA GM program took all it's members! Then PIA dissolved the committee for lack of interest.

Reviving the PIA drop zone committee is one of the most important pieces of work to be done to help eliminate the conflict of interest in USPA's GM program.

Quote

And who's to say that without the GM program, the USPA still couldn't manage an Airport Defense Program?

Well they could of course! Imagine, USPA collecting donations from members for the AAD fund like it does now, and then donating it to PIA to help PIA drop zone members with airport access issues.

Just imagine that kind of cooperation.

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

Quote

What's wrong with the Trade Organization that already exists? The PIA? It used to have DZ's that belonged.

The USPA GM program took all it's members! Then PIA dissolved the committee for lack of interest.

Reviving the PIA drop zone committee is one of the most important pieces of work to be done to help eliminate the conflict of interest in USPA's GM program.

Definitely.

Just to chime in here (after spending a week reading all the threads that deal with this issue), let's isolate the problem. I think this whole thing boils down to an issue of focus. The USPA's mission has been cluttered by the GM program (as evidenced by the conflicts of interest that have popped up). Here's my thoughts:

1) The DZ's need a trade organization. For the purposes of things like the AAD Fund...and simply as businesses (promotion, etc - one of the things the GM program was supposed to offer, IIRC).

There are potentially a lot of things that a DZ trade organization could do for DZ's. And those things might require funds that skydivers wouldn't be willing to pony up. By separating it out, the DZO's organization is not going against the interest of skydivers, and vice-versa. Skydivers and DZS's gain more control of their own course. The free market takes care of the rest.

2) The individual skydiver needs an organization that's looking out for him/her. This isn't necessarily in conflict with the DZOs' interests...but as we've shown in recent months, it can be. The only way to eliminate such conflicts is to simplify. (Hence, creating two separate organizations).

3) The DZ Inspection Program. If the USPA's mission becomes to look out for skydivers, I think there's a stronger argument for this - a skydiver could go to the USPA and look at a DZ rating like they would a health rating at a restaurant. If the place has a C rating, you're taking your chances. (Or you can at least read the report to see that you are).

Like so many others, I can't yet see a great option for *how* to implement such a thing. Costs seem to be prohibitive. But it does seem in line with the mission of protecting skydivers and promoting the sport.

I don't have any good answers for the inspection question, but I do think this whole discussion would benefit from us stepping back and looking at the USPA from a broader perspective.

Bottom line is, skydivers and DZ's have 2 different interests, which share some common ground...but which ultimately diverge. IMHO, that makes us incompatible in an organization such as the USPA. But that doesn't mean we can't cooperate from separate groups...right?

Signatures are the new black.

[billvon 2,435]

Good thoughts, but:

>1) The DZ's need a trade organization.

They had one. I went to one of the DZO Organization meetings in Vegas about eight years back. It fell apart due to lack of interest. I'm not sure what would inspire its resurrection.

>3) The DZ Inspection Program.

We have one, the DZ voluntary inspection program. As far as I know only one DZ has taken advantage of it. What would change?