To GM DZ or Not to GM DZ

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

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.

Then why are the DZO's interested in USPA at all? Is there not some void it's filled by becoming a sort of 'DZ trade organization'?

Quote

>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?

To this, I have no answer. Isn't that always the case, how questions ultimately seem to lead to more questions.

Perhaps there isn't a good way to make it happen. I'm still relatively new to this, so all I know is what I've read around here and elsewhere. I'm not in the best place to offer suggestions of how such a program could be incentivized, or promoted to both skydivers and DZO's as a beneficial thing to them all. (I didn't even know about the voluntary inspection program until recently - it apparently doesn't get much promotion.)

It seems like there would be an obvious benefit to skydivers, so the question is, why would it benefit DZO's?

In *theory*, the business angle makes sense - When I was looking to make my first jump, if I had gone to the USPA website and found that one DZ near me scored 5 stars on the DZ inspection, and another scored 3 stars (or hadn't taken the inspection), I'd have gone to the one with 5 stars. As it was, I just looked at the GM's and chose the one closest to me.

In the case above, the 5-star DZ stands to gain a student (unless said student gets swept up by Skyride first ). So if a DZ knew it was doing everything right to get a 5-star rating, why wouldn't it have the inspection done? If we made the inspection standards available and promoted the results, then the DZ that knows it would score high stands only to gain, and those who know they will do poorly (and thus don't have the inspection) will stand to lose (their lack of participation will likely be seen as them hiding something). The key would be making the standards transparent, and convincing those DZ's who are doing things right that they only stand to gain by participating.

Then again, like I said - I'm new. All of this could have been tried before. But maybe, without the context of the GM program as a backdrop, it would have a little more traction...? (Or maybe not. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong. Just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion).

Signatures are the new black.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...convincing those DZ's who are doing things right that they only stand to gain by participating.

Not to be a pessimist or anything but maybe there's a reason why only 1 DZ took advantage of the voluntary inpection program. Scary?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Quote

...convincing those DZ's who are doing things right that they only stand to gain by participating.

Not to be a pessimist or anything but maybe there's a reason why only 1 DZ took advantage of the voluntary inspection program. Scary?

And as I understand that one DZ "failed miserably", is a quote I'd noticed earlier in this or another thread.

As Loyd indicated, simply having the "standards transparent" would be helpful, I have no idea what said inspection is going to entail. How about if we ask all parents to volunteer for a "home parenting inspection"? You don't get any information regarding said inspection, or what's going to be inspected, and if you fail, your children are placed in foster care until said violations are corrected. "Sign me up!!"

I let (private airport, he has to ask permission) an FAA Inspector "visit" my DZ anytime he likes. I know what he's going to be looking at, and I also know what happens if he "finds something."

Martin

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

AC DZ

[billvon 2,435]

>Then why are the DZO's interested in USPA at all? Is there not some void
>it's filled by becoming a sort of 'DZ trade organization'?

I don't know. Perhaps training standards and the like are important to DZO's, and thus like to be in an organization that can influence them. But perhaps a DZO could shed more light on that.

[DSE 3]

It would appear that a mandated inspection program runs a risk of failing as badly as it already is.
What about a USPA-issued checklist of inspectable parameters that a jumper might undertake to determine if he/she feels OK about using to determine their own relationship with the DZ? It's not any different in function than what is offered here on DZ.com, but if there is a document that provides specifics that a DZ should be able to pass, that individuals might use...
Merely riffing here, but seems to me that one or two 'personal' inspections could make a serious bump in a DZ's reputation in either direction.

[peek 20]

Quote

... but if there is a document that provides specifics that a DZ should be able to pass, that individuals might use...

Part of the Group Membership Manual, "Self Inspection Form". As to whether USPA headquarters will supply one to a non GM, I have no idea.

[DSE 3]

Thanks, Gary. I was unaware of that. The form would need to be a downloadable, however, provided to all skydivers at large to be effective in the absence of a GM program, don't you think?

[peek 20]

Quote

Thanks, Gary. I was unaware of that. The form would need to be a downloadable, however, provided to all skydivers at large to be effective in the absence of a GM program, don't you think?

Yes, but at this point, that document is considered part of the GM program, in other words, part of the advantages of being a Group Member.

[jcrouch 0]

I am not sure where this rumor started. My drop zone, West Point Skydiving Adventures, was the only DZ to participate in the inspection program as soon as it was available back in 2002, I think. I wanted input from an outside source, to see if I was missing anything important or necessary that I should have been doing, but might not have thought of. I was pretty sure that the student training and gear were better than average, but at the time, I was not a pilot, and wanted to make sure the aircraft and pilots were as safe as possible.

The inspection went well, I learned more of what to look for in pilots and aircraft, and in the end there was nothing that needed to be changed. JE Vannatta did the inspection and was thorough and professional, but then again I have always found him to be that way, so I did not expect anything less during his inspection.

Sorry for the long post, I just got tired of hearing this rumor over and over about the "one" DZ that was inspected and failed, when it was my DZ and I know the truth.

Regards,
Jim Crouch

[chriswelker 0]

My drop zone, West Point Skydiving Adventures, was the only DZ to participate in the inspection program as soon as it was available back in 2002, I think.***


I think you work for USPA, don't you?

[chriswelker 0]

I have posted many times on the conflict of interest between the GM program and USPA Individual Membership program. I found on the USPA web site the meeting minutes from Winter 2001 BOD meeting:

E. Group Member Committee

Chair Jess Rodriguez
Members: Gary Cooper
Larry Hill
Marty Jones
Gary Peek
Gene Paul Thacker
Advisors: Ed Scott (Staff Director), Tim Butcher & Sherry Butcher (S.O.A.)

8. The committee discussed USPA Instructional courses held at a NON GM Drop Zones. Group Membership DZs want that practice to stop. We heard this at the DZO conference and in our committee. The Group Members consider this a benefit for their participation Group Membership program. Our committee and the S.O.A. representatives believe the following motion addresses this issue as a compromise where the Group Membership program and the individual member will be best served. The motion is as follows.

Motion 33: Passed 15/4/1 (Mr. Rodriguez)
“Any non-Group Member Drop Zone desiring to hold a USPA course will pay to USPA a fee equivalent to the category 3 new Group Member fee for each course, not to affect any currently scheduled or already contracted courses.”


If as a regular dues paying member of the USPA think that this is cool or somehow o.k. and can prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this is then, I will never mention the issue again.Until then I am going to see this thing thru because wrong is wrong.