I'm tired of hearing complaints about USPA

[Auryn 0]

I know very well that I'm opening myself up to flames by posting this, but bring it on!

I started skydiving in 1998. I've had several long layoffs because of serious back problems (I had the entire T sections of my spine fused) but have been very involved in the sport for the last 4 years, both jumping and working in.

So, I see a lot of people bitch about the USPA and bitch about the cost of jumps.

I'm an economist by trade (degree from UNC Chapel Hill) and here's what I see.

since 1998, when jump tickets were 18 dollars, I've seen jump tickets go to 22 dollars. This increase is still LESS than average inflation (3% a year), despite MASSIVE increases in gas prices. (in 2000 I could get a gallon of gas in NC for 79 cents). Also in 1998 a 20 ounce Coke was 89 cents, now it's 1.29. The price of USPA membership has increased by a MUCH SMALLER factor. And yet, I still see people bitch and moan, not seeing the forest from the trees.

Here's what we really get from the USPA:

We get a shitty self promoting magazine (minimum value 30 dollars per year, in comparison to other limited market magazines)

However, here's what our membership REALLY gets us, magazine be damned.

We get legal representation that allows us to be the "pedestrians of the sky" and have the legal right-of-way of such. I've personally been involved in turning in several tail numbers of space violating aircraft, and they do get reprecussions.

We also get the liability insurance that protects us from lawsuits such as when a cutaway bag lock goes through some driver's windshield. Or when a lost altimeter goes through someone's roof. Or when we have a double mal and go in through someone's roof, 2nd floor, 1st floor, and end up splattered in their basement.

These services are priceless for those of us that have something to lose. So, I'll keep on paying my $4.17 per month liability insurance (Excluding all other service of the USPA).

BTW, I think the reason that you don't hear more about this line of reasoning is that most skydivers that have something to lose simply don't have the time to post it. Since I'm on holiday break, I do.

Flame On

[NWFlyer 2]

I'm not sick of hearing people bitch about the USPA.

I AM sick of hearing people bitch about the USPA who...

1) Haven't done their homework and make assumptions about the way things work without either a) observing or b) researching.
2) Don't vote in USPA elections but will bitch about how the elected representatives don't represent the membership.
3) Have lots to say about how poorly they are represented yet have no willingness to run themselves.
4) Haven't ever tried to contact one or many USPA board members with their concern(s).
5) Haven't bothered to attend a meeting.
6) Form their opinions of USPA based on what someone else tells them they should think.
7) Have decided "Nothing will ever change" so they don't even bother trying and will tell anyone who wants to try that it's not worth it.

There's room for improvement. But change definitely isn't going to happen without having the membership take an active role in affecting that change. I'm willing to take a shot at it...

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Auryn 0]

Quote

I'm not sick of hearing people bitch about the USPA.

I AM sick of hearing people bitch about the USPA who...

1) Haven't done their homework and make assumptions about the way things work without either a) observing or b) researching.
2) Don't vote in USPA elections but will bitch about how the elected representatives don't represent the membership.
3) Have lots to say about how poorly they are represented yet have no willingness to run themselves.
4) Haven't ever tried to contact one or many USPA board members with their concern(s).
5) Haven't bothered to attend a meeting.
6) Form their opinions of USPA based on what someone else tells them they should think.
7) Have decided "Nothing will ever change" so they don't even bother trying and will tell anyone who wants to try that it's not worth it.

There's room for improvement. But change definitely isn't going to happen without having the membership take an active role in affecting that
change. I'm willing to take a shot at it...

The keyword in your post is the word "active." There are a lot of people who's living depends on the health of the skydivng industry. Yet, they're silent. If my professional living depended on the health of the industry, I'd be right on the front line promoting it.


So, let me be such. I plan on working in the industry next year and I want it to be healthy, exciting and fun.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I don't remember seeing anyone complain about cost. Most are complaining about how things are being run and decisions that are being made.

Quote

I've personally been involved in turning in several tail numbers of space violating aircraft, and they do get reprecussions.

If you are speaking about airspace over your DZ there is nothing that keeps anyone from flying over your DZ.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

We get legal representation that allows us to be the "pedestrians of the sky" and have the legal right-of-way of such.

Can you point to that FAR?

Dave

[Auryn 0]

[/email]

Quote

I don't remember seeing anyone complain about cost. Most are complaining about how things are being run and decisions that are being made.

Quote

I've personally been involved in turning in several tail numbers of space violating aircraft, and they do get reprecussions.

If you are speaking about airspace over your DZ there is nothing that keeps anyone from flying over your DZ.

What more does anyone expect USPA to do? We have liability insurance, a voice to government that allows us "self-regulation". How much more does anyone want? I've NEVER been prevented from climbing onto a plane with the intent of jumping out of it. As far as I'm concerned, that means the USPA is doing its job. Not only that, but they've put procedures into place that during the course of over 400 jumps I've only had to divert a load ONCE because of aircraft traffic.

If the concern isn't one of cost, then what concern do we have?

I've already admitted that the magazine sucks. What's left that they can provide, outside our ability to participate in our sport in the first place? Nice chocolates on our seats?

And pilots that violate opening airspace despite repeated warnings, [NOTAMS] can have repercussions.

attached is an example of a part 91 lawsuit.

Dammit, I don't know how to make an attachment such as this.

If you research part 91 lawsuits you'll quickly find that part 91 operations do have rights.

[Auryn 0]

Quote

Quote

We get legal representation that allows us to be the "pedestrians of the sky" and have the legal right-of-way of such.

Can you point to that FAR?

Dave

I think that getting an FAR that specifically mentions us would be cost prohibitive. Think in lines of the cost of a TSO cerification.

we still benefit however, it's just what should be considered a general rule.

If everyone needs an official designation as a pedestrian in the sky, then let them pay the fees associated with such, just like traffic laws.

I'd still pay it, whether it be 10 times the current rate or not.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

A NOTAM in no wat restricts airspace.

[billvon 2,394]

>There are a lot of people who's living depends on the health of
> the skydivng industry. Yet, they're silent.

A lot of them are not silent. Take Larry Hill. He's on the board, goes to the meeting, contributes a lot etc. And for his trouble he gets labeled as one of the bad guys, one of the evil DZO's who's twisting USPA to his own ends.

It's no surprise that USPA often better represents the DZO's than the members. To put it another way, USPA represents the people who show up at meetings, who write letters, and who call their representatives. And the DZO's show up a lot more often than your typical member does.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I would agree with that.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

..USPA represents the people who show up at meetings, who write letters, and who call their representatives...

Worth repeating. Bill and Krisanne are sending a message...anybody get it?

I will say though, that it does get discouraging when you DO make you feelings known to USPA, that you get a very nicely worded blow-off in reply.

I believe Krisanne will be more responsive than some, if not most, sitting officers.

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

[billvon 2,394]

>I will say though, that it does get discouraging when you DO make you
>feelings known to USPA, that you get a very nicely worded blow-off in reply.

I've gotten that too. You have to persist - make it clear that you're going to be in their faces until you get your proposal considered, and that a blow-off letter won't make you go away.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

>I will say though, that it does get discouraging when you DO make you
>feelings known to USPA, that you get a very nicely worded blow-off in reply.

I've gotten that too. You have to persist - make it clear that you're going to be in their faces until you get your proposal considered, and that a blow-off letter won't make you go away.

In that case, I nominate Mark Shimell to hound them...

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[velvetjo 0]

Quote

I think that getting an FAR that specifically mentions us would be cost prohibitive. Think in lines of the cost of a TSO cerification.

we still benefit however, it's just what should be considered a general rule.

If everyone needs an official designation as a pedestrian in the sky, then let them pay the fees associated with such, just like traffic laws.

I'd still pay it, whether it be 10 times the current rate or not.

You might be thinking of AOPA. They're much more active on this type of airspace access issue. If that's what's important to you, I strongly recommend joining AOPA.

Aside from a few operating agreements between ATC authorities and/or FSDO's which aren't well publicized to GA pilots, I have yet to see an arrangement that even tries to force the GA population to avoid areas with skydiving operations. Take a look at an IFR chart or GPS database sometime - no skydive warnings on either, just on the sectional charts. This doesn't seem to be a high priority with the FAA.

Back to the question asked above: what kind of airspace violations are you talking about? If you're reporting tail numbers to the FAA because someone simply overflew your DZ during jump operations in Class E airspace, that's not likely to mean much to them. It is likely to breed animosity with our GA brethren (the same folks who are the core of AOPA's membership - see above).

USPA has both good and bad points, but they could do a lot better by partnering with organizations like AOPA, EAA, and others on the types of issues you mention. Right now you're probably better off worrying about GA user fees with no value added.

Lance

PS - From your profile: what exactly is a "tandem coach"?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

In that case, I nominate Mark Shimell to hound them...

OMFG...Villy Bance, you are .


But you are right in every sense of the nomination.

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

[Krip 2]

Quote

We also get the liability insurance that protects us from lawsuits such as when a cutaway bag lock goes through some driver's windshield. Or when a lost altimeter goes through someone's roof. Or when we have a double mal and go in through someone's roof, 2nd floor, 1st floor, and end up splattered in their basement.

These services are priceless for those of us that have something to lose. So, I'll keep on paying my $4.17 per month liability insurance (Excluding all other service of the USPA).

Anyone ever see a copy of the USPA liability insurance policy?

What are the exclusions? Does not cover damage done to other USPA members property?

Remember N.O. "Thats not storm damage it's flood damage to bad we can't pay"

One Jump Wonder

[zipplewrath 1]

Quote

It's no surprise that USPA often better represents the DZO's than the members. To put it another way, USPA represents the people who show up at meetings, who write letters, and who call their representatives. And the DZO's show up a lot more often than your typical member does

That can be restated however as "it is no surprise that DZO's show up a lot more than your typical member. It is structured to favor their attendance and participation."

USPA does not operate itself in a manner which encourages participation by the "typical member". The truth is the typical member is often "driven away" by the response they receive from USPA. USPA is structured, and operates, to be most responsive to those with the time and resources to participate at length.

[NickDG 23]

>>Does not cover damage done to other USPA members property?
That's because back in the day jumpers would land on each other's cars in order to score new paint jobs . . .

NickD

[Krip 2]

Quote

>>Does not cover damage done to other USPA members property?
That's because back in the day jumpers would land on each other's cars in order to score new paint jobs . . .

NickD

Hi Nick

Is this the exclusion for USPA member liability still valid ?

Did USPA ever raise the policy limits?, I'm guessing it used to be something like $20-$50K . Barely enough back in the day to pay for damage to some DZ property. Like a old cessna 180.

***USPA third-party liability insurance
Third-party liability insurance comes with membership. All USPA individual members, regular or temporary, have coverage for property damage and bodily injury liability insurance. The third-party liability insurance does not cover medical benefits to the member. This insurance is valid for skydives made in accordance with USPA's Basic Safety Requirements and the Federal Aviation Regulations. Most drop zones assure that jumpers have this type of insurance by requiring current USPA membership to jump there. All claims must be brought in the U.S. or Canada. To report a claim, call (866) 585-4590.

R.I.P.

[Airman1270 0]

Overall, I support USPA and appreciate its efforts on our behalf. I have been critical of the leadership's willingness to accept the knee-jerk premise that the proper response to any unfortunate incident is more regulation. The creation of the "coach" rating not only was a solution to a problem that did not exist, but has only caused new problems by making it impossible for an experienced jumper without the rating to make fun jumps with recent graduates.

Likewise, the creation of arbitrary currency standards has resulted in more expense and hassle for people who dared take a few months off. In addition, it would be nice to see an aggressive policy AGAINST mandatory AAD policies. These decisions have created a generation of jumpers who are afraid to jump without an AAD. who think they need formal retraining after a layoff, and who think that allowing me to jump with a new graduate with 20 jumps is an incident waiting to happen.

These compaints are legitimate and deserve to be taken seriously, rather than being dismissed as USPA bashing.

On another note, it is damn near impossible to attend USPA meetings. Why would we criticize anyone for failing to show up regardless of their complaints?

Cheers,
Jon S.

[billvon 2,394]

>it is no surprise that DZO's show up a lot more than your typical member.
>It is structured to favor their attendance and participation.

I flew to San Francisco and was heard at a full board meeting. Everyone else there, DZO's included, did exactly the same thing. You can do exactly the same thing.

Or people can sit at home and bitch on the internet. One will get you results, one won't. You decide which works and which doesn't.

> USPA does not operate itself in a manner which encourages participation
>by the "typical member". The truth is the typical member is often "driven
>away" by the response they receive from USPA.

I have talked to USPA a _lot_ and have never been driven away. I have sometimes been ignored, and they have sometimes refused to publish my articles and whatnot, but I have never been "driven away." Quite the opposite.

>USPA is structured, and
>operates, to be most responsive to those with the time and resources to
>participate at length.

That's certainly true. Those who participate a lot are heard a lot. Those who write a lot of letters, who call their RD's and talk to them when they have a problem, get heard. Those who don't care, and decide to spend their time at boogies and at DZ parties, get heard less. That's the way it should be, IMO.

One of the funniest aspects of this whole "USPA SUX" thing is that there has been a lot of talk about radically restructuring USPA, about creating a new organization etc. I have little doubt that were that to happen, and someone set up a forum somewhere to draft the outline of a new organization, seven people would show up. Those seven people would create a new organization - and 549 people would then bitch about what a lousy job they did on the internet.

You get out of it what you put into it. If you want to do the work and make changes, good for you. Go for it. If not, then that's fine too. But make the choice and then act on it.

[amyg 0]

billy, did you say you nominate Mark shimell to drown them?

sorry............ sick burn

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

billy, did you say you nominate Mark shimell to drown them?

sorry............ sick burn

I was being funny. But yeah, Mark would annoy the hell out of them.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[johndh1 0]

That was sick.

That's not what is in Billy's post. He obviously misread your post just now, Amy G.

Roll Tide Roll

[Amazon 7]

Quote

That can be restated however as "it is no surprise that DZO's show up a lot more than your typical member. It is structured to favor their attendance and participation."

Hey business write off for boondoggles are legal