NickDG 23 #1 December 2, 2007 Old hands know well the problems, quirks, and in-house shenanigans the USPA has exhibited over the years, but no one worried much because overall the sport was holding steady and times were good. Now faced with increasing operating costs on both ends of the airplane, the graying of the experienced jumper population, and the practice of sucking the last dime from every student, we face the scary prospect of skydiving as we know it disappearing. It's already happening in other parts of the world. New Zealand once had a thriving sport parachuting community with dozens of DZs that looked and felt just like their U.S. counterparts. Now they are all but gone and replaced with thriving tandem mills. USPA's only saving grace is still the line we all bought into many years ago. And no matter what other "services" they offer like a magazine brimming with happy talk, the promotion of those must have trinkets and pins, and the chance your mug might appear in postage stamp sized photo getting an aforementioned trinket or pin, we tolerated it and all paid our annual monies for just one thing. They keep the FAA off our backs. But now I'm starting to wonder. Could it be the very thing we feared the most is the very thing that could save us? Yes, you are hearing me right. I'm saying let's drop the USPA and embrace the FAA. By continuing to have the USPA between us and the FAA we are insulated somewhat from their oversight, but we are also insulated from their protections. The FAA already does, and for a long time has, considered skydiving to be a recognized aeronautical activity. And that's the very reason we can jump at federally funded airports, the reason we can’t be discriminated against, and the reason Joe Schmo can have his dream shot of being a small time DZO. What I'm saying is we have parents to take care of us, but instead we choose to live with a crazy uncle. The USPA's main problem is they are toothless. Feckless, may be a better term. I won't go into all the issues, but they range from tolerating dodgy DZOs, completely destroying a well oiled and long running instructional hierarchy, and completely being unable to handle, except on a superficial level, aircraft safety issues. And what's even more maddening is when faced with concerns put forth by individual members, especially involving safety and bad practices the mantra of the USPA is, "make it go away." And you have no recourse with the USPA. No matter if you go after them, or they come after you, it's a jungle out there. And if they just choose to be unresponsive there's not a thing you can do about it. Sometimes I think USPA picked the DC area for Headquarters not so much to be near the seats of power, but to insulate themselves from year round warm weather jumpers. The FAA has everything we need in place. And we are already funding them with not just our taxes, but the taxes of every other citizen. Skydiving Instructors should be rated by the FAA just like flight instructors are. We should be CSIs! (Certified Skydiving Instructors.) And Skydiving Instructors and Demo Jumpers should also be classed as "Commercial Skydivers," because we do it for hire. I always felt funny telling someone, when they asked, that I was a professional skydiver. It was too much like bragging. And just like the FAA hires their aviation inspectors from the pool of FAA certified A&P mechanics & technicians, they will also hire experienced skydiving Instructors to oversee skydiving's CSIs. Have you ever went to a USPA Regional Director with a problem you see in student training, but get nowhere, because the only experience with skydiving students the RD has is he used to be one? Similarly what good does a seldom done ramp check of a DZ do us when the FAA inspector has limited, if any, knowledge of jump operations? I could sit for hours and tell you stories of how we've bamboozled these inspectors over the years. But consider for a moment if that FAA Inspector was someone the caliber of Chris (diverdriver) Schindler? I'm saying we already have the necessary pool of talent within ourselves. Among us experienced jumpers are jump pilots to conduct (FAA funded) parachute ops pilot courses and provide oversight, mechanics that can spot a doctored maintenance logbook and know an AD from an AAD, and experienced skydiving Instructors who can just smell faulty or negligent jump instruction a mile away. Give these guys a FAA badge and enforcement power and we'd be on our way to being what we should be, and that's responsible to each other. I can hear all your objections to this. We'd be trading in one old boy network for another, we'd be opening the books to scrutiny we can't stand up under, and the largest prostration, the fact we've been force fed the idea that FAA is a dirty word. But I argue, sure, it might be a rough go in the beginning, but we could certainly stand a good house cleaning, and eventually it may solve our biggest problem. And that is lack of jumper participation on the local grass roots level. We need people actually in the field who know what goes on to be able to interface with the FAA and get things done. The FAA has GADOs (General Aviation District Offices) placed all over the country so let's start banging on their doors. If you have any experience as a rigger or demo jumper you know that they will respond, they are pretty much mandated by law to listen and take action were warranted. What if Bill Von could walk into the local GATO and discuss what's bothering him this week with someone who actually understood what the hell he was talking about? Better yet, what if Bill Von was the local FAA guy you took your issues to? Let's look at airport access issues? Right now the USPA has limited means, both financial, and manpower wise to deal with them. So they pick a few "winnable" causes and do what they can. Instead, access issues could be brought forth at the local level and straight to the attention of individual GADOs and they would have to deal with them. Let the FAA spend their (our) money on us, let them use the lawyers and legal staff they already have. We'd wind up with access cases in motion many times over what the USPA can do and brought by people who know and understand the local concerns. Another argument against may be General Aviation and how they need AOPA to represent them. But the scope of issues affecting general aviation is gargantuan compared to skydiving operations. We have little problems that aren’t being addressed and they are the ones hurting us the most. How about this one? Why is it airports are federally funded? It's partly because the FAA is mandated to promote general aviation. And guess what? Skydiving is part of general aviation. So what we need is less USPA bloviating and more FAA mandating. Taking it further it can be argued that tandem mills are not promoting skydiving and therefore not promoting general aviation. So let's have a new FAR: FAR Part 105-Catch-22 No operator under this part may conduct business solely for the purpose of selling Tandem parachute rides without accommodating and facilitating experienced jumpers. Also under the "new world order" DZOs would be relegated to the status of any other FBO in general aviation. If they want an "outside" organ to represent them let them start one their own and stop using my "fitty" a year for representation, the representation I as an individual jumper isn’t getting anyway. Get into a beef with a major DZO over anything at all, and don’t look to the USPA for help, they'll just side with the DZO and hang you out to dry. One thing that's always scared the hell out of me all through my career as a skydiving instructor, and rigger, is losing a student, or customer, through a mistake or oversight on my part. And thank goodness, so far, it's never happened. But if anything does happen I don't want to have to explain my side to a FAA Inspector who doesn't know a crater from a tater. If the FAA is regulating skydiving they damn well should have people who know and understand skydiving investigating what happened. So WTF? - - - - What in the world is Jan Meyer's doing with a gag over her mouth!!! Let's give the girl a badge . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWFlyer 2 #2 December 2, 2007 Interesting idea and you've clearly given it some thought. What indications do you have that the FAA will spend the funds necessary to fully manage a sport that represents a teeny-tiny portion of the overall aviation infrastructure? Your proposal assumes that aspect of it - that the FAA will devote the resources necessary to have skydiving regulation and management as a specialized part of its overall infrastructure."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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grannyinthesky 0 #3 December 2, 2007 It also assumes that the government can effectively manage anything which is a might big assumption in my book."safety first... and What the hell..... safety second, Too!!! " ~~jmy POPS #10490 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NickDG 23 #4 December 2, 2007 Because the FAA, unlike the USPA, has a "duty" to be responsive to me as a user of the airspace they govern. And unlike a USPA RD, they are trapped down there at the GADO and if I camp out on their doorstep with a legitimate concern I know I'm going to get a hearing and probably some action. Think about it. The USPA can ignore you. The FAA cannot . . . And if they do I have options. I can’t get my Congressman to intervene on my behalf with the USPA. (Who are they?) But they'd jump all over the FAA in a heartbeat if I could convince them I had a valid concern. And if the FAA had experienced skydivers on staff at every GADO district with DZs within them, then all the better . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ninjaswooper 0 #5 December 2, 2007 Hmm, let's see, we don't like the service or regulation from an organization that is at the very least arguably self-chosen, so we're gonna go and ask the federal government to take charge? Yeah, cause that kind of thinking has done everyone so much good in the past. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kschilk 0 #6 December 2, 2007 I'm less opposed to government regulation than I once was. In general, most gov't agencies don't go snooping around, unless there's a complaint. Look at the general regulations and especially the crap you can get away with, under an "experimental" classification (like having a furniture caster, as a tailwheel). In general, I think the FAA would be less intrusive overall and more accomodating, toward the more leisurely jumpers. Whether that would be good or bad, I dunno'. I don't know the full history behind everything pertaining to the USPA but I doubt the sport's downturn is a direct result of their regulation or the FAA's....it's largely an econmics thing. I assume the USPA has a micro-management issue with the dzs, that only aggravates the situation. It's like a deja-vu thing.....the USPA is a mirror image of the AMA, when they killed-off "real" motocross...back in the early '80s. "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #7 December 2, 2007 Stir away Nick, stir away! Tee! Hee! Ironically - in Canada - Transport Canada is trying to get into the game of regulating skydiving instruction (NPA 99-148) and CSPA's Coaching Committee is advising Canadian skydivers to advise their Federal Members of Parliament to vote against the proposal. The problem actually dates back to a series of fatalities at a non-CSPA DZ during the 1990s. Since the non-CSPA DZO was not very good at public relations, he eventually found himself the subject of a CBC documentary entitled "Drop Zone of Death." I tried working for the guy, but quit after a month, without even the courtesy of saying goodbye! Meanwhile, some well-meaning CSPA members tied pressuring their members of parliament to implement FEDERAL standards for skydiving instruction. This move back-fired when Transport Canada decided that TC should set standards. The bottom line is: American skydivers would be better off pressuring their USPA Regional Directors to lean on non-complying DZOs than to invite the fed's in, because they probably will enjoy FAA intervention even less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NickDG 23 #8 December 2, 2007 Grannyinthesky & Ninjaswooper, Yes, I know this sounds funny; it's funny to me too, being I'm an old hippie and the king of anti-establishment principles. But as I've gotten older I've naturally become more conservative (not in my politics) but in looking for ways to make the system work for me and those I care about. Isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing? All I'm saying is en-mass and on the local level the FAA would be more responsive to our concerns than the USPA is simply because the FAA has the power. Why are we messing around with the Munchkins, when we can go straight to the Wizard? The two main points of my argument are: Get the FAA to badge experienced professional jumpers and jump pilots to oversee FAR part 105, and also to remind them, and insist, the FAA has a duty to promote and facilitate skydiving. NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tombuch 0 #9 December 2, 2007 Interesting idea. My first concern is that the FAA will not fund the program, or hire new staff. Rather, they would simply load any additional skydiving regulation onto the backs of already overworked, and well intentioned but clueless inspectors. They have the mandate to regulate us at a relatively low level now, but don’t bother unless they get a complaint. I don’t think that will change in this day of federal budget compressions. Is the FAA the big bad boogie man? Nope. But they haven’t done much to manage skydiving aircraft, pilot, or equipment risk in the field, and I don’t see them stepping up to the plate on behalf of that part of the general public that participates in skydiving. Of course if folks are concerned about their local operation they can look up the FAA Flight Standards District Office in their phone book and ask for an inspection to address a specific or perceived danger. Or just click here: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/ to find your local FSDO. But we don’t want to do that as individuals, and we lack the organizing skill to do it as a group. I think the solution is already available for those who want to risk being perceived of as tattletales, but absent that initiative, nothing will happen. Or, perhaps the FAA is already reading this thread, and the other threads on this site, and is beginning to understand that many veterans of the industry are identifying a problem and seeking assistance through aggressive but informed oversight.Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,640 #10 December 2, 2007 QuoteWhy are we messing around with the Munchkins, when we can go straight to the Wizard? :)] As I recall, it was the Wizard that told people to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NickDG 23 #11 December 2, 2007 >>Stir away Nick, stir away! Tee! Hee!Rob, since we know each other, I'll take a liberty here. You're familiar with what happened to Rigger Mike B. over the Reflex James Martin went in on. Mike had his life turned upside down over a grommet any of us would have passed (at the time) but he was caught in that gear vacuum between old and new (fat lines vs. new super thin lines) that comes along from time to time. After that every rigger was tamping down grommets they never looked at twice before. All I'm saying is if the FAA inspector who wrote Mike's report was an experienced rigger and jumper the outcome would have been more education on the problem of the gear "vacuum" rather than simply hanging a good and well meaning rigger out to dry. The FAA is reactive rather than pro-active simply because they are mandated to regulate an area of GA they don’t fully understand. BTW, Rob, I'd think you'd be an excellent FAA Rigger-Inspector . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #12 December 2, 2007 The FAA doesn't even care about GA, except when it comes to airport and fuel taxes and fees, so they can give the commercial carriers a discount. Why would they give 2 shits about us? The FAA mandate may be to promote aviation, but now all they care about is commercial carriers, except when it comes to paying for things for them. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NickDG 23 #13 December 2, 2007 I can't believe I'm doing this . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #14 December 2, 2007 Quote I can't believe I'm doing this . . . NickD ...que the Four Horsemen, fade to black...that's a wrap! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #15 December 2, 2007 I see your name soon to be added to the blacklist up @ HQ, you trouble making left coast hippy, you need to lay off the bong hits, got your mind all warped and spreading all these lies and half truths about the great and almighty OZ..........Ok, no but really you did nail the facts about our useless USPA. You are correct about getting hung out to dry if you rock the boat, nothing better then getting butt fucked by Glen Bangs and his pals. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NickDG 23 #16 December 3, 2007 USPA does actually have a shit list. Ottley showed it to me once when I visited Headquarters. There are certain people that call USPA regularly with complaints and grips and because they go through so may "phone picker uppers" they prepared a list of stock answers ahead of time. Roger Nelson – We're working on it. Carl Boenish – No, never, not in a million years. Ted Mayfield – Hang up now! D.B. Cooper – Sir, we refer all such inquiries to the FBI (USPA gets tons of calls from D.B. Coopers). Jacques Istel – Yes, that's a terrific idea, but it's not the 1960s anymore. Jerry Bird – Well, no, it’s not the fault of PARACHUTIST that people aren’t jumping your front mounted Velcro container. It's because no one is jumping conventional gear anymore. Ben Conatser – No. We don’t see wind tunnels as being a threat to skydiving overall. And we don’t foresee any competition in your area. Why don’t you spend 3 million on one and see. Oh sorry, there goes one in Hollywood! NickD – No, skydiving instructors can’t form a union or do anything else to better their lot because you're all trailer trash anyway. NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grannyinthesky 0 #17 December 3, 2007 Still basically a hippie and I still doubt the government"s ability to do anything efficiently and compently."safety first... and What the hell..... safety second, Too!!! " ~~jmy POPS #10490 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NickDG 23 #18 December 3, 2007 I bow to your wisdom, Granny! But write me again in 20, er, I mean 40 years, when you're my age (in sport) and let me know how you see USPA. NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grannyinthesky 0 #19 December 3, 2007 I doubt there is much wisdom involved. It's probably just the stubborn streak I seem to have inherited from my grandma. Oh yeah, from the impression I'm getting from my reading here, there are some serious problems in that arena too, I guess my question would be "Which would be the easier organization to overhaul?""safety first... and What the hell..... safety second, Too!!! " ~~jmy POPS #10490 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites johndh1 0 #20 December 3, 2007 Quote ...nothing better then getting butt fucked by Glen Bangs and his pals. I'll have you know, it is my understanding, Sir, that there are TWO "n's" in his first name...SnapRoll Tide Roll Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NickDG 23 #21 December 3, 2007 You nailed it, Granny (I love you now) . . . The USPA is a purely made up organization started by a jumper named Joe Crane back in the dark ages as, help me out here guys, the Parachute Jumpers and Rigger Association? Then it became the Parachute Club of America (PCA) with Norm Heaton at the helm and headquartered in an old whore house on Canary Row in San Francisco. (The heydays). Norm said he kept each member's info on an index card in an old shoe box. Then they moved to DC and called themselves the United States Parachute Association with a succession of Executive Directors like Laura McKenzie and others up through Jerry Rouillard, Bill Ottley, and the Chris Needles (we always used his gang name, Noodles) and now this new guy whose name I haven't learned yet. I know this all sound crazy to you now, but I'm a futurist. I'm counting on an internet-argeologist digging up this post a thousand years from now and going, "Damn, Nick was right!" And to more answer your question, the FAA would be easier to fix, because they, are a real thing, and they work for us. I'm not really sure, even after all these years what the USPA is doing, let alone knowing how to fix it . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MakeItHappen 15 #22 December 3, 2007 Quote You nailed it, Granny (I love you now) . . . The USPA is a purely made up organization started by a jumper named Joe Crane back in the dark ages as, help me out here guys, the Parachute Jumpers and Rigger Association? Then it became the Parachute Club of America (PCA) with Norm Heaton at the helm and headquartered in an old whore house on Canary Row in San Francisco. (The heydays). Joe Crane Quote Norm said he kept each member's info on an index card in an old shoe box. Then they moved to DC and called themselves the United States Parachute Association with a succession of Executive Directors like Laura McKenzie and others up through Jerry Rouillard, Bill Ottley, and the Chris Needles (we always used his gang name, Noodles) and now this new guy whose name I haven't learned yet. The NG is Ed Scott and his first day on the job as Executive Director is tomorrow, 12/3/07. Quote I know this all sound crazy to you now, but I'm a futurist. I'm counting on an internet-argeologist digging up this post a thousand years from now and going, "Damn, Nick was right!" And to more answer your question, the FAA would be easier to fix, because they, are a real thing, and they work for us. I'm not really sure, even after all these years what the USPA is doing, let alone knowing how to fix it . . . NickD and I hope they find this some day in the future. after the posts on the TX fatality I see this to be 'almost' true today. We don't have to wait another 40 years. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,421 #23 December 3, 2007 >I'm not really sure, even after all these years what the USPA is doing . . . I do (at least about the stuff I worry about) and it's not hard to find out; just go to a meeting and ask. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NickDG 23 #24 December 3, 2007 You've always been sharper than me, Bill. And I know you are so much smarter than they are. But what I really can't understand is why, after all these years, you are still carrying their water . . . ? NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #25 December 3, 2007 QuoteUSPA does actually have a shit list. Yea I know my name is on it and my ass is still sore, I didn't even get a reach around or kiss on the cheek.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
NWFlyer 2 #2 December 2, 2007 Interesting idea and you've clearly given it some thought. What indications do you have that the FAA will spend the funds necessary to fully manage a sport that represents a teeny-tiny portion of the overall aviation infrastructure? Your proposal assumes that aspect of it - that the FAA will devote the resources necessary to have skydiving regulation and management as a specialized part of its overall infrastructure."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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grannyinthesky 0 #3 December 2, 2007 It also assumes that the government can effectively manage anything which is a might big assumption in my book."safety first... and What the hell..... safety second, Too!!! " ~~jmy POPS #10490 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #4 December 2, 2007 Because the FAA, unlike the USPA, has a "duty" to be responsive to me as a user of the airspace they govern. And unlike a USPA RD, they are trapped down there at the GADO and if I camp out on their doorstep with a legitimate concern I know I'm going to get a hearing and probably some action. Think about it. The USPA can ignore you. The FAA cannot . . . And if they do I have options. I can’t get my Congressman to intervene on my behalf with the USPA. (Who are they?) But they'd jump all over the FAA in a heartbeat if I could convince them I had a valid concern. And if the FAA had experienced skydivers on staff at every GADO district with DZs within them, then all the better . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ninjaswooper 0 #5 December 2, 2007 Hmm, let's see, we don't like the service or regulation from an organization that is at the very least arguably self-chosen, so we're gonna go and ask the federal government to take charge? Yeah, cause that kind of thinking has done everyone so much good in the past. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #6 December 2, 2007 I'm less opposed to government regulation than I once was. In general, most gov't agencies don't go snooping around, unless there's a complaint. Look at the general regulations and especially the crap you can get away with, under an "experimental" classification (like having a furniture caster, as a tailwheel). In general, I think the FAA would be less intrusive overall and more accomodating, toward the more leisurely jumpers. Whether that would be good or bad, I dunno'. I don't know the full history behind everything pertaining to the USPA but I doubt the sport's downturn is a direct result of their regulation or the FAA's....it's largely an econmics thing. I assume the USPA has a micro-management issue with the dzs, that only aggravates the situation. It's like a deja-vu thing.....the USPA is a mirror image of the AMA, when they killed-off "real" motocross...back in the early '80s. "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #7 December 2, 2007 Stir away Nick, stir away! Tee! Hee! Ironically - in Canada - Transport Canada is trying to get into the game of regulating skydiving instruction (NPA 99-148) and CSPA's Coaching Committee is advising Canadian skydivers to advise their Federal Members of Parliament to vote against the proposal. The problem actually dates back to a series of fatalities at a non-CSPA DZ during the 1990s. Since the non-CSPA DZO was not very good at public relations, he eventually found himself the subject of a CBC documentary entitled "Drop Zone of Death." I tried working for the guy, but quit after a month, without even the courtesy of saying goodbye! Meanwhile, some well-meaning CSPA members tied pressuring their members of parliament to implement FEDERAL standards for skydiving instruction. This move back-fired when Transport Canada decided that TC should set standards. The bottom line is: American skydivers would be better off pressuring their USPA Regional Directors to lean on non-complying DZOs than to invite the fed's in, because they probably will enjoy FAA intervention even less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #8 December 2, 2007 Grannyinthesky & Ninjaswooper, Yes, I know this sounds funny; it's funny to me too, being I'm an old hippie and the king of anti-establishment principles. But as I've gotten older I've naturally become more conservative (not in my politics) but in looking for ways to make the system work for me and those I care about. Isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing? All I'm saying is en-mass and on the local level the FAA would be more responsive to our concerns than the USPA is simply because the FAA has the power. Why are we messing around with the Munchkins, when we can go straight to the Wizard? The two main points of my argument are: Get the FAA to badge experienced professional jumpers and jump pilots to oversee FAR part 105, and also to remind them, and insist, the FAA has a duty to promote and facilitate skydiving. NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #9 December 2, 2007 Interesting idea. My first concern is that the FAA will not fund the program, or hire new staff. Rather, they would simply load any additional skydiving regulation onto the backs of already overworked, and well intentioned but clueless inspectors. They have the mandate to regulate us at a relatively low level now, but don’t bother unless they get a complaint. I don’t think that will change in this day of federal budget compressions. Is the FAA the big bad boogie man? Nope. But they haven’t done much to manage skydiving aircraft, pilot, or equipment risk in the field, and I don’t see them stepping up to the plate on behalf of that part of the general public that participates in skydiving. Of course if folks are concerned about their local operation they can look up the FAA Flight Standards District Office in their phone book and ask for an inspection to address a specific or perceived danger. Or just click here: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/ to find your local FSDO. But we don’t want to do that as individuals, and we lack the organizing skill to do it as a group. I think the solution is already available for those who want to risk being perceived of as tattletales, but absent that initiative, nothing will happen. Or, perhaps the FAA is already reading this thread, and the other threads on this site, and is beginning to understand that many veterans of the industry are identifying a problem and seeking assistance through aggressive but informed oversight.Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,640 #10 December 2, 2007 QuoteWhy are we messing around with the Munchkins, when we can go straight to the Wizard? :)] As I recall, it was the Wizard that told people to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #11 December 2, 2007 >>Stir away Nick, stir away! Tee! Hee!Rob, since we know each other, I'll take a liberty here. You're familiar with what happened to Rigger Mike B. over the Reflex James Martin went in on. Mike had his life turned upside down over a grommet any of us would have passed (at the time) but he was caught in that gear vacuum between old and new (fat lines vs. new super thin lines) that comes along from time to time. After that every rigger was tamping down grommets they never looked at twice before. All I'm saying is if the FAA inspector who wrote Mike's report was an experienced rigger and jumper the outcome would have been more education on the problem of the gear "vacuum" rather than simply hanging a good and well meaning rigger out to dry. The FAA is reactive rather than pro-active simply because they are mandated to regulate an area of GA they don’t fully understand. BTW, Rob, I'd think you'd be an excellent FAA Rigger-Inspector . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #12 December 2, 2007 The FAA doesn't even care about GA, except when it comes to airport and fuel taxes and fees, so they can give the commercial carriers a discount. Why would they give 2 shits about us? The FAA mandate may be to promote aviation, but now all they care about is commercial carriers, except when it comes to paying for things for them. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #13 December 2, 2007 I can't believe I'm doing this . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #14 December 2, 2007 Quote I can't believe I'm doing this . . . NickD ...que the Four Horsemen, fade to black...that's a wrap! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #15 December 2, 2007 I see your name soon to be added to the blacklist up @ HQ, you trouble making left coast hippy, you need to lay off the bong hits, got your mind all warped and spreading all these lies and half truths about the great and almighty OZ..........Ok, no but really you did nail the facts about our useless USPA. You are correct about getting hung out to dry if you rock the boat, nothing better then getting butt fucked by Glen Bangs and his pals. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #16 December 3, 2007 USPA does actually have a shit list. Ottley showed it to me once when I visited Headquarters. There are certain people that call USPA regularly with complaints and grips and because they go through so may "phone picker uppers" they prepared a list of stock answers ahead of time. Roger Nelson – We're working on it. Carl Boenish – No, never, not in a million years. Ted Mayfield – Hang up now! D.B. Cooper – Sir, we refer all such inquiries to the FBI (USPA gets tons of calls from D.B. Coopers). Jacques Istel – Yes, that's a terrific idea, but it's not the 1960s anymore. Jerry Bird – Well, no, it’s not the fault of PARACHUTIST that people aren’t jumping your front mounted Velcro container. It's because no one is jumping conventional gear anymore. Ben Conatser – No. We don’t see wind tunnels as being a threat to skydiving overall. And we don’t foresee any competition in your area. Why don’t you spend 3 million on one and see. Oh sorry, there goes one in Hollywood! NickD – No, skydiving instructors can’t form a union or do anything else to better their lot because you're all trailer trash anyway. NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grannyinthesky 0 #17 December 3, 2007 Still basically a hippie and I still doubt the government"s ability to do anything efficiently and compently."safety first... and What the hell..... safety second, Too!!! " ~~jmy POPS #10490 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #18 December 3, 2007 I bow to your wisdom, Granny! But write me again in 20, er, I mean 40 years, when you're my age (in sport) and let me know how you see USPA. NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grannyinthesky 0 #19 December 3, 2007 I doubt there is much wisdom involved. It's probably just the stubborn streak I seem to have inherited from my grandma. Oh yeah, from the impression I'm getting from my reading here, there are some serious problems in that arena too, I guess my question would be "Which would be the easier organization to overhaul?""safety first... and What the hell..... safety second, Too!!! " ~~jmy POPS #10490 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johndh1 0 #20 December 3, 2007 Quote ...nothing better then getting butt fucked by Glen Bangs and his pals. I'll have you know, it is my understanding, Sir, that there are TWO "n's" in his first name...SnapRoll Tide Roll Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #21 December 3, 2007 You nailed it, Granny (I love you now) . . . The USPA is a purely made up organization started by a jumper named Joe Crane back in the dark ages as, help me out here guys, the Parachute Jumpers and Rigger Association? Then it became the Parachute Club of America (PCA) with Norm Heaton at the helm and headquartered in an old whore house on Canary Row in San Francisco. (The heydays). Norm said he kept each member's info on an index card in an old shoe box. Then they moved to DC and called themselves the United States Parachute Association with a succession of Executive Directors like Laura McKenzie and others up through Jerry Rouillard, Bill Ottley, and the Chris Needles (we always used his gang name, Noodles) and now this new guy whose name I haven't learned yet. I know this all sound crazy to you now, but I'm a futurist. I'm counting on an internet-argeologist digging up this post a thousand years from now and going, "Damn, Nick was right!" And to more answer your question, the FAA would be easier to fix, because they, are a real thing, and they work for us. I'm not really sure, even after all these years what the USPA is doing, let alone knowing how to fix it . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #22 December 3, 2007 Quote You nailed it, Granny (I love you now) . . . The USPA is a purely made up organization started by a jumper named Joe Crane back in the dark ages as, help me out here guys, the Parachute Jumpers and Rigger Association? Then it became the Parachute Club of America (PCA) with Norm Heaton at the helm and headquartered in an old whore house on Canary Row in San Francisco. (The heydays). Joe Crane Quote Norm said he kept each member's info on an index card in an old shoe box. Then they moved to DC and called themselves the United States Parachute Association with a succession of Executive Directors like Laura McKenzie and others up through Jerry Rouillard, Bill Ottley, and the Chris Needles (we always used his gang name, Noodles) and now this new guy whose name I haven't learned yet. The NG is Ed Scott and his first day on the job as Executive Director is tomorrow, 12/3/07. Quote I know this all sound crazy to you now, but I'm a futurist. I'm counting on an internet-argeologist digging up this post a thousand years from now and going, "Damn, Nick was right!" And to more answer your question, the FAA would be easier to fix, because they, are a real thing, and they work for us. I'm not really sure, even after all these years what the USPA is doing, let alone knowing how to fix it . . . NickD and I hope they find this some day in the future. after the posts on the TX fatality I see this to be 'almost' true today. We don't have to wait another 40 years. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,421 #23 December 3, 2007 >I'm not really sure, even after all these years what the USPA is doing . . . I do (at least about the stuff I worry about) and it's not hard to find out; just go to a meeting and ask. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #24 December 3, 2007 You've always been sharper than me, Bill. And I know you are so much smarter than they are. But what I really can't understand is why, after all these years, you are still carrying their water . . . ? NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #25 December 3, 2007 QuoteUSPA does actually have a shit list. Yea I know my name is on it and my ass is still sore, I didn't even get a reach around or kiss on the cheek.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
