Should the USPA allow "Tandem Only" DZs as Group Members?

[funjumper101 15]

The USPA's mission statement is

begin quoted text >>>

The United States Parachute Association and its 34,000 member skydivers enjoy and promote safe skydiving through parachuting training, rating, and competition programs. USPA represents parachute jumping from aircraft and helps keep skydivers in the air.

<<< end quoted text

This quote comes straight from the USPA home page.

In my opinion, allowing "tandem only" DZs to be group members violates the letter and spirit of the statement.

Specifically, this part - "The United States Parachute Association and its 34,000 member skydivers enjoy and promote safe skydiving through parachuting training, rating, and competition programs." and this part - "USPA represents parachute jumping from aircraft and helps keep skydivers in the air." In other words, the entire mission statement.

A Group Member DZ should be required to have an actual student training progam that produces safe and competent skydivers. A Group Member DZ should be required to permit experienced, licensed USPA members to skydive.

A "tandem only" DZ does neither. They are more like a carnival ride operator. I don't see any reason that an operation that doesn't train people and doesn't allow any experienced jumpers to jump there should be a Group Member DZ.

They are riding on the backs of the 34,000 members while doing nothing for the greater good of the sport. They are profiteers, pure and simple. They have no business being part of the USPA. They can run their operations any way they want, but they shouldn't be part of the USPA.

[WatchYourStep 0]

Wouldn't tandems fall under

"parachuting training"

They are taught to arch and other things, etc. I'm not arguing on one side or the other just asking for clarification.

"You start off your skydiving career with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience up before your bag of luck runs out."

[funjumper101 15]

If you voted "yes", please explain why.

[MarkM 0]

Quote

If you voted "yes", please explain why.

Because it increases the branding of the USPA. It allows them to state that member dropzones make up x% more of the sport and specifically with tandem only DZs they can state that they govern x% more of that aspect of the sport, which while may be just a "amusement ride", still pulls in significant numbers which can be used to sway FAA or government opinion.

I don't see tandem DZs hurting membership anymore than having tandems at your local DZ hurts it.

[edjackson 0]

no

[diablopilot 2]

So the instructors and videographers that jump their aren't "real" skydivers? They shouldn't be given the opportuity to jump at a GM DZ when they work?

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

[jpjc2000 0]

Skydiving business in general, has the worst business format in the world. How many other business owners add on a surcharge for credit cards...how many business owners have to compete with their suppliers for the same business...if we were smart, tandem factories would work with the funjumper dropzone with focus on keeping it fun and retaining future skydivers. As with any business, the focus should be recurititng-(tandem factories)-retaining-(fun DZ's)...If your not in a business to make a living, why are you in business?

[skyberdyber 0]

it's an interesting thought. I would have to hear more arguments before I would vote. My first instinct is to say that tandem only should not be allowed because you are discriminating against other USPA members. That would not be in the spirit of GM.

http://www.skydiveatlanta.com
http://www.musiccityskydiving.com

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

So the instructors and videographers that jump their aren't "real" skydivers? They shouldn't be given the opportuity to jump at a GM DZ when they work?

You missed the point completely.

Why should a tandem only DZ be allowed to be a USPA Group Member DZ when the general USPA membership is deliberately and specifically excluded? If the mission statement is accurate, this should never be allowed.

I have no problem with a GM DZ excluding jumpers on a case by case basis for specific reasons. In my opinion, a USPA GM DZ should be required to allow any experienced, licensed USPA member to skydive there.

If a DZO doesn't want experienced, licensed USPA members (except staff) to jump there, they can choose to NOT be a GM DZ.

The fact that the USPA currently allows this practice is wrong, in my opinion. These DZs are riding on the backs of the greater USPA membership, while providing us with no benefits whatsoever. That is completely against the letter and spirit of the USPA mission statement.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

If you voted "yes", please explain why.

Because it increases the branding of the USPA. It allows them to state that member dropzones make up x% more of the sport and specifically with tandem only DZs they can state that they govern x% more of that aspect of the sport, which while may be just a "amusement ride", still pulls in significant numbers which can be used to sway FAA or government opinion.

I don't see tandem DZs hurting membership anymore than having tandems at your local DZ hurts it.

Tandem only DZs are using the fact that they are GM DZs to promote their businesses, while providing the general membership no benefits at all. They get a fair bit of credibility in their negotiations with airport operators, land owners, etc, by being a GM DZ. They don't provide anything to the greater USPA membership in return.

I have no problem with tandem only DZs being in business. They just shouldn't be allowed to be USPA Group Member DZs.

Being a USPA GM DZ isn't required to have a successful operation. Mike Mullins and Bill Dause run successful DZs that aren't Group Members. I am sure there are others that I don't know about.

[mcashatt01 0]

Quote

If you voted "yes", please explain why.

For the simple reason that it increases membership numbers. I would suspect that there are many uspa members that have only participated in one or two tandem jumps. Those membership numbers are what give the uspa it's power.

I do understand however, why one would say they shouldn't be allowed membership. Especially from those who believe that tandem has hurt our sport. I myself have not been in the sport long enough to tell if it has or hasn't. But one thing is for sure, time will tell.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

I would suspect that there are many uspa members that have only participated in one or two tandem jumps.

I would not suspect that at all, though I have no way to verify that against USPA data. What incentive would that type of jumper have to join the USPA?

Quote

Those membership numbers are what give the uspa it's power.

No, the fact that the USPA is the only organization representing skydivers in the United States is what gives USPA its power (however limited that may be).

"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

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

I would suspect that there are many uspa members that have only participated in one or two tandem jumps.

Except the tandem masters that are also USPA members

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

Wouldn't tandems fall under

"parachuting training"

Prior to the modification of the exemption for tandems, yes. After that, no.

The training given tandem passengers are mostly for safety purposes, not for training in furtherance of getting a skydiving license.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[mcashatt01 0]

Quote

No, the fact that the USPA is the only organization representing skydivers in the United States is what gives USPA its power (however limited that may be).

i could very well be wrong about non sport jumpers obtaining memberships, but to say that the USPA's standing, of being the only organization representing skydivers, is what gives them there power is asinine. Do you honestly think that if our membership numbers where cut in half that there would be no consequence's. In politics money and numbers are all that count.

[lauraliscious 0]

Quote

Do you honestly think that if our membership numbers where cut in half that there would be no consequence's.

And do you honestly think that half of the USPA's membership is made up of people who have only one or two tandem jumps??? Or that disallowing tandem-only DZ's to USPA members would cut their numbers in half??

Enemiga Rodriguez, PMS #369, OrFun #25, Team Dirty Sanchez #116, Pelt Head #29, Muff #4091

[MarkM 0]

Quote

Tandem only DZs are using the fact that they are GM DZs to promote their businesses, while providing the general membership no benefits at all. They get a fair bit of credibility in their negotiations with airport operators, land owners, etc, by being a GM DZ. They don't provide anything to the greater USPA membership in return.

Tandem DZs also promote the sport. They can operate in areas not suitable or economically viable for fun jumpers. And frankly it's probablt easier for a tandem DZs to have a better relationship with the airport and surrounding region than a fun jumper DZ. They also have to deal with the same DZ issues that fun DZs do, so they need someone like the USPA.

I really don't see what the issue is. The lack of training and fun jumping isn't keeping the 99.99% of the tandem jumpers from becoming 200+ jump skydivers at normal DZs, so I fail to see how tandem-only DZs are hurting the sport.

[mcashatt01 0]

It may not cut the numbers in half but it would certainly hurt membership numbers to some degree. That however, was not my point. I wasn't trying to say that not allowing tandem only dz's would cut numbers in half. i was simply offering a question that would support my previous post referring to the correlation between membership numbers and the uspa's power, however limited it may be.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

i could very well be wrong about non sport jumpers obtaining memberships, but to say that the USPA's standing, of being the only organization representing skydivers, is what gives them there power is asinine. Do you honestly think that if our membership numbers where cut in half that there would be no consequence's. In politics money and numbers are all that count.

It's no more assinine than believing that a membership of 31,000 people across the country represents power. We're not even that large a group within the airport community, instead relying on FAA rules of equal access

I don't mind so much a place like Monterey Bay when it has Hollister just down the 101 and with 3 other DZs in the vicinity. Las Vegas, otoh, is a real bummer, as operations seem to come and go in Jean, and it's a long drive to Mesquite. So I've never tried to jump when visiting LV, other than the first tandem a decade ago.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Skydiving business in general, has the worst business format in the world. How many other business owners add on a surcharge for credit cards...

that habit exists for scores of low profit margin industries. 3% is 3% - 6$ lost per tandem.

[jpjc2000 0]

Then it needs to be built into the price...not as an after thought! It amazes me that scores of manufacturers and large DZ owners can afford what they do on a personal basis with such a small profit margin

I LIKE the idea they make a healthy profit, and prefer not doing business with the person who might be gone tommorow.

[kenneth21441 0]

I put a big NO on this response since the USPA is here to promote skydiving. In promotion you want more jumpers and members. A tandem only DZ would limit this to one to four jumps per a student if that. So there goes the drive to carry on with AFF, SL or what ever other options are to avail. Photography, free flying, etc...etc...

If the USPA is looking to boost membership then this is not a way to do it unless each person who does a tandem is now a USPA member. But this gets into the points is who will administer this sign up program and what does the DZ operations get from doing all the leg work.

As a way of winning a boost of promotion I feel that each and everyone of us do this every day in our daily lives: be it you are a doctor, engineer, teacher, or just work in a office. Our selves promote the sport and I know personally attempt to get someone to try it at least once as a way of boosting our sport.

So lets have every member raise this level up some more and booster this sport higher. I am still waiting for the sport to be in the olympics (spelling)... But dont see those fashest doing that other then let us jump in the openings... Where else can you get 2 or more people to perform moves in the air and make contact agina to earn points with all the other factors that must be taken into play. But they let some people on the ice with a broom and a big ball to move it..... What am I thinking,......????

Kenneth Potter
FAA Senior Parachute Rigger
Tactical Delivery Instructor (Jeddah, KSA)
FFL Gunsmith

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

So the instructors and videographers that jump their aren't "real" skydivers?

Well...the videographers are.


<>

[tdog 0]

The USPA was created before tandem.

I think tandem only DZs are OK.

In fact, the USPA RD should visit those DZs and ask to have info available about other non-tandem only DZs.

Most tandem only DZs are in tourist destinations.

Give those tourists something to do when they get home.

If not in a tourist only spot - set up partnerships with the nearest full service DZ and send all students wishing to complete AFF there. Partnerships don't have to mean $ changes hands, but students could.

Welcome all...

[Eule 0]

Quote

How many other business owners add on a surcharge for credit cards...

All business owners do this; they just don't tell you about it. Another way to phrase it is, "why do so many other business owners rip off their cash customers?" For quite a long time in the US, most Amoco gas stations offered about a $0.04/gallon discount (about 3-5% - this was with gas from $0.80-$1.20 a gallon) for cash. I think since they got bought by BP they quit doing this, but some other gas stations still do it.

To the larger question, in a perfect world, no, the USPA wouldn't allow tandem factories as GMs. In that world, there would also be a dropzone offering $5 to 15k lift tickets on a Twin Otter within 30 minutes of everybody's house, and everybody would have a pony. In the real world of "no fee if no recovery", I don't think it's a good idea. We already have a situation where (WARNING: big oversimplification here) the USPA didn't like the business practices of a particular dropzone, tried to revoke their GM status, and got sued for their trouble. Again, this is a vast oversimplification, but I think if the USPA tried to pull the GM status of lots of tandem factories, the lawyer food bill would kill them. I think it kind of sucks when decisions have to be driven in part by the cost of lawyer food, but that's the world we live in. Just my opinion.

Eule

PLF does not stand for Please Land on Face.

• Quote