What is the point of USPA?

[YISkyDive 0]

Im just curious- What is the actual point of the existence of USPA?

I see it as a double edged sword- but ignore my unsatisfied views with the organization, I am interested in listening why this actually exists.

Or, I guess why does USPA represent Jumpers AND dropzones?

AOPA does not represent pilot's AND the airports they fly at.

Finally, why is parachutist not optional? Its stupid to have 3 copies coming to the same house.

Just wondering.

[Samurai136 0]

What is the actual point of the existence of USPA?

USPA's goal is to "keep skydivers skydiving".

why does USPA represent Jumpers AND dropzones?

What is good for dropzones is good for skydivers. DZ's are the skydivers' access point to the sport.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[popsjumper 2]

I like the idea of having a layer of knowledgable people, working for all of us, between us and the government.
If not for them, we would all be scrambling individually for our skydiving privledges.

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

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Im just curious- What is the actual point of the existence of USPA?

I see it as a double edged sword- but ignore my unsatisfied views with the organization, I am interested in listening why this actually exists.

Or, I guess why does USPA represent Jumpers AND dropzones?

AOPA does not represent pilot's AND the airports they fly at.

Finally, why is parachutist not optional? Its stupid to have 3 copies coming to the same house.

Just wondering.

Your last question is one I can't completely answer. I'd suggest you contact your regional director and seek an optional subscription with a modest dues reduction. My hunch is that reducing circulation wouldn't significantly reduce the costs of producing the magazine, and the lower circulation would probably lower ad rates. So I'd guess it's a budgeting and balance issue that needs to be addressed by USPA.

So why does USPA exist? Well, first is to represent us before government. It's a critical function that has proven its value year after year. USPA also develops and maintains instructional programs that have allowed the sport to grow while reducing fatalities and injuries, a point that really matters to the federal government and local communities that host drop zones (as well as individual members). The organization also serves as the bridge to our group insurance program, a critical piece of institutional infrastructure that we need to maintain access to airports around the country. USPA also serves as the sanctioning body for national and international competition. Beyond all that, USPA serves as the clearing house for information about skydiving technical and social issues, and that too keeps us safer while bringing us together as a community.

I know there are some folks who don't like some of the USPA functions, or feel the organization could do a better job in some areas. Likewise, I know some folks think the various missions should be balanced differently. Keep in mind that USPA represents more than 32,000 very individual skydivers. I think they do a pretty good job of serving the interests of the membership as a whole.

As for your question about why USPA represents skydivers and DZO's, I think there is some overlap in needs, and USPA should represent the DZ's where jumper and business interests are the same, but my feeling is that the organization sometimes places the interest of drop zones above those of individual members, and certainly they place the interests of drop zones above the needs of students. We have the power to change that by electing directors who have no connection to the business side of the sport, but so far the majority of the membership has failed to exercise that option.

By the way, AOPA does represent both airports and pilots. Like USPA representing jumpers, the primary mission of AOPA is to represent pilots, but they understand that pilots need airports and FBO's, and they work to help those parts of the industry where the business interests do not conflict with the interests of pilots. In my opinion, AOPA does a better job of separating these user classes than USPA, but it's important to understand that airport owners have their own organization while drop zone owners do not. That's an economic issue probably driven by market size.
.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

What is good for dropzones is good for skydivers.

I don't think that is always true. It may not even be true most of the time. Often DZs set policy based on profit, and not safety. That is not good for skydivers. Granted, it doesn't always happen that way, but often it does.

For Great Deals on Gear

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

[I'd suggest you contact your regional director and seek an optional subscription with a modest dues reduction.

Done this so many times........

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[CSpenceFLY 1]

We went through this just a week or so ago.But as for your three magazines.Why don't you take two of them and give them away or take them to your dentist office or something.

USPA might not be the perfect organization,few rarely are,but recent skydiving news is littered with stories of airports trying to get rid of dropzones.While USPA may not have been able to help in every case,you can bet your ass there would be more of those stories if we didn't have an organization looking out for our interests.


.

[YISkyDive 0]

This has nothing to do with the airport case that I wrote in-


Im just seriously intrested in the point of this org. Thats all.

Im not 'mad' at them over what happened, but I am intrested in just thinkin more about what I support instead of just paying my yearly $$.

I know little to nothing about USPA- yet I dont like them. Thats not fair on my part. I stated some obvious concerns that I have as part of why my fairly uneducated opinion is negative and not positive.

[davelepka 4]

The USPA builds buildings. What else is there?

[PrairieDoug 0]

I see 3 primary benefits:

1. Representing the interests of jumpers and DZs in federal and state legislative or regulatory proceedings.

2. Reviewing, standardizing, and certifying skydiving instructional programs and instructors.

3. Parachutist... an outstanding publication.

IMO, USPA is a great value for the cost of a couple of jumps a year.

Doug

[billvon 2,400]

>AOPA does not represent pilot's AND the airports they fly at.

Actually, they do. Google " AOPA Airport Support Network" and "Airport Watch."

>Or, I guess why does USPA represent Jumpers AND dropzones?

Same reason AOPA supports airports. GA pilots can't fly without airports; skydivers can't jump without drop zones.

>What is the actual point of the existence of USPA?

I see a few reasons:

1. To have a common repository for information (the SIM and similar publications) that is readily accessible.

2. To have a system of instructor certification and syllabus maintenance to help standardize training throughout the US.

3. To represent the interests of skydivers to the US government. Lately AOPA has been doing more for us than the USPA has, but the USPA has done a lot in the past in terms of making demos legal and working with the FAA to get rule changes into the FAR's.

>Finally, why is parachutist not optional? Its stupid to have 3 copies
>coming to the same house.

I agree there.

[CygnusX-1 42]

Quote

Finally, why is parachutist not optional? Its stupid to have 3 copies coming to the same house.

I couldn't agree more. However, one reason might be that they can now tell potential advertisers that they have x number of subscribers - which would make them think that they have a larger number of potential viewers for their ad.

They might be getting in more money coming in from ads than they are wasting by sending out duplicate copies in the mail. Why else would you choose to waste money on printing and mailing?

[uponone 0]

Keep places to play at open. Organize fun, safe competitions. Be the "voice" for us to the government. Show wuffo's that we are a professional, organized group striving to achieve the same goal not a bunch of hooligans risking our lives and others for the sake of adrenalin. Lastly, they provide liability insurance for our f#@k ups which makes the annual fee more than worth it IMO.

[racer42 0]

Would you rather we be self regulating or have the FAA step in?

L.A.S.T. #24
Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team
Electric Toaster #3
Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor
Co-Founder Team Happy Sock

[YISkyDive 0]

Quote

Would you rather we be self regulating or have the FAA step in?

See, thats where I really like USPA. The BSR SIM and Iratings.

The FAA would never take the time to regulate us as USPA has and well, skydiving would have a diffrent face.

I still think the group membership creates a second hand internal conflict, but its a complicated argument to open. I personally don't like the ISP. The ISP is something that looks great on paper but its implimentation hurts our sport more than helps. I think the 'group membership' has an adverse affect on worrying about our members (if I am not mistaken (old AFF level3 what ever that is in the ISP now... have to become members) means that students are getting into this sport with such an overhead that many turn away.

I dont like being at the DZ when a student walks out because they can't jump due to not AFF holding them back but many parts of the ISP holding them back.

USPA, especially with some of the stuff I learned in this thread, does stuff. But USPA is comprised of DZMs / DZOs and people that are seeking profits. Im not saying thats bad, wrong or horrible, because people need to make livings, put food on the table, and lead a standard of living that is at least resonable to the amount of work they put into their places- but I dont see a union representing workers also representing the corperation.

DZs, DZOs, DZMs and all 'businesses' need representation- but is that fair to the student with 3 jumps that has no idea whats going on in skydiving to be represented by the same orginaztion that is representing the person swiping their credit card.

Now we come to an intresting fork in the road that I have no idea how to fix, or even adress. Lets say there would be an attempt to to split jumper and DZ represenation- Safetly and Training applies to the jumper and the DZ. We just cant deny DZOs / DZMs the right to believe they are training right or wrong, while we also cant deny jumpers to analyize the current S&T problems they might have with programs. Its a hard call- and clearly it demonstrates why its 'resonable' to represent both parties under the same roof. Beats me.

My main problem is this- if everything is about S&T, about the jumpers utmost well being and education, why in the 1.5 years that I have been in the sport jumping have I not seen an extensive canopy education manual from USPA. Its my theory, my honest belief that if we had a reading and a requirment for all 'to be' A, B, and C qualified skydivers we could drop the open canopy incidents by a resonable percent. We wont know till we try. If USPA makes a WLing BSR they will, in my opinion, take the easy way out. If I had more time, more money, and ultimetly, more experience, I would have already written this manual by myself, taken it to the industry had it examined edited and corrected for some sort of unity and had it done. Than Id sell it at exaclty the cost to me to print it. And make everyone read it, part by part, and take an exam that would be difficult to pass but for the good of the jumper.


I remember when I was first introduced to this sport.. the most run down place with a nice field you could imagine, but the hearts of the jumpers where so big and so great that one could over look not having expensive seating areas, high class gear stores, exciting resturants and so on. Though that is nice, too many DZs are forgetting what giving back to the sport is. I forget what giving back to the sport is sometimes too, its normal, its just I think having the dual membership platform drives that a little more sometimes.. aka the ISP in some regaurds.


Sorry this is sooo horribly written, I gotta run to class.

Dave.

[tkhayes 126]

I'll give you example of where USPA worked for us, (and you).

Years ago before you came into the sport, the gov't was trying to add an aviation tax to skydiving, aligning with a tax that airline passengers pay.

This would have added 10-15% on the cost of all jump tickets.

USPA successfully fought that as our (your) lobbyist in Washington and won that battle. That saved skydivers millions of dollars every year.

When they see problems arising in DC, they are there to be your voice. If you think skydiving could do that WITHOUT USPA, I expect that it would be futile.

Some will argue that they spend too much time on the DZO's, btu I agree that everything goes hand-in-hand. no DZO's, then no skydiving either. No skydivers, then DO's do not exist. We all work for many of the same common goals.

They are our industry organization, and if you have ever seen what is going on in Canada, you would appreciate the fact thateven with USPA as such a small organization, is pretty effective at getting our voice heard in DC. Canada is systematically dismantling skydiving due to the lack of an effective organization and too much bickering between skydivers and their respective DZ's, DZO's, clubs, CSPA, and the Govt.

nuf said
TK

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

I don't think that is always true. It may not even be true most of the time. Often DZs set policy based on profit, and not safety. That is not good for skydivers. Granted, it doesn't always happen that way, but often it does.

I disagree with the use of the word 'often'. I think 'seldom' is more appropriate. Most DZO's did not start DZ's because they had a financial goal in mind. They started because they like the sport and it is a passion.

Sure, we need to make profit, but that is not 'often' chosen over safety. The two go hand in hand. The old saying "If you think safety is expensive, then try having an accident...."

Skydivers, if they really think the DZ is 'unsafe' or is choosing profit over safety, is simply 'endorsing' that activity by jumping there. Let your feet do the walking and go somehwere else, thus removing the profit.

TK

[divnswoop 0]

Quote

I personally don't like the ISP. The ISP is something that looks great on paper but its implimentation hurts our sport more than helps.

How?

Quote

(old AFF level3 what ever that is in the ISP now... have to become members) means that students are getting into this sport with such an overhead that many turn away.

I thought flying lessons were too expensive too. I worked some things out and got it done.

Quote

I dont like being at the DZ when a student walks out because they can't jump due to not AFF holding them back but many parts of the ISP holding them back.

How is the ISP holding them back?

Quote

My main problem is this- if everything is about S&T, about the jumpers utmost well being and education, why in the 1.5 years that I have been in the sport jumping have I not seen an extensive canopy education manual from USPA.

Some people thought (myself included) that 7 levels was no-where near enough to prepare students for the skydiving world. The USPA came up with the ISP to help address this issue. Now the big thing is canopy control. If there is mandatory canopy training for licenses there WILL be additional costs.....in turn turning more people away due to financial reasons ...

Quote

Its my theory, my honest belief that if we had a reading and a requirment for all 'to be' A, B, and C qualified skydivers we could drop the open canopy incidents by a resonable percent.

I hope this to be true....However, there have been many people who I have had "chats" with about their canopy control who have gone on to hurt/kill themselves.

"What is the point of the USPA?"
Lately it has been something for people to complain about. There are 10-15 people here that constantly complain about the USPA and the regulations they come up with. But, I don't recall seeing ANY of them at the last USPA meetings. It is easy to sit behind a computer and bitch and moan about things, a bit different to do something about it.

If you don't like the USPA, don't jump at a USPA DZ. Come up with a better plan and present it to the FAA........

[skybytch 259]

Quote

The ISP is something that looks great on paper but its implimentation hurts our sport more than helps.

I thought the same until I sat down and read the complete ISP. New jumpers who are trained according to the ISP should be getting their A licenses as better skydivers than we did back when I learned - and from what I've seen of new jumpers at the dz I jump at, they are.

That is, of course, assuming that everything that is listed for each category is taught and accomplished. Seeing that is done is the responsibility of individual instructors.

Yes, getting from jump 1 to an A license is more expensive than it used to be, and yes, that expense does turn a lot of people off the sport. But those who are motivated will figure out a way to pay for it even if they can't afford it.

I think we could make learning to skydive a lot easier for those who can't afford it if DZ's that have stopped doing S/L would bring it back. It's much easier to come up with/justify spending $50 to make one student jump compared to coming up with/justifying $150+ for one student jump. The ISP allows for "hybrid" training programs; seems to me that if we really care about making learning to skydive affordable it would make sense to start people off on static line, then once they've reached Category C transition them into single jumpmaster AFF jumps.

We could also make it more affordable by not being gear snobs. Don't tell new jumpers that older gear is unsafe simply because it isn't freefly friendly or because the main opens faster than a more modern design or because the reserve shouldn't be loaded over 1.0. As long as a jumper is informed of the limitations of older gear and operates within those limitations it's going to work fine to get them in the air until they can afford something newer.

Quote

My main problem is this- if everything is about S&T, about the jumpers utmost well being and education, why in the 1.5 years that I have been in the sport jumping have I not seen an extensive canopy education manual from USPA.

Partly because not enough people have put pressure on the B.O.D. to make it happen. Partly because the B.O.D. members are not experts on canopies and until recently, no canopy experts have stepped up to the plate and offered one to them. And partly because USPA is an organization that represents 30,000+ members, each with a different view on whether or not canopy education is important.

Take a look at the canopy section in the 2006 S.I.M. It's not a comprehensive canopy control manual, but it's a start.

If you think that USPA needs to do more about it, contact your regional director and the S&T committee and let them know what you think.

[UntamedDOG 0]

Quote

What is the actual point of the existence of USPA?

Money.


Read my old thread about this organization!
http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2025036;search_string=hay%20uspa;guest=18388216#2025036

[YISkyDive 0]

Quote

"What is the point of the USPA?"
Lately it has been something for people to complain about. There are 10-15 people here that constantly complain about the USPA and the regulations they come up with. But, I don't recall seeing ANY of them at the last USPA meetings. It is easy to sit behind a computer and bitch and moan about things, a bit different to do something about it.

If you don't like the USPA, don't jump at a USPA DZ. Come up with a better plan and present it to the FAA.

Assuming its a paid ticket and I dont fail out of college for the trip, Im there in a second.

Otherwise I have no desire too spend thousands of dollars on travel.

Im not complaining- Im asking wondering- learning about the structure of this org. I said I know nothing in the beginning of this thread and Im still learning. Plus I like to know why I pay 50 bucks a year? Its that wrong? Its not a lot of money but I want to know where its going.

Oh and..

Quote

If there is mandatory canopy training for licenses there WILL be additional costs.....in turn turning more people away due to financial reasons ...

Not with my plan. A well written manual with maybe a an audio CD of a presentation of an industry known presenter would alllow an inexpensive but strong move forward in education. Than take an exam that illustrates the knowledge they have learned. Its not any direct coaching- thats not feesible for some time till we get training programs in play to teach people to teach canopy stuff off of the ground. I have posted this a few times before and unfortunetly I have not had any response to know how good or bad it is.

[YISkyDive 0]

Quote

Read my old thread about this organization!
http://dropzone.com/...est=18388216#2025036

I somehow missed that thread- but not to be rude, that did little to help or hurt the argument.

My arguements are actually quite similar to the ones in yours but being combative doesn't help.

People have to work together one way or another- and Im not out to destroy USPA. USPA does not sound all bad, hell, its Not all bad. Hell, again, its Not bad.

Its an orgonazation with aspects I don't understand though. Going to a meeting, talking to an RD(though that was nice to hear from one person to help me understand a little more on the issue), or even posting on DZ.com won't help greatly. Its just a discussion to hear what people thing.

Calling for the demise of USPA would be a BAD play if you want to skydive in this country again. Im just looking at it slightly diffrently and looking at the aspects that personally bother me.. aka starting the thread.

I know nothing will change, and for the most part, I have to be ok wiht that to jump. Paying 50 bucks a year (though I wish I could not get the magazine) is OK with me because of the insurance, especially after speaking with an RD.

I just hope that some of the stuff that I said will at least be looked at by some people that could make things roll. But knowing my jump numbers, importance in the sport(lack there of) and other facts about low JN low EXP. its pointless to consider my thoughts get heard let a lone matter.

Thats why I don't spend time, money, give up school time, or what ever else to attend.

The only think I can do is ask people why does it exsist, make comments of why I dont like it, and get told why or why not I am wrong. From that I either learn if my opinion is valid or invalid given by the reaction, tone, response and so on of the responsder. I correct my views accordingly (aka the AOPA thing) but still hold USPA accountable on the canopy manual. (Someone though said some has been added too the 2006 SIM.. havent looked at it yet)

[divnswoop 0]

Quote

"What is the point of the USPA?"
Lately it has been something for people to complain about. There are 10-15 people here that constantly complain about the USPA and the regulations they come up with. But, I don't recall seeing ANY of them at the last USPA meetings. It is easy to sit behind a computer and bitch and moan about things, a bit different to do something about it.
***

Quote

Assuming its a paid ticket and I dont fail out of college for the trip, Im there in a second.

Otherwise I have no desire too spend thousands of dollars on travel.

So unless USPA is covering your trip to discuss the issues your not interested? Your not willing to pay out of your own pocket to change the things you dislike.... I understand that. I feel that there are many people on the BOD that could be making more money elsewhere with there time rather than travelling for the USPA....but they aren't.

***Im not complaining-

"I personally don't like the ISP. The ISP is something that looks great on paper but its implimentation hurts our sport more than helps."

"I think the 'group membership' has an adverse affect on worrying about our members "

"why in the 1.5 years that I have been in the sport jumping have I not seen an extensive canopy education manual from USPA"

These all seem like comment that you dislike/are complaining about USPA.
I'll ask you once again, What is wrong with the ISP?

Quote

Im asking wondering- learning about the structure of this org. I said I know nothing in the beginning of this thread and Im still learning. Plus I like to know why I pay 50 bucks a year? Its that wrong? Its not a lot of money but I want to know where its going.

No It's not wrong, in fact it's great you care......but it has been answered in previous posts.

Quote

I have posted this a few times before and unfortunetly I have not had any response to know how good or bad it is.

Well, there haven't been anything like that since maybe the "skydive ***" tapes. I think ANY education is better. But in the end it comes to hands on experience of the canopy.

[divnswoop 0]

Quote

But knowing my jump numbers, importance in the sport(lack there of) and other facts about low JN low EXP. its pointless to consider my thoughts get heard let a lone matter.

Thats why I don't spend time, money, give up school time, or what ever else to attend.

They never ask you how many jumps you have or EXP in the meetings......

[YISkyDive 0]

Its fine that your try to lock horns- but Im not complaining.

Im making points- complaining would be a little harsher than stating why I dislike something. I have that right. I stated why I dislike stuff and if you saw my previous post before you posted (I dont know if ya did) you see why I made my statements.

Ok- On the ISP. I'll be completly fair and netural... Prior to the implimentation of the ISP in full swing (I think two years ago ) How many accidents did AFF or sub A jumpers have? After the implementaion of the ISP how may ISP bases incidents occured / and prior to A.

I dont know this, and I dont know if it is honestly possible to look up b/c i dont know if there is an 'accident' database.

I personally don't like the ISP not because its a multiprogram training tool ( I like that a lot) but from at least one DZ that I looked at my personal belief is that it was too drawn out and it was taking too much money. On a 7 level AFF program it takes students long enough to get jumped. At least in some parts of the country with constant winds and no ability to waiver becuase it would be unsafe for the student.

One thing though- in favor of the ISP, is at non ISP or non extisive RW DZs.. its easy to see people that have no belly skills already learning to freefly. This causes i think an added danger when someone has 70 or 80 skydives but can barely stay on their belly or have no idea what or how 'swooping' (CatG I think) is, let a lone at 200 jumps. That stuff bothers me. RW is a very fundamental part of this sport.. heck we deploy on bellly to earth.. track and usually (less freeflying) exit on with belly to realative wind. The ISP shines there.

Thats my reasons on the ISP. Its too drawn out, for the most part. And (though with out statistics of any measure) I'm assuming that it hasnt made a big impact on reduction of incidents- just added money, like I said though I dont have statistics, and I would retract my statements if I saw a change.. again thats why we post to learn whether it be in argument or in friendly discussion.