USPA Disciplinary Actions

[sducoach 0]

Ed,

Thank you!

As someone who does not understand, why don't you explain it to me, please!

I've dealt with the FAA ( I believe that is what you called the "bureaucracy") sine 1971. I am sure I've been wrong for the past 33 years.

What most people fear ( and I am not saying you are one) is the requirement for being responsible for their actions, required to actually earn the license & ratings, and being exposed to financial and civil actions when they choose to ignore the regulations. Even with that the "bureaucracy" allows you to violate any rule in an emergency! In other words, they have teeth to enforce the "regulations". PRM time is for everyone who cares to state their position on any changes.

It is simply not simple and again, please tell me why it will not work and give specifics, not just "opinions".

Blues,

J.E.

edited in:

Ed, take a look at the poll. 80% approve of the actions taken by USPA.

James 4:8

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

mjosparky,

You are so right on. Please help me here though. Pilots rigs are single harness, single canopy. We pack them as riggers and sign off the packing card. Are they considered reserves, emergency parachutes, or do they fall under a diffrent TSO?

G.

They are classified as "Emergency Parachute Assembly". A certificated parachute assembly worn for emergency, unpremeditated us only.
As riggerob posted, most are subject to the same testing as other assemblies. All test programs leave out those tests that do not apply to the system being tested. You would not test and Emergency Parachute Assembly using all the same tests you would for a "Dual Harness reserve parachute assembly.
I said most because there are many pilots rigs out there that are surplus military rigs. They fall under Part 105.3

Quote

Approved parachute means a parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a Technical Standard Order (C–23 series), or a personnel-carrying U.S. military parachute (other than a high altitude, high speed, or ejection type) identified by a Navy Air Facility, an Army Air Field, and Air Force-Navy drawing number, an Army Air Field order number, or any other military designation or specification number

I hope this helps.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[EDYDO 0]

Quote

Ed,

As someone who does not understand, why don't you explain it to me, please!

I've dealt with the FAA ( I believe that is what you called the "bureaucracy") sine 1971. I am sure I've been wrong for the past 33 years.

What most people fear ( and I am not saying you are one) is the requirement for being responsible for their actions, required to actually earn the license & ratings, and being exposed to financial and civil actions when they choose to ignore the regulations. Even with that the "bureaucracy" allows you to violate any rule in an emergency! In other words, they have teeth to enforce the "regulations". PRM time is for everyone who cares to state their position on any changes.

It is simply not simple and again, please tell me why it will not work and give specifics, not just "opinions".

Ed, take a look at the poll. 80% approve of the actions taken by USPA.

I don't think how long one has been dealing with the federal bureauracy is important, but since you do, I began dealing with them as a pilot in 1964, an exhibition skydiver in 1966, a banner tow pilot in about 1975 and a flight instructor in about 1980.

I do not agree that MOST PEOPLE fear responsibility for their actions or earning their ratings. I believe MOST PEOPLE are indeed responsible and earn their ratings.

My vote is one of those in the 80%. I believe strongly in self regulation for skydiving. Remember I am responding to your statement that the BSR's be made a part of federal regulation and the USPA made responsible for enforcement.

It won't work for volumes of reasons, but just to hit on a few.

The FAA has no authority to "farm out" enforcement of regulation.

If this happened, the FAA would have to fund the USPA and with that funding would go strings. We would lose our membership control of USPA. I like to see Chris Needles show up at the airport, but that would all change if he was the "policeman".

It would not be possible to undo the regulations when it didn't work. One can only guess what might happen at that point, but I would not look foward to being under the control of those who believe we are a hazard to navigation by being a vertical activity surrounded by mostly horizonal activities.

Ed

It looks to me like we have two threads going on here!!

[sducoach 0]

Ed.

If in fact you do not believe dealing with the FAA is important, relative, or does not increase one's "understanding" of the "bureaucracy" why state your dealings with them? In what manner do/did you deal with the FAA? Are you a pilot, mechanic, or Flight Instructor?

Why yell? "MOST PEOPLE" work should have read what "people fear most", and you are reflecting that position.

The FAA "farms out" enforcement at this time and has for years through DPREs, DEs, 135/121/etc. Check Airmen, etc..

The FAA would not have to fund the USPA, we taxpayers would however, are we not funding the USPA now?

If you think Chris would be making ramp checks you are either being sarcastic or foolish. How about S&TAs? I.Es? As I said, facts not opinions.

Yes it is possible to undo regulations that do not work. It happens, think about Part 105, tandems, etc. Does it take some time, yes and that is a good thing so that "facts" may be evaluated for all changes and not someone's emotions.

Everyone in the "bureaucracy" that I deal with, have delt with, or know have been very interested in our sport, supporting our efforts concerning demo's etc. and have been educated concerning our operations. Follow the rules and they support and provide some trust, break the rules and you get what you get.

Now go back and read my post. Did I suggest we go there? No. I asked people to "think about it" which was followed by your statement that I do not "understand".

So, educate or regulate.

Still Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[EDYDO 0]

Quote

Ed.

If in fact you do not believe dealing with the FAA is important, relative, or does not increase one's "understanding" of the "bureaucracy" why state your dealings with them? In what manner do/did you deal with the FAA? Are you a pilot, mechanic, or Flight Instructor?

Why yell? "MOST PEOPLE" work should have read what "people fear most", and you are reflecting that position.

The FAA "farms out" enforcement at this time and has for years through DPREs, DEs, 135/121/etc. Check Airmen, etc..

The FAA would not have to fund the USPA, we taxpayers would however, are we not funding the USPA now?

If you think Chris would be making ramp checks you are either being sarcastic or foolish. How about S&TAs? I.Es? As I said, facts not opinions.

Yes it is possible to undo regulations that do not work. It happens, think about Part 105, tandems, etc. Does it take some time, yes and that is a good thing so that "facts" may be evaluated for all changes and not someone's emotions.

Everyone in the "bureaucracy" that I deal with, have delt with, or know have been very interested in our sport, supporting our efforts concerning demo's etc. and have been educated concerning our operations. Follow the rules and they support and provide some trust, break the rules and you get what you get.

Now go back and read my post. Did I suggest we go there? No. I asked people to "think about it" which was followed by your statement that I do not "understand".

So, educate or regulate.

Still Blues,

J.E.

Still replying to the original suggestion that we consider asking the FAA to make BSR's into regulation.

Looking at some of your questions, I guess you didn't read my post carefully. Yes, I am a pilot, yes I am a flight instructor. Check Airmen that you mention are not regulation enforcers and I stand by my position that the FAA cannot "farm out" enforcement. S&TA's and IE's are also not "ramp check" people.

If the USPA was given that job, they would have to do that job. It would take money because there would be challenges to violations issued, that means lawyers and court costs. Man, what a can of worms that would be.

As far as "undoing" regulations, your examples are simply modification of rules. The FAA works on the "band aid" approach which is more of a patch than a fix.

We certainly have had different experiences with the FAA. I could cite you lots of them. One regularly finds the guy who knows nothing about skydiving or associated regulation and just wants to protect his job. I recall a widely publicized incident recently where the individual FAA Inspector decided a skydiving competition meet was a skydiving demonstration and tried to apply demo regs to the meet.

I did read your post and the "think about it" part. I have done that and replied. I believe the thought is the single most potentially damaging suggestion that I have ever heard concerning skydiving. Even the suggestion leads me to continue to believe that you just do not realize/understand the potential end results if such a suggestion were to be implemented.

I strongly support self regulation. If you believe that government involvement/ regulation is the answer, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Ed

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

Very interesting views and good arguments gentlemen ... Not meaning to interrupt or break in or anything, just thought I'd pop my head in and say whoo hoo. Hi J.E.!!! Big Hug to ya!

Ok that's all, carry on, carry on.

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[cssriggers 0]

Quote

We certainly have had different experiences with the FAA. I could cite you lots of them. One regularly finds the guy who knows nothing about skydiving or associated regulation and just wants to protect his job.

I'll second that, although our local FSDO guys are very helpful and do seek to expand their knowledge about skydiving operations.

I also second what Riggerrob said - the FAA has much bigger things to deal with.

IMO, USPA is doing a good job, and self-regulation is where we need to stay ... especially with issues like mandating AADs and imposing wingloading restrictions.

Thanks to mjosparky, Phree, Seal_49, SDUcoach et al for quoting the FARs. These types of threads are always good food for thought, and emphasize the problems we all face (as rigger, pilots and jumpers) with interpreting federal regulations.

I don't post much but would like to reiterate what Tom Buchanan has posted. Let's try to self-regulate. The FARs need to be followed (obviously) but we really don't need the government involved in our day-to-day operations.

SO - don't bounce without pulling all of your handles in order, and PLEASE don't hook yourself into the ground.

Alpha Mike Foxtrot,
JHL

[bluskidave 0]

I have another profession Dentistry in the state of Texas that when you screw up the State Board of Dental examener's sends out out a report quarterly to all members that is to the point why a member is disciplended.This info is available to the general public.The same should apply to the USPA.Why would one be banned for life from the uspa.If one would ever want to promote BASE or illegal jumping then I would say this would be the stimulus for it.

[kallend 1,682]

Quote

Quote

We certainly have had different experiences with the FAA. I could cite you lots of them. One regularly finds the guy who knows nothing about skydiving or associated regulation and just wants to protect his job.

I'll second that, although our local FSDO guys are very helpful and do seek to expand their knowledge about skydiving operations.

I also second what Riggerrob said - the FAA has much bigger things to deal with.

.

Maybe other DZs do this too, but a couple of years ago Skydive Chicago invited the local air traffic controllers out to the DZ and had them fly right seat in the Otter. It has on at least one occasion given them free tandem jumps. Seems like a good and inexpensive way to get some FAA folks to understand what you're doing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sducoach 0]

Quote

Re: [USPA] USPA Disciplinary Actions [In reply to] Quote | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take a look at the "poll" guys. 79% say it is a good or great thing to police ourselves.

How about this one. Should we have the FAA establish BSR's as FAR's and contract the USPA to police and enforce by giving them some teeth?

Just a thought...........

Blues,

J.E.
***

Okay EDYDO,

You sure like to argue don't you. I did not mean to distract you from your argument with Tom however, above is the entire post.

Suggestion or question? What was it?

You started out by telling me what I do not understand and you do not even know who I am. Arguments based upon opinion and emotion are they?

So here we go, then, how about taking this to another thread so my first subject can be addressed?

Still replying to the original suggestion that we consider asking the FAA to make BSR's into regulation.

Quote

Question, not suggestion. Correct?

Looking at some of your questions, I guess you didn't read my post carefully. Yes, I am a pilot, yes I am a flight instructor. Check Airmen that you mention are not regulation enforcers and I stand by my position that the FAA cannot "farm out" enforcement. S&TA's and IE's are also not "ramp check" people.

Quote

I read your post completely and carefully. Once a pilot always have a license, however that does not make you a pilot if you no longer fly. The dates you suggest for your experience do not indicate you are still current, active, involved. Are you a flight instructor? Unlike a pilot license, they take those back every two years if you not comply with the regulations, do they not? I ran Edward Dixon through Oak City and came up with 12 Edward Dixons, none of which are instructors, none of which are even close to being current.
Why not ask a check airman, DPRE, DE if they are enforcing the regulations and see what their response is. The FAA does in fact contract, "farm out" enforcement. Ask them.

As far as "undoing" regulations, your examples are simply modification of rules. The FAA works on the "band aid" approach which is more of a patch than a fix.

Quote

You are kidding, right? You want to argue a point that deletions and additions are "modifications"? If need be I will spend the time providing part of the deleted and new FARs from the past 30+ years. How many will it take to allow yourself to accept the black and white printed pages?

We certainly have had different experiences with the FAA. I could cite you lots of them. One regularly finds the guy who knows nothing about skydiving or associated regulation and just wants to protect his job. I recall a widely publicized incident recently where the individual FAA Inspector decided a skydiving competition meet was a skydiving demonstration and tried to apply demo regs to the meet.

Quote

Yes we sure have had "different" experiences and I bet you sure can "cite" a lot of them. I have found out that the manner in which you approach with a question or problem determines a lot about the attitude of the response. Don't you? Who knows they may be saying the same thing about you when you show up. You know how it is, kick a dog and you are going to have a bite. Feed the dog and you will have a friend for life. Where was the "competition" located? On or off a dropzone? Did you take the time to "educate" the person with the "regulations" concerning dropzones and demo's? Did you use the correct advisories?

I did read your post and the "think about it" part. I have done that and replied. I believe the thought is the single most potentially damaging suggestion that I have ever heard concerning skydiving. Even the suggestion leads me to continue to believe that you just do not realize/understand the potential end results if such a suggestion were to be implemented.

Quote

Sorry my friend, you call it reply, I call it being told I "don't understand" by some one who does not know of what they speak.

It is painfully clear that having an "authority" watching the actions of skydivers causes you some concern. The first post was and is concerning the actions taken by the USPA in actually enforcing their "self regulation" and you are so very wrong if you believe having the Feds or anyone else regulate our sport as:

I believe the thought is the single most potentially damaging suggestion that I have ever heard concerning skydiving.
***

People killing themselves is in fact the most damaging thing that I have ever heard of concerning skydiving. So. Yes we will disagree.

Do I want the Fed's running our sport, no. Am I afraid of them doing so, no.

If the USPA continues to be an active participant in the "self regulation" of this sport, I'm all for it. If they do not continue doing so. Well, think about it.

Blues,

J.E.

Boy you guys who like to argue sure do use the cut and past stuff a lot. This is to much work to argue with someone like this.....................

James 4:8

[sducoach 0]

Hi Jen!!!!

Can I come to Sullivan and play???

Don't tell Kelly, I'll bring the birdman................

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[EDYDO 0]

Quote

Are you a flight instructor? Unlike a pilot license, they take those back every two years if you not comply with the regulations, do they not? I ran Edward Dixon through Oak City and came up with 12 Edward Dixons, none of which are instructors, none of which are even close to being current.

Quote

JE
As you can see by the last line in my last post, it was clear to me that we weren't going to come to any agreement. Hence my statement that we should just agree to disagree. It was my intention to allow you the last word and end this in a gentlemanly fashion.

Then you decided that you would attack my credibility with a botched internet search, making this reply necessary. Had you sent me a pm, I would have gladly helped you and it would not have been necessary for you to embarrass yourself.

The only reason I can figure you looked was to try and discredit me. Otherwise, why is it important? I haven't asked for your credentials.

Anyway, here is the information you were seeking.

George Edward Dixon, III
4233 Byrnes Blvd
Florence, SC 29506-8335

Flight Instructor Airplane Single Engine/Glider
Certificate number 1661522CFI
Date of Issue 18 April 2003
Expires 30 April 2005


Medical Certificate issued 12-22-2003 by James E. Turek, MD

Thanks for the interesting conversation.

Ed

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[webracer 0]

I wish we had more specific info, but if they are doing what is suggested/alleged, enforce it.
I would like to see minutes to see what evidence was presented, and whether or not there is an appeal process for fairness.

Troy

I am now free to exercise my downward mobility.

[tonyhays 86]

They posted the minutes of the August meeting, so maybe in time they'll post their latest minutes

http://www.uspa.org/contact/BODminutes/BODmin08.03.pdf

You have 30 days to appeal.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[sducoach 0]

George,

"ED". Please my friend, do not accuse me of "attacking" you. Again, go back to my first post and your reply. I did not say that you do not understand. I believe the shoe is on the other foot concerning attacks.

I have not attacked you nor did I "botch" an internet search as I utilized the information you provided to this group.

After providing you full name I did find the information you presented and you are in fact an Instructor however, that does not change your position does it?

Please feel free to PM me or take this to another forum.

Still Blues and thanks for the last word.

J.E.

James 4:8

[seal_S49 0]

Quote

I've dealt with the FAA ( I believe that is what you called the "bureaucracy") sine 1971. I am sure I've been wrong for the past 33 years.

IMO you’re overestimating the value of this dick-measuring contest that you started. There is no number of years of experience or type of ratings earned that make your political opinions more valid. Everyone who reads & posts here has a valid personal opinion. Your attempt to gain credibility by falling back on your seniority has had the opposite effect as far as I’m concerned. But that is just an opinion.

[sducoach 0]

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[dmbale 0]

I do believe that in some instances the disciplinary action was too harsh. I am new to skydiving (just hit 75 jumps yesterday) but I know that I alone am responsible for my own safety. That includes what rig I jump, if my reserve is in date, checking the spot, and what altitude I pull at.

If we are going to hold pilots responsible for our actions, then the pilot should start checking packing data cards and refuse to fly anyone pulling below their license BSRs.

I understand why, in the specific case of the BASE rig incident that there was some disciplinary action, but I believe in that particular case it was too extreme.

There are some that will look at my profile and say that I am prejudice. The ironic thing is that this DZO has told me things that I didn't want to hear on occasion and there have been times where I didn't like him. First and foremost though, he has always had mine and my husband's safety in mind.

I have witnessed him chew out one of our instructors for even having a BASE rig at the dropzone.

My other question is why no one else was punished for this incident? There were others that participated but only this DZO has had action taken against him. Considering the grave outcome of that jump, shouldn't everyone who was involved have been held accountable?

[mjosparky 3]

It is my understanding that the DZO in question was on the aircraft and allowed this to happen with his full knowledge.
And the FAA does hold the pilots responsible for your actions.

Quote

§ 105.5 General.
No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from an aircraft, if that operation creates a hazard to air traffic or to persons or property on the surface.

This particular incident was very "high profile" and the actions of all involved showcased skydiving and BASE as a reckless, haphazard activity engaged in by a bunch of "crazies" who have no thoughts of safety.(not my words, overheard in a Denney's) Everyone involved knew that what they were about to do was high risk and wrong. They did it anyway. It cost one man his life and the pilot his future in aviation.

Quote

I alone am responsible for my own safety

This is true, you are responsible for your safety and these people are responsible for their actions.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[lug 4]

This is not the first time that the USPA has taken disciplinary actions with there own members, so it’s just another example of the USPA policing it self. Further, the FAA should have their turn with the guilty, yes this means they can be disciplined twice. In short if a jumper or pilot break a BSR and a FAR relating to parachuting they should be held accountable and expect to hear from the FAA and USPA if they are caught. This is nothing new we have all seen this in the real world. Remember Peter Bacanovic, He’s Martha Stewart stockbroker fired by Merrill Lynch, and is facing federal time, for obstruction and insider trading.




So how do I really feel about the USPA’s disciplinary on those poor jumpers and pilot? Guilty!


“You'll get a fair trial followed by a first class hanging.”
Judge Roy Bean

Memento Mori