USPA vs. TSA

[AggieDave 6]

This has been bugging me for a while now.

The letter in Parachutist a bit ago (about the TSA nightmare, attempting to cut open the rig with bolt cutters, etc) still has me fuming.

Here's my point of conflict. At the end of the letter, it was said that the USPA forwarded the letter to the TSA to take care of.

I'm sorry, but I pay my dues to the USPA to be a voice for me in situations like this. Personally, I think the USPA should have made it a priority to work to have the TSA brought into the know about parachute systems AND to personally (as an organization) see to it that the TSA reconciles this matter with the unfortunate jumper.

To me, forwarding a letter for a jumper is NOT what I pay my dues for the USPA to do. I'm wililng to bet that the jumper sent the letter to the USPA to get the USPA to take action against this wrong doing, not to merely forward it along.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 3]

The problem is that the TSA is a new bureaucracy and easy lines of communication between the USPA and the TSA don't appear to have been put in place -- yet.

Let's assume that Chris Needels is doing his job up in D.C. and is trying as hard as he can to get things done. To what advantage is it to the TSA to even listen to him or take a single meeting? They have a mandate to stop things like September 11 from happening again. If they trample on our rights as skydivers -- who gives a shit except us?

On the other hand . . . if Chris Needels and the USPA got together with several other consumer lobbying groups it's just possible that we'd have a bit more leverage, but that sort of thing takes lots of time and our issues will be marginalized and vastly understated when compared to the larger issues.

Give the guys at USPA Headquarters a break. I think they have a long, tough job ahead of them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Give the guys at USPA Headquarters a break

I will when I see actual results.

They were NOT the reason we got back into the air after 911, it was the AOPA that got GA back up and going, we were a side effect.

The USPA just doesn't seem to be doing its job to actually lobby for jumper's privlages like they would try to make people think they are.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Let's assume that Chris Needles is doing his job up in D.C. and is trying as hard as he can to get things done. To what advantage is it to the TSA to even listen to him or take a single meeting?

Given that scenario, what luck will the individual jumper have dealing with TSA? USPA will still have more clout than one guy.

Quote

Give the guys at USPA Headquarters a break. I think they have a long, tough job ahead of them.

Very true, but this is a good incident to use as leverage.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Given that scenario, what luck will the individual jumper have dealing with TSA? USPA will still have more clout than one guy.

That is exactly my point! If the USPA can't stand up for one jumper in dealing with something as important as this, then really, what good is the USPA?


(no, i'm not advocating disbanning the USPA, I just want to see them actually act on what they say they're supposed to do).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[pilotdave 0]

The FAA has refused to stand up to the TSA (or they havent figured out the right phone number to call yet). AOPA has gotten nowhere with them and neither has anyone else. USPA is small potatoes to them. You think they care about a damaged parachute? The TSA bureaucracy has already caused (ok, was a factor in) a plane crash. And that hasn't changed a thing.

Dave

[quade 3]

Ok, as a start I've written the USPA BOD and USPA Headquarters and pointed out this thread and the other thread to them. I've also asked for comments from them.

As a further suggestion of what we'd specifically like the USPA to do, I'd like them to try to have parachutes added to THIS document as a YES item.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

I want them to actively lobby for jumper's privlages and rights. Not just pass along letters.

The USPA is there for a reason, even if they don't have the power to outright make a change with the TSA, they can still lobby politicians, the FAA, etc. Eventually they will have enough political power on their side to make a change.

Change is NOT brought about by merely forwarding letters.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 3]

Quote

I want them to actively lobby for jumper's privlages and rights. Not just pass along letters.

I'm guessing you don't know how the FAA and TSA work then. In order for you to have any rights, it MUST be in writing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Um, I'm not sure if I follow the point your trying to make.

The point I was trying to get across is that the USPA needs to lobby to secure rights for jumpers in dealing with the TSA. Thus it would have be in writing, apart of the TSA's official documentation for their security personal, etc.

Is that what you were saying and we got our lines crossed or am I still missing the point?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 3]

I think we're on the same page.

If you'd looked at the document I referenced a couple of postings back, it was an official TSA document that gave guidance on what was and what was not allowed on as carry-on.

Right now that document doesn't have any entry for parachutes, so I can understand why some TSA inspectors might have a rather ambigous opinion of whether they are or aren't allowed. However, if the document said "yes" then it would be pretty easy to point out to the TSA guy that his own guidelines says it's ok.

I think this would be a fairly simply lobbying effort by the USPA. Gather up the documents from the airlines that say it's ok and simply present them to the TSA.

But then again, wtfdik?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I think this would be a fairly simply lobbying effort by the USPA. Gather up the documents from the airlines that say it's ok and simply present them to the TSA.

But then again, wtfdik

Hence the fact that the USPA isn't doing their job! See, that makes sense to me too, if all the airlines approve of them, then it should be a no brainer to get all the materials and present a case to the TSA.

The worst they could say is no, but then atleast we'd have a single answer to work against and lobby against instead of the current situation. Which is on the whim of what ever minimum wage security guard happens to be working at that moment.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[sducoach 0]

Aggie,
You are a great guy but, you are out in left field on this one. I know Ed Scott very well at USPA who handles government relations and he does one heck of a job!

The problem is you. Try getting involved with the situation instead of complaining. Why not call USPA and see what they are actually doing, you would be surprised and much more happy.

Chill out a little, educate yourself on what is happening, and Join The Cause Brother!

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[robskydiv 0]

Dave, you've made a great point. I too would like to see some compensation given to the jumper who had his rig hacked up. "USPA, an organization run by skydivers, for skydivers." Let's see it!

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Try getting involved with the situation instead of complaining

The e-mail has already been written and sent.

I'm not trying to be a problem, I'm trying to get other jumpers to get involved and for them to write their RDs and the BOD to try to push the USPA to actually take action on important issues like this.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[sducoach 0]

Good Deal Dave.
Go back an read your posts. Let's make is a positive effort. Not a "rant" like on the NG.

Support Ed and the USPA on this with, again I'll say, specifics they can use. I'm on your side Brother. Let's do it in a manner that reflects our professionalism.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[skytash 0]

Quote

I too would like to see some compensation given to the jumper who had his rig hacked up.

From a separate e-mail conversation I had, I understand compensation was paid to said jumper. I've asked them whether they got a letter which could be scanned and posted here for people to print a copy to go with the letter I have from the CAA to fight with airlines in the UK and Cypres card I carry when flying with my rig.

tash

Don't ever save anything for a special occasion. Being alive is a special occasion. Avril Sloe

[pkasdorf 0]

Quote

If you'd looked at the document I referenced a couple of postings back, it was an official TSA document that gave guidance on what was and what was not allowed on as carry-on.

Right now that document doesn't have any entry for parachutes, so I can understand why some TSA inspectors might have a rather ambigous opinion of whether they are or aren't allowed. However, if the document said "yes" then it would be pretty easy to point out to the TSA guy that his own guidelines says it's ok.

I think this would be a fairly simply lobbying effort by the USPA. Gather up the documents from the airlines that say it's ok and simply present them to the TSA.

Has anybody (you or others) asked USPA for this in writing?
If somebody has sent a mail to USPA about it, wouldn't it be a good idea to make it available so we can resend it with our signature?

HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

[kevin922 0]

Quote

The FAA has refused to stand up to the TSA (or they havent figured out the right phone number to call yet). AOPA has gotten nowhere with them and neither has anyone else. USPA is small potatoes to them. You think they care about a damaged parachute? The TSA bureaucracy has already caused (ok, was a factor in) a plane crash. And that hasn't changed a thing.

Dave

Huh? What plane crash? What factor did they play?

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Huh? What plane crash? What factor did they play?

Here's one: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-2-229x.html

A private pilot was injured in a crash that resulted after running out of fuel, waiting for the FAA to grant access to the Washington D.C. airspace. The FAA could not find the flight plan the pilot had previously filed.

Restricting access to DC airspace is enforced by the FAA under direction of the TSA.

Granted that fault lies predominantly on the pilot for not managing fuel properly...

Edited to add, here's the full story: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030714X01077&key=1

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[BikerBabe 0]

I think this may be the only way, since it is a document that the people at the security checkpoints as well as the airline ticket agents have access to.

Right now, it's completely arbitrary. My teammates flew out of Phoenix (PHOENIX! mind you) last week, and TSA told them they couldn't carry on their rigs. OK...so they went back to the counter to check their rigs, and Northwest wouldn't let them check in their rigs, either! At this point they had already missed their plane. Phoenix! Where they probably see a parachute once a week, if not more!

Finally someone with some sense decided to listen to them, but for some reason the TSA has it stuck in their head that parachutes have these "CO2 cartridges" that can explode in an airplane. If a Cypres could explode, why the hell would we wear it on our backs? Though that would be a good incentive to prevent low pulls, I guess.

The people at PHX told my teammates that the last time a skydiver tried to fly through PHX was SIX YEARS AGO. Ha! It just proves their ignorance, seeing as how I personally flew out of PHX the weekend before...

I think you just have to be lucky, since I haven't been hassled about it in a long time, and I fly with my rig at least once a month.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[flyhi 24]

Quote

When asked if he ever considered declaring a fuel emergency, the pilot replied "no" and stated he was not sure why not, except that he expected to receive clearance to land soon.

If I investigated this mishap I think I would find primary responsibility with the pilot. To me it reads like a classic case of loss of situational awareness coupled with a near fatal case of denial ("This can't be happening to me.") When flying into Class B airspace, an activated flight plan is a real pain in the ass (all those numbers and letters and things!) which makes your life easier.

Quote

The TSA bureaucracy has already caused (ok, was a factor in) a plane crash. And that hasn't changed a thing.

And PD still makes all of those really small canopies that everyone keeps hooking into the ground. When are they ever going to stop?

At some point, the individual has to take responsibility for those things over which he/she has control.

Shit happens. And it usually happens because of physics.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

The people at PHX told my teammates that the last time a skydiver tried to fly through PHX was SIX YEARS AGO. Ha! It just proves their ignorance, seeing as how I personally flew out of PHX the weekend before...

wonders how the 300 way participants got to eloy

i think i would have had a kiniption and started demanding some supervisors if someone told me that... ive carried my rig thru PHX at least 10 times in the past year..someone must have really had a case of the 'i have the power to ruin your trip' ignorance

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[pilotdave 0]

I agree that running out of fuel was the pilot's fault, with the ATC induced delay as a factor. I'm not sure what you mean about the flight plan. Within 30 nautical miles of DC, all aircraft are required to file flight plans. They are NOT normal flight plans however. You file them the same way, but the FSS doesn't keep them on file. They pass on your plan to ATC to generate a flight strip. Once that has happened, the FSS throws your info out, so to speak.

In theory, the flight strip will be generated at the appropriate ATC facility so they know who everyone is. To make that happen they are requiring all aircraft entering that 30 mile ring to enter from something like 5 different places. Everyone coming in from the east, for example, enters over one particular airport. That way they are sure you will be appearing on the radar scope of the guy holding your flight strip.

The problem is that ATC can't handle all the traffic, and for some reason a lot of flight plans never seem to get to ATC, or they go to the wrong center. So what happens is traffic piles up over these specified entry points. They are not flying in any particular holding patterns or flying at any specified altitued. And all they can do is fly around until ATC will even acknowledge them. They can't talk to each other because they must be listening to the approach frequency.

So far one plane ran out of gas while trying to get ATC to let him into the 30 mile zone. Yeah, its the pilots fault. It will be the pilots fault when there's a midair collision over one of the entry points too. But that doesn't mean it couldnt be prevented if the TSA would get its head out of its ass and actually work toward a SAFE solution to security.

Oh, by the way, airliners dont have to deal with this bullshit believe it or not.

Dave

[flyhi 24]

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean about the flight plan.

Quote

During a telephone interview, the pilot stated he telephoned a flight service station (FSS) about 0600, and filed two flight plans. The first flight plan was for a flight from MTN, to the Hagerstown Regional Airport (HGR), Hagerstown, Maryland. The second flight plan was for the return flight to MTN, and included a stop at Fredrick Municipal Airport (FDK), Frederick, Maryland.

The pilot obtained a discrete transponder code and departed MTN about 0800. The flight to Hagerstown was uneventful, and he landed about 0930. The airplane was parked for 15 to 20 minutes, before departing for FDK. The pilot stated he did not activate his flight plan and utilized a transponder code of 1200.

I interpretted the bold portions above to mean he generated a flight plan, filed the flight plan, but then didn't activate it. I assumed that meant they didn't know he was coming. Granted, had they lost the flight plan, they wouldn't have known either, but we should at least give them the opportunity. Who knows, you might be the one who doesn't have his flight plan come up missing (quite an oxymoron, huh?).

Shit happens. And it usually happens because of physics.