skydived19006 4 #26 July 25, 2007 Well, here's an interesting twist. I own and jump Eclipse rigs, and to my knowledge there is no Eclipse manufacturer rating anymore (anyone confirm this?). I sent my money off to Eclipse sometime after Mark "Shoobie" Knutson sold the company, and never received anything back, so stopped sending money. That being the case, how can I be required to maintain a manufacturer rating, when there isn't one? Since the FAR change, the fact that the rig has appropriate TSOs it is legal gear. There are quite a few Eclipse rigs out there! I didn't think that anyone was granfathered into a USPA TI. I was an Eclipse TM before the FAR change, and when USPA created their TI rating, I attended a course. Martin Edit to add: I was/am an SL, and IAD Instructor before I got my Eclipse TM.Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydived19006 4 #27 July 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteJay and I sub-stained from this vote. I offered to help get people up to speed. As a matter of fact we sub-stained from a lot of the votes. As a matter of fact, you and Jay did NOT abstain or recuse yourself from this particular motion vote. I smell the distinct odor of a couple of feet being held over the fire! Jan, or anyone who knows, Is there going to be a hard definition of what a constitutes a training tandem skydive? My DZ does not train Tandem Progression, but we do give basic gear instruction, steering training, etc. on every tandem. Still doesn't make it much more than a carnival ride. I don't see this BSR changing the carnival ride situation in the least, just another rating requirement. If the USPA required that a grocery list of training points be given to every tandem customer, then maybe it would change somewhat. The fact that well in excess of 90% of tandem customers do not want to be skydiving students is the reality we live with. In the end it's simple supply/demand, we supply what the customer wants. This is not what Bill, Ted, and a couple others had in mind when they developed the system, but it is how it's evolved. The BOD can live in fantasy land (or institute BSRs to pacify Bill, Ted, and John), but I have to deal with reality. Feel free to correct any misconceptions. MartinExperience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skymonkey2 0 #28 July 25, 2007 At the current time you don't have to renew with UPT and for strong once you recieve your strong rating you don't have to renew with them eighter, as long as you stay current you are current with strong. There was talk about that at the BOD meeting. And I can't remember what the out come was, I believe they are working with manufactures on that as we speak.AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E Students are our future teach them well Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #29 July 25, 2007 QuoteI suspect that USPA will see a lot of non-USPA TIs that have, say an AFF I rating, wanting to be grandfathered into the USPA TI rating. I don't have a problem with doing something like that. If someone does not have any USPA I rating, then they probably have to take an I certification course of at least one type of instructional method. I totally agree with you on that, Jan. Asking a USPA AFFI to sit through a USPA tandem "instructor" course after already having a manufacturer's rating for any amount of time is nuts. A complete waste of time and money. On that note, though, I DO think it's prudent to make a person with only a manufacturer rating, but no current USPA instructional ratings of any kind, to attend that Tandem I certification/Coach ticket. The ones who will truly whine the loudest are those in that category who live hand to mouth and simply won't ever miss a day of meat hauling to get educated. Particularly when it's going to cost them money. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #30 July 25, 2007 To Martin: I ask every single one of my tandem passengers if they are really interested in skydiving or if they just want to screw off in the air this one time. Seventy-five percent of the time they tell me that they would, in fact, like to spend the extra five minutes of training so that they can exit, perform a COA, turn right and left, lock on at six, then pull (or fail to accomplish any of it, which is no big deal to me). If they want to pull, then I train them the extra few steps, do a poised exit (no "carnival" flipping or bullshitting), then let them try. It's no sweat off my back one way or another, but I always ask and offer them the opportunity to do the best they can. If they accomplish it, I fill out their four-page A-card as having completed Cat A. If they do ever show back up for the FJC, they have wasted exactly zero dollars since I will take them straight to Cat B on their first jump (assuming they show back up in a timely manner after that first tandem). Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mixoligist 0 #31 July 25, 2007 Quote *** I totally agree with you on that, Jan. Asking a USPA AFFI to sit through a USPA tandem "instructor" course after already having a manufacturer's rating for any amount of time is nuts. A complete waste of time and money. Quote I have no USPA tandem rating yet have over 2000 tandems in 2.5 years. I sure hope I don't have to sit through a Tandem course. .................................. Better you than me .................................. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DualHawk 0 #32 July 25, 2007 Hi Steve, There were a few topics covered in some posts that I wanted to elaborate on, so I thought I'd reply to yours and do a "catch all post", hopefully it will help explain some things better. As Jan mentioned in her post, the catalyst of this meeting was the carnival ride tandem jump and how it's affecting the overall safety of the tandem industry. There were many converations in Reno at PIA about it during USPA S&T meetings as well as at seminars and such. The problem was that all these necessary conversations were occuring in small groups sporatically around the Symposium, and this meeting in Deland was an attempt to get everyone in the same room to have a singular conversation. The goal of that meeting was simply to answer the question "How can we make the tandem industry safer?" A big part of that answer lies in the tandem exemption ending. Prior to the exemption ending, manufacturers had full authority to enforce tandem instructor accountablity for unsafe jumping. Once the exemption was lifted, that enforcement authority became a grey area of sorts, and a primary goal of this meeting was to ask USPA to "step up to the plate" (Bill Morrissey quote) and fill in the gaps on policing tandems that the exemption ending created. The other major goal of the meeting was to ask USPA to use it's national resources to help provde continuing education information to tandem instructors. As it currently stands, if you want continuing education of gear updates, tandem training techniques and SOPs, your only option is to receive that information from us, the manufacturers. We (the manufacturers) all do our best by updating websites and posting here online, but we felt that there is no such thing as too much tandem education and training information, so we asked USPA to help get that information out using their resources, to which they have agreed. This is truly an exciting time to be part of the tandem industry, there are alot of good people out there working hard to make sure that every tandem skydive that is made is done as safely as possible, we owe it to our passengers to give them our best on every jump, and this whole process is simply a more unified way to get there. We spent 8 hours in a conference room at UPT that day to formulate a collective plan for a future of tandem skydiving that embraced safety and training. I for one, left that meeting feeling as though we accomplished alot that day to that end. We will all get through this transition together, that I am sure of. Why you ask? Because for the 1st time everyone is on the same page. Only good things can come of that. If i can answer any questions, please feel free to email me at [email protected]. I am on the road until August 2nd, and will try to check my email every day. Or you can call me at the factory August 3rd at 407-859-9317. Best Regards, Tom Noonan Tandem Director Strong Enterprises Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #33 July 25, 2007 Thanks for the reply Tom: I understand USPA wanting TIs (or TMs) to have a USPA rating. I really have no problem with it. I seldom gripe about fees and other such BS about $. I'm more concerned about what must I, as a USPA IAD-I, and USPA coach, do to get a TI rating along with my TM rating from the maunufaturer? As far as I can tell I must go to a USPA TI course somewhere ... okay. I don't agree with the rationale since I have an "I" rating, but I will if I must. Is that what I have to do? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slotperfect 7 #34 July 25, 2007 QuoteI suspect that USPA will see a lot of non-USPA TIs that have, say an AFF I rating, wanting to be grandfathered into the USPA TI rating. I don't have a problem with doing something like that. Jan - what percentage of the BOD would you say supports such a grandfather clause?Arrive Safely John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DualHawk 0 #35 July 25, 2007 Hi Steve, I don't want to speak on behalf of USPA, but I think it's fair to say that Jim Crouch is working incredibly hard to formulate a plan that will make this transition as painless as possible. Your situation, having already earned an Instructor rating in another discipline is a scenario that I imagine is pretty common and will affect alot of people. I'm confident that USPA will devise a plan to account for that in their decision making process. I will be back in Orlando on August 2nd, I will call Jim when I get back and see if he can address your speciific situation. I will let you know as soon as I hear back. Best Regards, Tom Noonan Tandem Director Strong Enterprises Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #36 July 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteI suspect that USPA will see a lot of non-USPA TIs that have, say an AFF I rating, wanting to be grandfathered into the USPA TI rating. I don't have a problem with doing something like that. Jan - what percentage of the BOD would you say supports such a grandfather clause? Well, I cannot speak for the rest of the BOD, but I would not expect many to object to allowing someone with a current I rating in AFF, S/L or IAD and a current mfg tandem rating to be upgraded to a USPA TI rating. Afterall, the major difference between a mfg tandem rating and the USPA tandem rating is knowledge of the ISP. Current USPA Is in any discipline are supposed to be current on the ISP. If you or anyone else has specific questions about your specific situation please email me or S&T comm or Jim Crouch. This rule change is not meant to, all of a sudden, bump some tandem masters out of the picture. All it is meant to do is make more tandem jumps training jumps, as opposed to carnival rides. Since Tom is saying he is coming back to the country on Aug 2nd, I'll tell you that I'm leaving the country on Aug 2nd for more than 3 weeks. Email at Aerosoftware_AT_MakeItHappen.com (replace _AT_ with @) is the best way to contact me. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #37 July 25, 2007 Quote Is there going to be a hard definition of what a constitutes a training tandem skydive? See http://uspa.org/publications/SIM/2007SIM/Section4CatA.htm#a4 QuoteMy DZ does not train Tandem Progression Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were the DZO???? Quote I don't see this BSR changing the carnival ride situation in the least, just another rating requirement. If the USPA required that a grocery list of training points be given to every tandem customer, then maybe it would change somewhat. The fact that well in excess of 90% of tandem customers do not want to be skydiving students is the reality we live with. In the end it's simple supply/demand, we supply what the customer wants. This is not what Bill, Ted, and a couple others had in mind when they developed the system, but it is how it's evolved. The BOD can live in fantasy land (or institute BSRs to pacify Bill, Ted, and John), but I have to deal with reality. I don't think that tandem was ever envisioned as a carnival ride that it is today, back in the 1980s. Today, the market does support a certain amount of carnival rides, but along with that comes some different liabilities. It's the difference between 'hey it's a fun ride - nothing bad can happen to you' versus 'Hey- it's skydiving - you can die or get seriously injured on your first jump.' There is a BIG difference in liability. I think the DZOs that sell carnival rides are the ones living in a fantasy world. They sell a first jump as a carnival ride, that is 'perfectly safe'. Then when the shit hits the fan they expect USPA and the MFGs to back them up. Then they realize that 'Nope, we (USPA/mfg) never said this is a sure thing - it's a skydive with all of the inherent risks'. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #38 July 26, 2007 Tom, the "Carnival ride" is not what's creating dangerous situations, it's the fact instructional ratings, and apparently now course director appointments are easier to get from the USPA than the prize in a box of Cracker Jacks. TI's are being created from scratch in a weekend, and then being thrown on the front lines doing multiple back to backs with unlimited types of students at the needs of the DZ. What happened to "probation" as being a time for supervision, additional training, and not exceeding ones skillset? Skydiving has changed, maybe it's time for the requirements to do so as well. How about 1000 jumps? What about going back to requiring an AFF rating?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DualHawk 0 #39 July 26, 2007 Hi JP, I agree with you that there is not a singular cause for the issues that have led to the current state of the tandem industry. But I, and alot of others, would disagree that carnival ride tandems aren't creating dangerous situations. Are there other factors? Yes, I would say there are, and we're definitely trying to investigate and correct them all. I can't speak on the probationary period that you mentioned, as I only have a Strong Tandem Rating. I can say though, that our course, as it was created by Bill Morrissey many years ago, is a complete course of tandem instruction, and that when our instructors graduate the course, they are ready to take the tandem public on skydives. That hasn't changed since Bill wrote the syllabus. The issue you bring up, and I would agree that it is a very good one, is how do we help our instructors maintain focus long after the courses are over? I would hope that anyone that has spoken to me about tandems while I was on their DZ, or talked with me on the phone, or emailed me with tandem questions, has been able to see how genuinely interested I am in helping create a safer tomorrow for our future tandem students. I know I don't have all the answers, but I do know that being able to work with great people like Jay, Kip, Jim (Crouch) and Nancy, that together we will be able to effect (affect?) a positive change for the tandem industry. And if that wasn't enough, I'm proud to say that I was able to bring Bill Morrissey out of retirement...lol He will be back at Strong Enterprises this Fall helping us address all these issues. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas on how to help, by all means, please email me at [email protected] or call me (after Aug 2nd) at 407-859-9317. I am all ears, the more people we get together, the more ideas we can pass around. Best Regards, Tom Noonan Tandem Director Strong Enterprises Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydived19006 4 #40 July 26, 2007 Quote See http://uspa.org/publications/SIM/2007SIM/Section4CatA.htm#a4 We cover the requirements noted in the SIM, and even a little gear information. QuoteMy DZ does not train Tandem Progression Quote Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were the DZO???? I said "My DZ", but obviously that can be taken as meaning that I'm an instructor as opposed to the DZO, I am the DZO. We do not train Tandem Progression, or AFF. When a student (we always refer to them as students) who has done a tandem wants to progress toward their license with us, they have to take the IAD ground training, and progress through the IAD progression. The tandem jump that they have counts as one of the required 25 jumps, but little more. MartinExperience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OnYourBack 0 #41 July 26, 2007 QuoteBut I, and alot of others, would disagree that carnival ride tandems aren't creating dangerous situations. Wait. . .I have heard the argument that rides are leading to a decline in the amount of first timers that stick around numerous times. This is the first time however that I have heard they are "creating dangerous situations." Why are they more dangerous than a progression tandem? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DualHawk 0 #42 July 26, 2007 QuoteWhy are they more dangerous than a progression tandem? Flips out the door increase the potential for a side spin, or an unstable drogue deployment. Head down tandems, sit flying tandems and pommel horse type tandems place additional unnecessary stresses on the gear, and increase the likelyhood that a premature deployment of either the main or reserve would produce catastrophic results. Best Regards, Tom Noonan Tandem Director Strong Enterprises Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OnYourBack 0 #43 July 26, 2007 QuoteFlips out the door increase the potential for a side spin, or an unstable drogue deployment. Head down tandems, sit flying tandems and pommel horse type tandems place additional unnecessary stresses on the gear, and increase the likelyhood that a premature deployment of either the main or reserve would produce catastrophic results. How did you get from giving someone a ride with minimal instruction to flipping out the door and freeflying? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bclark 0 #44 July 26, 2007 I would say that giving someone a ride with minimal instuction may ALSO increase the odds of a side spin or unstable drogue deployment, as well as the possibility of some unintentional freeflying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OnYourBack 0 #45 July 26, 2007 As evidenced in the thread regarding recovery, the consensus regarding stable exits and stable freefall positions seems to be more about what the instructor is doing and not the student. I think its a pretty huge leap to say that minimal instruction leads to flipping exits and freeflying tandems. I'm not saying these procedures are not more dangerous, but doing multiple flips on exit or flying head down with a tandem is about a bad instructor not how much training we give. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #46 July 26, 2007 It's actually mostly about TM's (not to be confused with guys doing even rudimentary training tandems) doing "show off" stuff for their "thrill ride" tandems. You know, the ones that people have been losing their ratings over this past year. Hey, that's cool if you are doing naked tandems onto Panama City Beach or the WFFC, but it's just not cool at all at any proper "training" dropzones. Again, just my very-biased opinion as someone that doesn't do "fuck off" tandems. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #47 July 27, 2007 QuoteFlips out the door increase the potential for a side spin, or an unstable drogue deployment. Head down tandems, sit flying tandems and pommel horse type tandems place additional unnecessary stresses on the gear, and increase the likelyhood that a premature deployment of either the main or reserve would produce catastrophic results. If that's what you mean by carnival rides then I agree. Those behaviors are also against any and all of the guidelines of the agencies I've been licenced by. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any regulation. But often people associate the term "carnival ride" with operations that simply do "fun" tandems and have no continuing education program. If the instructors are dedicated to the safety of their jobs and that of their student, I see nothing wrong with a business owner operating in that way. Does it do much to contribute to the continuation of our sport? No. But guess what? Not everyone who does a tandem should skydive, and those that really wish to learn, will find out how.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #48 August 7, 2007 QuoteHi Steve, I don't want to speak on behalf of USPA, but I think it's fair to say that Jim Crouch is working incredibly hard to formulate a plan that will make this transition as painless as possible. Your situation, having already earned an Instructor rating in another discipline is a scenario that I imagine is pretty common and will affect alot of people. I'm confident that USPA will devise a plan to account for that in their decision making process. I will be back in Orlando on August 2nd, I will call Jim when I get back and see if he can address your speciific situation. I will let you know as soon as I hear back. Best Regards, Tom Noonan Tandem Director Strong Enterprises Tom, what did you find out? Are TM who have an "I" rating but only a maufacturer's tandem rating going to have to go through a TI course? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tgoaffi 0 #49 August 9, 2007 Eclipse has examiners, and is issuing ratings. Contact: Terry Goode [email protected] ratings administrator Stunts Adventure Systems Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydived19006 4 #50 August 9, 2007 QuoteEclipse has examiners, and is issuing ratings. Contact: Terry Goode [email protected] ratings administrator Stunts Adventure Systems Well, they're certainly doing everything they can to make it easy! Email sent.Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
