0
fencebuster

Proposed Amendment of BSR concerning TI Medical

Recommended Posts

... I am planning to run for the Board in the coming election and, if I am elected I will be the voice of the skydivers who believe our organization spends too much time worrying about manufacturers and not enough time making skydiving more inviting for the weekend fun jumper.

................................................................................

Fine!
The logical solution is for USPA to completely take over the process for training and administering tandem instructors ... instead of those silly manufacturers like the Uninsured Relative Workshop. URWS wanted to get out of the business of training TIs decades ago.

If USPA completely takes over ... it will waste more time fighting off lawyers than ... trust me, I am currently involved in a lawsuit that includes a tandem student with a cracked pelvis. After seven years of legal proceedings, there is still no hope of conclusion......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know you and you don't know me. But I promise you I am not a one trick pony. I am an advocate for skydivers and I pick my issues. I see lots of them. Like a BOD member who swoops and injures a spectator who keeps the BOD job. I will bring the rigor of a lawyer's education and a military officer's discipline to the BOD process, with the experience of a person who has been a fun jumper, an instructor, the President of a major East Coast skydiving center, and a guy who started his own skydiving operation with a C-182, three student rigs and and two tandem rigs.
Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. fencebuser,

I really do not care about you or your political record ... since I am not planning to vote in the next USPA election ... since I don\t live in the USA ... and have not paid USPA membership during the last 15 years.

I was trying to warn you that if USPA becomes the sole certifying authority for TIs, then USPA will stand alone in court.
Forget about standards, blame, etc. because lawyers always go after the money and USPA has a reputation for settling $10,000 lawsuits outside of court.

OTOH If USPA is only one of several players in the TI certification process, lawyers will soon lose interest and chase after "the Uninsured Relative Workshop" etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riggerrob



The primary goal of a medical to ensure that the TI is healthy enough to
land his student softly.



A medical exam cannot ensure this since doctors are not experts in tandem skydiving.

However, the medical can keep felons and DUI convicts from becoming TI's! :P:P:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Felons?
How so?
It's a medical, not a background check.
Yet.



.................................................................

The FAA tries to do background checks on commercial pilots. The FAA insists that applicants report any recent DUI's drug-smuggling charges, etc. when they update their medical.
Failing to report criminal convictions, DUIs, etc. is considered lying to the federal gov't and is grounds for denying an FAA medical.
IOW the FAA tries to hold TIs to the same standard as airline pilots.
The general public expects TIs to perform to the same standards as airline pilots, bus drivers, cooks and staff at DisneyWorld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, the FAA does not try to hold TIs to any standard, much less the standard of Air Transport Pilots (ATPs), which is what "airline pilots" are. The FAA does not require a medical of any kind to act as a Tandem Parachutist in Command; that is solely a requirement generated by USPA.
Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TI's are not commercial pilots in any manner.
I've never had any sort of background check as a TI.
Nothing requires you to report to the FAA any criminal history on the medical forms that I noticed.
You'd be surprised when it comes to the cooks and staff at Wally World too.

The class III is a joke.
You can see stuff? Hear things? Kidneys working?
Pass!
Next $85 please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Felons?
How so?
It's a medical, not a background check.
Yet.



they ask if you've ever been convicted or charged with a misdemeanor or felony, thus it is a background check especially since answering yes affects your chances of getting the medical. If you answer yes to a felony I believe they automatically do a diagnosis of a personality disorder and deny. Not sure how hard it would be to get a 3rd class with a felony even if the circumstances around it were a joke but I'm sure the burden would be through the roof anyways.

There is actually a somewhat recent movement to place convicted criminals (particularly felons) into a protected class similar to minorities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose to not check those boxes on mine, along with the tattoo inventory.
I had no problems getting mine.
:P

I oppose those questions on a "medical" certification, I don't think they are related in any way to anything medical.
Nothing on the form says I MUST, under penalty of law, respond to every check box.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peek

***Here is something to consider and while it may apply to the laws of Canada, it underlines the point.

Joe gets drunk. Goes over to his car, opens the door, crawls in the passenger side to grab his cellphone so he can call a cab. Having possession of his keys in the vehicle while being impaired (care and control) he is guilty of impaired driving.




Merely having possession of the keys? How else is Joe going to get into his car? What is he supposed to do? Unlock the car door and throw the keys on the ground while he opens the door, gets the phone, and re-locks the door? Is there a scenario by which he could do this without it being illegal?

I haven't checked local (US) laws, but I thought that the key had to be in the ignition switch to determine intent to drive.

an old roommate of mine lost his licence and was convicted because he climbed into the back seat and went to sleep in the parking lot outside the bar, knowing he was too drunk to drive. Unless you're in the back of a pickup, if you have the keys and you have access to the driver seat, you're guilty here. His mother was a lawyer and she couldn't get him off...
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fencebuster

Actually, the FAA does not try to hold TIs to any standard, much less the standard of Air Transport Pilots (ATPs), which is what "airline pilots" are. The FAA does not require a medical of any kind to act as a Tandem Parachutist in Command; that is solely a requirement generated by USPA.



Charlie,
Imagine that your guy has been given his rating (I've rec'd several PM's from people about your guy, but that's entirely another topic). Imagine that he bounces in a student, whether he's sober or not.
Now imagine the USPA having to explain on the morning television show, sitting across from the local director of MADD, that in spite of multiple DUI convictions, our membership organization gave him a license to fly students. That's not going to serve the USPA, our lawyers, nor our community very well.

I understand now, that you've got a friend that you want to employ, who doesn't meet the requirements. OK, fair enough. And at a DZO level, I think that's great. At an administrative level for our membership organization, I feel that it is wrong. While personal agendas do make it to the BOD, it's the membership's responsibility to do their best to prevent it from happening, when possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hog Wash. Seems to me you want the USPA to hold only tandem instructors to this high level of moral conduct and not the rest of the instructor community. That is total Bullshoot. As it stands all other instructors can do all the drinking and and drugging and having as many dui's and drug convictions as they want with no opposition from USPA. USPA is operating under Selective and discriminatory practices where this is concerned.

Also by mandating the medical they are moving into a regulatory position which they firmly state they are not.

I only know of one Tandem fatality where the TI may have been less than sober and he was not drinking. Seems to me Pot is acceptable on many dz's around the country and no one has determined a legal limit or time frame for THC use in instructors.

The high horses around here are way to high and I expect some will be falling off sooner or later.

:)


Uncle/GrandPapa Whit
Unico Rodriguez # 245
Muff Brother # 2421

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
douwanto

Hog Wash. Seems to me you want the USPA to hold only tandem instructors to this high level of moral conduct and not the rest of the instructor community.
The high horses around here are way to high and I expect some will be falling off sooner or later.

:)



You'd be wrong. I feel any instructor should be held to this. TI's however... *always* are in total control. Ergo, TI's should be held to the standard first and foremost. AFFI's are not always in total control of their students. Each DZ I've worked at has mandatory, random drug tests. I'm a fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FAA does not require a medical of any kind to act as a Tandem Parachutist in Command; that is solely a requirement generated by USPA.

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

The part of the statement that says "…that is solely a requirement generated by USPA" is not correct.

A little history:
Many years ago when tandems were done under an exemption from the FAA, the FAA required that the "Tandem Master" hold at least a FAA Class 3 Medical Certificate. Whether this requirement was at the suggestion of the Relative Workshop (now UPT) or Strong Enterprises, or a combination of all parties involved, it was a part of the Exemption and was required by the FAA.

After FAR 105 was changed to allow tandem jumping without the exemption, UPT and Strong Enterprises both required that Tandem Masters certified by them would still need to hold at least a FAA Class 3 Medical even though not now required by the FAA. This was long before USPA ever became involved in giving Tandem Instructor Ratings.

UPT, which has about 80% of the Tandem business, at one time considered giving waivers to their requirement of a FAA Class 3 Medical but, due to problems associated with the lack of credibility of some that were asking for the waiver, will no longer consider giving a waiver to their requirement of holding at least an FAA Class 3 Medical. This has been re-confirmed with Tom Noonan, who is the UPT Tandem Program Director.

In summary:
The original FAA Medical requirement was generated by the FAA and the manufacturers, not USPA.

When the FAA dropped the requirement for the FAA Medical, the manufacturers retained the requirement. This was long before USPA became involved with tandem.

All TI ratings come originally from the manufacturers. To receive a USPA Tandem Instructor Rating you must also receive a manufacturers rating. You cannot receive a rating from the manufacturer unless you have the FAA Medical, they require it and have always required it.

So, to say that the medical requirement is "solely a requirement generated by USPA" is not correct and never has been correct.

Mike Mullins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0