buzzfink

the Beech 99 is an AWESOME jump aircraft! Buzz

Believe it or not, after a record 182 days without rain we were finally rained out in San Diego. But wait..... it is now 11:00..... the sun is coming out. Never mind! Buzz

I joined simply as a way of supporting DZ.com. I appreciate having a forum like this and $95/year is a small price to pay to help support this forum. Blue Skies! Buzz Fink

Bill, No disrespect is intended. But many people want to do the same thing you did. They want to take their kids skydiving. As for the risk, it should be left up to the DZ. I think USPA did the right thing. I do not think the majority of DZ's will start taking underage tandems just as they have not taken underage AFF or Staticlines. As you have stated, this is a liability issue, not a Basic Safety issue. While I no longer run a civilian DZ, I have been assured by several attorneys that there are ways to mitigate the liability (i.e. seperate corporations, parents signing legal defense contracts, etc.). Perhaps this does not meet your acceptable standards but as you know, many feel the risk is acceptable. That's their right and their decision. Let's worry more about stopping those over 18 from killing themselves under an open parachute and all go out and have some fun skydiving. Blue Skies! Buzz

I think many people were "bent out of shape" because Bill Booth, being one of the leading authorities on Tandem jumping, knew she was underage and told no one. Do you really think Bill Booth of all people did not know of the BSR requirement? And that Bill is one of the strongest voices against underage Tandems and will revoke ratings for it. That's why people get bent out of shape. I think not. Many were opposed to it. Taking an underage child that is terminally ill for their "make a wish" Tandem jump is much different than taking your daughter on a tandem demo. If you believe it was simply an oversight by Bill, then you don't give Bill as much credit as he deserves. Blue Skies! Buzz

Then why has RW pulled Tandem ratings of DZO's who have taken their kids? Bill's post states they have a procedure to grant an exemption for "extrordinary" circumstances. I don't think this is extrordinary. As for the likelyhood of a lawsuit falling to zero, what about the wife (or ex-wife)? The siblings? The grandparents? Emotional Distress? I fully understand Bill's rule and it is within his right to make the rule. I just think it undermines his whole argument when he takes his underage kid on a Tandem. And a Demo at that! It's my understanding from several BoD members also that Bill did not inform the board that the passenger was underage when he approached USPA about it. And again, I think Bill Booth has done great things for this sport. But nobody is perfect (especially me!). Just ak my wife. Buzz

Then Bill Booth decides it's OK to take his underage daughter, on a Tandem Demo at that. So what happened to underage Tandems being so terrible Bill??? Only Relative Workshop does as far as I know. Instructional staff have the right not to jump with any one for any reason. But on the flip side, the DZO also has the right to stop using them and replace them with someone who will. For the record, I am split on this issue. Done correctly, I think it can be done safely with the risk managed. The bottom line is do you want to? As for Instructors, I do not feel it is appropriate to pressure any Instructor to take anyone under 18 and there unwillingness to do so should not effect their employment. But others think differently. Bottomline is stand up for what you believe, even if it means you may not be doing Tandems at that DZ anymore and know the risks. If you don't have much to lose, and realize you may have to file bankruptcy if an accident occurs, then go for it. If you have alot to lose, then think twice. As for the Manufacturers liability, I think it is way overstated. And Bill Booths hipocracy by taking his underage daughter says it all. Why haven't manufacturers also put age restrictions on their regular experienced parachute systems? I know of alot of 16 & 17 year olds jumping. Won't the whole industry go down if they die too??? Also, Don't take my post wrong. I think Bill Booth has done alot for the Industry. But on this issue, I think his taking his underage daughter says it all. With that said, I think USPA did the proper thing to leave it up to the DZ's. Good work! Blue Skies! Buzz

Here is the new age BSR from the latest USPA meeting: The requirement for tandem jumpers to be at least age of legal majority was removed from the BSRs. Now all skydivers, regardless of type jump, must meet the same requirements: 18 years of age or 16 with notarized parental or guardian consent. What do you think???? Buzz

For level 1, 2 & 3 students, our JM's always carried a radio. The reason: if an error on the spot is made or if the winds pick up all of a sudden and the JM can't make it back, he can still "assist" the student. The radio is carried inside his jumpsuit and is attached to the chest strap. Never had one come out yet or interfere with the JM's ability to do their job. I agree the radio should not be used under canopy "except" for the need to turn around a student flying away from the DZ (rarely). As for the cypres fire from the radio issue, we have done radio checks in the plane prior to exit with the cypress equipped rigs for the last 9 years. I have never had a cypres fire from it. I know it has happened before on rare occassions but it is most definitely the exception. Blue Skies! Buzz

I'm not well versed on Racers but on Strongs it is 255. Thanks for the info. Buzz

It's my understanding the student harness is rated at 255 pounds. Correct me if I'm wrong. That means no one heavier than that can legally tandem. Buzz

Did you know your Instructors first jump ever was a night jump and a water jump???? He jumped with his eyes closed and wet his pants on the way down! (I know, it's an old one) Buzz

Thanks DJan. I agree with your post that the check dive will not solve the problem. Perhaps a sample check dive can be sent out to all S&TA's and DZO's for their use. If a DZ wishes to impements it, it has a format to use. As you said, it's their decision. I think this is a good case where DZ.com forum helps flush out input. Blue Skies! Buzz

Jan, Please don't take my post as pesimistic. If anything, it's giving you what you asked for. Opinions. I believe the requirement of a check dive is more burdensome than helpful and will not solve the problem you mention. There is nothing to stop an Instructor from nailing the check dive and going back to his old ways, short training students to try to get more up in a day so he makes more money as DJan feels. And I appreciate the chance to have input as many others on this forum do and as I posted in my post. Jan, Thats apples and oranges. As for the Instructor problem, I don't mean to be argumentative, but several members bringing this issue to the board does not make it "large enough". Aside from opinions and feelings, is there anything in the files of the Director of S&T at USPA that supports the contention that it is a problem to the magnitude of 5-20%? Please don't take this as an attack. It is not. If it is believed that up to 20% of Instructors fall into this category, than can we say 80%+ are living up to the expectations? Since you and DJan seem to be doing the good work, and I do think this is good work and appreciate it, of soliciting input, can we send a questionaire out to all Instructors asking for their input? Perhaps one of the questions can include do they think there is a problem. I understand this but how do you feel regarding drug testing? Does the argument for check rides not hold true for this too? Keep up the good work. It is appreciated when a BoD member solicits input here. Blue Skies! Buzz

No apology needed! That is what this forum is for-in depth discussion. I appreciate having this avenue to discuss the topic. With that said, it is clear you favor a mandatory check dive for instructors (correct me if I'm wrong). So how do you feel about mandatory drug testing?? Isn't it in the best interest of the students just like a check dive? For the record, I am against USPA requiring drug testing. Thats the DZO's responsibility. All but one in my area do it. Thanks for the posts. Blue Skies! Buzz

Jan, Thanks for the replies. I still wonder how many complaints has USPA or the Regional Directors recieved and wether they were unable to handle it. We can come up with all kinds of good ideas that will, in the end, result in the little change. Don't get me wrong, philisophically, I agree with the premise of a check dive. But in reality, if there is really almost no problem to solve, then it just increases the buracracy. And what's next? Drug testing?? Why not? Isn't it in the best interest of the student? (again, I'm against uspa requiring drug testing-that should be a DZO decision). It can be a slippery slope we go down. Blue Skies! Buzz

I don't see how a check dive will fix this. The AFF instructor can ace the check dive and chose to short change the student so he can get more jumps in. Blue Skies! Buzz

From what I've seen in the past...the procedure is to do nothing and perpetuate the paper tiger problem of the USPA. Jan and DJan, Can you post what the current procedures are? Thanks. Buzz

Perhaps in your area but I would be interested in hearing about how many complaints USPA or the Regional Directors get. It's easy to say "it happens more often than it should" but before creating a large check dive program, perhaps we should see if there is a big problem that needs to be solved. Also, what is the current procedure? If a Regional Director or USPA recieve a complaint about an AFF Instructors skill (or lack there of) what options does the Regional Director or USPA have? Buzz

www.skydiveoregon.com

With all due respect, this is a deragotory statement against DZO's and Instructors. It implies a lot of DZO's care more about money than student safety and training. (how many is a lot?) It also implies that Instructors are don't care about training or safety and are simply running through as many students as they can get paid for. I disagree. I think that no matter what system is in place, there will always be exceptions and will be those that are not good instructors, who fall through the system, either on the ground skills or in the air skills. With that said, why create this "requirement" for a annual or bi-annual check dive when the problem is less than 5% of the instructors? Actually, I feel it is with less than 2%. And then, where does this stop? Does USPA than require drug testing of all instructors? Why not? Isn't it in the best interest of the students? For the record, I am against USPA requiring drug testing. Thats the DZO's responsibility. All but one in my area do it. I guess the bottom line is what evidence do you have that there is a big problem out there? If there is no eveidence of this, then why create this big program? Buzz

OK. So what exactly is an AFF Instructor "suppose" to be doing? Seriously. I'm not talking about air skills. Other than what is in the BSR's which state one must be an appropriately rated instructor, advancement criteria and equipment requirements, it leaves open how to teach and how much to teach. Most people know there is AFF Cert Course AFF, USPA AFF and real world AFF and all three are different. Will the eval be subjective or will the USPA add to the BSR's to describe in detail exactly how AFF is to be precisely taught? Just some points to ponder. Buzz

Skydive San Diego is offering $15 jumps-not for a week-not for a month- BUT ALL SUMMER LONG!! And the new website is up and running! Check it out! [www.skydivesandiego.com] Buzz

I think some are trying to put together a huge evaluation program because of a few bad eggs. My suggestions: 1. Any S&TA, DZO or I can refer someone to a Regional Director for skills evaluation if they feel they are below standards. Unfortunately, in addition to this be used properly, some may use it to try to "get back" at some instructor they do not like. Limiting the number of times someone can be evaluated would help solve this. Say twice in any 5 year period. 2. Random evaluation jumps. Each year, 10% (or whatever percentage works) of rating holders could be required to do an evaluation jump as a condition of their renewal. It's just like getting a smog check in California to renew your car registration. The Regional Director could assign the evaluator of however it works best. Requiring every rating holder to do an evaluation jump, I feel, is like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. There is not a big problem so let's not get into a Big Brother syndrome. Just my 2 cents. Buzz Fink, San Diego AFF-I Tandem-I SL-I S&TA PRO

Skydive San Diego is offering $15 jumps-not for a week-not for a month- BUT ALL SUMMER LONG!! Two Super Otters, 13,000 feet, beautiful scenery. Check it out! Buzz