buzzfink

Congratulations to all and thanks to Bill Von for keeping us updated. What a fantastic accomplishment. You can all be proud! Buzz Fink

Don L. "Treetop" Jardine wrote: > Treetop?? complaining about others not having POSITIVE input???? Boy, now thats the pot calling the kettle black. ROFL Buzz

Not only do I still jump where I made my first jump I bought the DZ. Buzz

Here is my My favorite: Lets say John is the Tandem Instructor. I go up to the Tandem student and say "FIRST JUMP? They say "YEAH" I say "COOL. IT'S JOHN's FIRST JUMP TOO!" They laugh and say "REALLY"? I say "NO, I WAS JUST KIDDING. HE'S JUMPED BEFORE BUT THIS IS HIS FIRST TIME ON THE BACK." Blue Skies! Buzz

Message has been forwarded to her. Blue Skies! Buzz

The problem with that is who verifies how many students? Many airports now have what's called a percentage lease. They pay a base amount and a % of their gross income. The Airport has an auditor that audits the business every year to verify the amounts reported are correct. USPA could not economically do this. Buzz

Aside from the Navy Parachute Team, we do not really have many CReW jumpers at Skydive San Diego. However, at the request of a good friend, I have been reviewing my Cypres required rule as it pertains to CReW. I even called Bill Von Navak, who's opinion I respect, and got his take on it. What I have concluded is that I was wrong to require a Cypres for CReW jumpers. I guess I just saw it as easier to monitor if everyone had to have one. Effective immediately, jumpers doing CReW who jump and deploy upon exit will no longer be required to wear a Cypres. All other will still be required to wear a Cypres. I know some will assume this change is because I am running for the BoD and I think I can get votes by doing this. If that were true, I would remove the requirement completely. Besides, this will not change anyones mind who disagrees with my general cypres required rule. Thanks to all who e-mailed me privately and on the board that helped me correct this. Blue Skies

Thanks and I will. Blue Skies! Alan "Buzz" Fink

> The GM Pledge that requires jumpers at GM dropzones should be changed to "encourage" membership, not require it. Then, a detailed review of the Group Member program should be undertaken. Membership input will be crucial. The biggest complaint about the GM program was the mandatory membership requirement. Once that is taken care of, I think the program may continue unless something else is brought up that needs correcting. Blue Skies! Alan "Buzz" Fink

> I don't think someone should have to request a waiver. I just have trouble with USPA making it a BSR. I think it should be placed in the Group Member Pledge if it has to be there. It does the same thing without punishing rating holders for safely working at non-USPA DZ's. Alan "Buzz" Fink

I'm new to dropzone.com but very much appreciate the intelligent discussions that are found here without someone going off the deep end calling me the Anti-Christ for setting rules at my DZ. As you say we can agree to disagree but we can have a civil discussion about the topic. Thanks again. Alan "Buzz" Fink

I believe the Executive Committee was needed 15-20 years ago but now is not needed. With the advent internet and e-mail communications (thanks Al Gore) things have changed. It should be the responsibility of the President of the Organization to coordinate items between meetings, e-mailing them to the Full Board for input and voting. Thanks for the question. Blue Skies! Alan "Buzz" Fink

Yes we are. And yes you would be required to have an AAD. That is their GM dropzone and they should be able to run it as they please, whether I or USPA agrees or not as long as they follow the BSR's. Your example is one of a business decision. Right or wrong, it's their business. With that said, people can judge a DZ on how they run it, who they allow or who they disallow. They can choose to patronize them or not. Nothing in the GM program or in USPA at all says a DZ must allow someone or a type of jumper to jump. I do not want USPA saying that.

I do not know what the safety record is for skydiving aircraft. As for pilots ratings, no. That is the FAA's job. As far as educating pilots by providing video and recommended training plans, Yes. USPA cannot afford to take on the oversight responsibilities of pilots. They can assist and provide guidance. I would definitely like to see the supporting information. The simple fact that accident rate for skydiving aircraft is higher than GA does not mean alot without detailed analysis. For example, one could say the accident rate at a large DZ might be triple that of a small DZ. Does that mean the large DZ's are less safe than the small ones? Or might it be that the large DZ does 20 times as many jumps as the small DZ and as such has a lower number of accidents as compared to the number of jumps. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blowing this off. I just would need to see more info. It is definitely worth pursuing. Blue Skies! Alan "Buzz" Fink

Thanks. Alan "Buzz" Fink

> I believe the most serious issue is post 9-11 over-regulation. I believe keeping Ed Scott of USPA in touch with all the letter organizations (AOPA, NBAA, etc.) and working together we can keep our planes flying and our jumpers jumping. On a personal note, not many people understand how much Ed Scott has done for skydiving. To me, he is the single most valuable person at USPA Headquarters. Thanks and Blue Skies! Alan "Buzz" Fink

> With the knowledge I currently have, I believe the current bid system is best. However, the DZ that host the Nationals must be able to meet the needs of the competitors. These needs that need to be evaluated should include prior weather history. I don't think a single place is the best way to host the Nationals. With that said, I think more efforts to ascertain the needs of the competitors should be done. Don't just send out a questionnaire and be happy with the 5% that send them back. Take a proactive role by assigning someone to call the competitors that did not respond. If you REALLY want to know what the competitors want you have to be willing to take that extra step. And yes, it will cost some money to do this. But that is what we are here to do, service the membership. I believe the ISP is a good guide. I do not believe USPA should try to make one program work for everyone. The Basic Safety Requirements should be just that-Basic. USPA should provide guidelines as to how to run a student progression but not try to over regulate them. Let the DZ's and Instructors have the freedom to run their own programs. Of course, their needs to be certain criteria that need to be met but let the DZ's run their program. Thanks and Blue Skies! Buzz

What are your thoughts on the current age limits placed on jumpers (not tandems)? Do you think that with some lobbying, the age limit could be lowered, thus removing situations like the GM/WFFC conflict? I do not believe the BSR's are the right place to place an age limit. Usually, it is not a safety question as much as a liability issue. USPA needs to look long and hard as to why it wants age restrictions in the BSR's. Perhaps a better solution is to make age recommendations. I believe it is wrong to deny the WFFC Group Member status because a 16 year old with thousands of jumps will be jumping there. It's time to remove the restriction from the BSR's. Thanks for the question. Blue Skies! Alan "Buzz" Fink