skyfox2007

Maybe at your DZ, but folks at the DZ's I've frequented have been vocal about the goings on: the past election, the licensing changes, the Lodi Investigation, etc. No prompting on my part required. Walk into manifest or into the hangar and there they are huddled over a cup of coffee and venting there angst before the first load. We might be cynical about speaking up, but folks are dissatisfied. Contact my board member? Hahaha...two calls and two emails this past summer and no response. I'll qualify this comment and say that the new board deserves a chance before anyone passes judgement. So I'll give it another shot... Billvon, you're too pessimistic about the USPA membership not caring and too optimistic about our previous collection of board members. Dare I say you need to get out a bit more. One DZ in SD is not representative of the entire community. One more thing: the internet is here to stay and billions of people across the world are using it to communicate (or bitch) each and every day. Two billion people had a facebook account as of last year and that number is still rising in spite Mark Zucherberg's congressional disposition and related privacy concerns. Funny - or ironic - to see someone frequent an online forum and chastise someone else for doing the same. -JD-

Wow, it's not everyday you meet someone who's cynical about the cynics. Yeah, the average USPA member (voter) is probably cynical and that is a problem for our community. But that same average member is also responsible for the majority of USPA's funding and always will be - like it or not. -JD-

You're right, the current bylaws don't allow it. But then again, change is never easy.

I feel the average skydiver doesn't much care for the goings on up at the USPA precisely because they haven't a say in important decisions. Our community isn't immune to cynicism. Giving some decision-making power back to our members might prove incentive enough for them to do the research and make an informed decision. Take a look at some of this past elections ballots. Some states routinely hold referendums on important issues. So the idea is proven valid. If a state can organize such a vote that engages tens of millions of people, it shouldn't be that hard for the USPA to do it for a few thousand. Didn't we just organize an electronic vote our most recent BOD election? How hard would it be to add a vote to that same ballot? No more guessing about what the community - as a whole - wants. -JD-

It's possible? What are you basing this assertion on? This is why I suggested to Mike Mullins - a few months back - that items like these go to a referendum. We could just as easily put the museum to a vote during this past USPA election cycle by including a "go" or "no go" on the ballot. -JD-

You're not disgruntled? So you don't think there is sufficient evidence to prove that USPA's recent decisions are inconsistent with their stated mission? Re-read this thread brother. Re-read the one regarding the most recent BOD meeting in Wisconsin. I'd also challenge you to go a step further and sift through the publicly available information from the USPA, FAA, and elsewhere for the facts associated with the discussions we've had here. I'm currently working on my second master's and I have to say there is plenty of factual information out there to write a thesis or even a dissertation on some of these topics. In regards to your ease of reaching your regional director, all I can say is lucky you. It would also be just as improper to judge the USPA as a whole on the strengths of one person as it would be to do the same on the shortcomings of another, single person. Not all regional directors are created equal. -JD-

What's worse? Complaining? Or complaining about how or why others complain? I'll pose the same question of you that you've posed: what have you done? I would say Ron has a valid point. I've been after my regional director for sometime now - email and phone - I haven't heard anything back. A few of the BOD members I have contacted effectively dodged any direct dialogue using the FARs as cover. I won't generalize the USPA as a whole, but the sense I'm getting is that many of the folks within the organization now don't care much for the general membership. Beyond petitioning our USPA officials, voting, attending those USPA events that are within reasonable traveling distance, and engaging one another, what are your suggestions for taking action? -JD-

For being a moderator, you're not so moderate. -JD-

N/A

Obelixtim, I have to disagree with idea of the FAA resuming its oversight of parachute operations. This organization is well-known for its micromanagement and partly explains why the cost of air-fare in this country continues to rise. While its comforting to know that commercial aircraft I fly on must meet minimum standards of operation and safety, I don't think skydivers really want the FAA applying that same level of scrutiny to parachuting. Additional scrutiny comes with additional costs and time lost due to inspections, oversight, and Standard Operating Procedures. Beware what you wish for...Big Brother can be a help sometimes, but other times he's an over-bearing jerk who reaches into your wallet and spoils the fun. And many of the most prominent safety-related issues in our sport are rectifiable, provided our members and DZOs are willing to employ and enforce them. Insofar as the USPA sitting on its hands, I have to agree with you there. But there's an easy fix to that too: we as skydivers must be willing to adjust our attitudes and hold our USPA officials accountable when they fail to act in our best interests. -JD-

Really. I've been after my regional director for some time...no response via email nor a call back. Is it that we're not talking or is someone else not listening? -JD-

You know, most skydivers may not give a damn right now. But the museum and licensing decisions have got everyone's attention - at least at the DZ's that I frequent. Are most skydivers upset about paying a few extra bucks a year or making a few extra formation jumps to pass licensing criteria? Not really. But do you think these decisions constitute good precedents? Nope. The folks up at the USPA feel they can make X donation or Y rule without consequence and there will be more to come. You'll be singing a different tune when the USPA passes some silly rule that negatively impacts your regular experience at the DZ or when our community experiences a rash of accidents that the FAA holds the USPA in contempt for and steps in to correct the issue. -JD-

Skydivers genuinely care about their community. But our cynical attitude is reflective of the leadership we have. You ran for national director and I respect that. But an email in a bio isn't going to inspire action. This highlights another fundamental problem we skydivers have: how do we genuinely develop a confidence in a candidate whom we've never met or seen? And BOD members don't exactly have the money to campaign, so then how do you get your name out there? I think streaming BOD and director meetings is a good start. If streaming meetings of a governing body doesn't sound like it would inspire a desire to get involved, then why does the average American waste time watching C-span or CNN during high-level government processes in spite of the high levels of cynicism out there? Look at how the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing ignited the public. I guarantee you that had the BOD streamed the last meeting in Wisconsin and advertised a month or two beforehand, folks would have tuned in and the BOD's inboxes would be full of messages regarding the museum donation. If you want participation, you have to engage... -JD-

No kidding. This year's pool of candidates is rather mum about many of the real issues affecting our community - or so their comments suggested. Only a few of the candidates were willing to even hint that there were problems that required redress. Rather than spend hours I don't have investigating their individual backgrounds or their professional opinions on key issues, I decided it would be much more efficient to cast a vote for each of the challengers (non-incumbents). Many of our community's biggest complaints - like the annual museum donation - were decided upon by the incumbent board members. Maybe voting them all out of office and forcing a 100% turnover of the BOD will be sufficient to remind the winners that acting unilaterally and without the community's input is not in their best interest. -JD-

Marc, I have to agree with betzilla. My wife tried a tandem last year, but has decided to not take it up right now. She feels bad about not sharing that joy I have for this sport and would like to spend more time with me at the DZ, but I respect her decision to not to. Her taking up skydiving would also mean leaving her own passion behind - she's been an avid sailor since she was 6. As much as I'd like to spend every weekend in the air, I make time to go the occasional regatta or weekend series with her or set aside some time to do something else. I would suggest making a compromise. If you insist upon continuing with skydiving, know that the fear will diminish. I was scared out of my mind when I started (I'm acrophobic believe it or not), but by jump 40, the anxiety level went way down and the fun factor went way up. The most apprehensive parts of the jump - and sometimes still are - were the moments when I pitched my PC and when I turned on final. Will that chute open? Will I collide with someone? But the more I jump, the more confident I become and more I'm able to transcend what fears I do have. -JD-

Yeah, landing on private property brings with it the risk of angering the property owner and might also carry with it some legal ramifications as well if that same property owner is a stickler for trespassing. Many property owners near DZs are amicable and don't mind an occasional skydiver making a touchdown on their lawn/fields. But there are nuts out there! Get with your S&TA/instructor and ask them where the preferred off-DZ landing sites are. There should also be a map on the DZ somewhere that illustrates where the safest "outs" are located. One last thing...carrying a cell phone on you while you jump is a good idea. If you land off and are without comm's, it's going to be a long haul back to the DZ with all of your gear. -JD-

Most of the DZ's I've jumped at - when encountering a situation like this - required jumpers to continue with the pre-planned pattern before the jump..."plan the jump and jump the plan" as they say. Ask your local S&TA or DZO regarding your DZ's rules on this. You should also ask your local S&TA about purposefully landing downwind when he or she believes your skills sufficient for an attempt. When ready, your S&TA should be able to coordinate a downwind landing for you on a load, likely on a solo hop & pop to prevent a collision. If you find yourself in a situation where the wind does change and at one of the many DZs that require adherence to the pre-jump pattern, you'll have to land downwind. Landing downwind poses additional hazards and requires some practice to execute safely, but is a skill that can literally save your back-side. -JD-

You're right, we should elevate the standards. We can agree there. What' frustrates me is WHY the USPA raised the proficiency bar, in this case. The "why" is just as important as the "what." No nosy foreigner bashing from me...I've lived a good part of my life overseas. We could do with some fresh ideas, provided their generally accepted and not forced. We weren't given a choice about the USPA pegging its standards to the FAI's. -JD-

Mike, Firstly, the entire basis of my above argument is that the USPA put the good of the athletes ahead of our community's safety in pegging our most recent licensing requirements to the FAI's standards. You just confirmed that the intent behind that decision was competition and not safety – for the second time. The former and latter both feature in the USPA's mission statement, but safety comes before competition. I feel - and I don't think I'm alone here - that the USPA has its priorities out of order. Additionally, if you're going to change the rules that affect everyone, they should ALSO benefit everyone. These new license changes affect everyone, but only benefit a small segment of our community. We fun jumpers shouldn't have to "jump" through more hoops just so an athlete can compete overseas. I'm also not buying the counter-argument that these license changes make skydiving safer as they focus on the phase of our sport that is already the safest to begin with: free fall. They do nothing to address the statistically, more dangerous canopy phase. From a safety perspective, the license changes don’t pass the Willie Sutton test. Lastly, these licensing changes most certainly DO make it easier for our athletes. Per FAI Code – section 5, paragraph 2.4, item (5), page 5: “A NAC may have different requirements for National Certificate Categories than those set out above, including specific proficiency tests.” IOW, the USPA could issue a separate sporting/competition license for its athletes if it wanted to. Was it just easier for the USPA to peg our National Airsport Control (NAC) standards to the FAIs than to create a new category for our athletes? The facts definitely support that idea and I don’t appreciate being asked to “jump” over a higher bar just so that the US team can go do its thing…unless that higher bar is erected to correct a safety-related deficiency that sound statistical analysis supports. Yes, I’ll reach out to the FAI myself to confirm the above and will even post the response here when I do receive it. -JD-

You're right, enhancing safety and competition or not mutually exclusive. But do you think the USPA really had safety in mind when they made these license changes? Mike Mullins directly admitted to me in another thread that the USPA made these changes to make it easier on our athletes - that safety was not the basis for their decision. Wow, really? Wasn't safety placed before competition in the USPA's own mission statement? Yes, the USPA could pass another set of changes tomorrow to improve the former and I believe it should. But I believe the USPA could have been more efficient and comprehensive in pursuing its stated mission had it made rule changes that served more than one mission purpose and more than only one small segment of our community. I feel jumpers should be limited to specific wing-loading maximums based on license level, thus preventing folks from down-sizing too quickly. Yes, the accuracy standards are quite tough, but how often do S&TA's really enforce them? I only have 200 or so jumps, but I've jumped at some 15 DZs and the S&TAs I've met rarely go to the hangar entrance to watch their up-jumpers land, much less run out their with measuring tape in hand. While a measuring tape-wielding S&TA would probably be counter-productive, I don't feel our DZs do enough enforce the accuracy standards. Every DZ should have a designated swoop lane - most places I've jumped don't. And swooping should require a D-license. Yes, I'm ready to catch some flak, but keep in mind that I don't have a C or D-license yet and these rules would apply to me just as they would apply to any other up-jumper. -JD-

Why label me a complainer? Is it because you disagree with what I have said? It's interesting - or should I say concerning - to see a forum moderator label or attack someone else for an opinion or an idea that they've politely expressed. Aren't you supposed to be guarding against that? There is a fine line between complaint (AKA whining) and discussion. I view the former as lacking logical basis or to win attention and about as productive as airing dirty laundry. Nothing I've said here meets that definition. I welcome disagreement and constructive criticism - provided it goes both ways - and think it a sign of healthy civil society. And positing and exchanging ideas - be it here or at the DZ or at the local watering hole after a day in the air - is working toward improving the sport. We can't share great ideas or pass on lessons learned if we keep our mouths shut. And with everyone online these days, a forum very efficient way to communicate. Good point on canopy flight, but the statistics speak for themselves. I'm not arguing that the USPA's reasoning for the license changes was for competitive purposes. That's obvious. But like I told PEEK, the USPA should have put safety first in light of the statistics. If we're going to change rules, we ought to do so for the right reasons and maximize the benefits. These changes benefit only a small group within our community and demonstrate USPA's willingness to put competition ahead of safety. -JD-

I'm not saying the USPA's decision reduced skydiving safety, but I am saying that the decision to peg USPA standards to the FAI's for competitive purposes prioritized competition over safety in this instance. Are we any less safe today than we were before the USPA made this decision? No. Did the USPA lose out on an opportunity to enact meaningful change that could have made us safer? Yes. Their decision to change the licensing standards does nothing to emphasize the particular hazards of canopy flight - the one area of our sport that statistics have proven more dangerous than any other. -JD-

Hook & Swoop, Your first point is valid, but only because the FAA can fine and/or ground the airlines for not following procedures. When was the last time the USPA took such extreme measures with a DZ? Direct FAA oversight would mean stepped-up inspections - in detail and frequency. These inspections would mean increased costs for the DZOs for more frequent repairs and down-time, who would then pass those costs along to the customer: us. Amen on the third point. But not all airlines are the same. My wife and I travel frequently and I can tell you with certainty that some ARE better than others in experience. Procedures vary, ticket prices actually vary once seating is taken into account, and even maintenance varies. On the last point, visit these two links: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113877784 https://www.twu.org/aircraft-maintenance-outsourcing-disclosure-act-of-2018-prioritizes-safety-american-jobs/ -JD-

Westerly, Yes, you can enhance safety in more than one category. But why not address safety in the most dangerous category first? You'll save more lives and limbs by addressing the larger danger before the smaller one. Even in skydiving AND policing, Willie Sutton's rule holds true. If you want to make the B, C, and D licences more difficult to achieve, up the canopy accuracy standards and ENFORCE them. I had to beg my S&TA to watch my landings. He didn't seem to care and was ready to pencil-whip that requirement on my last license application. Yes, EPs were the leading cause of death last year, but what about the year before that, and the year before that? The data - when viewed longitudinally - strongly suggests that canopy flight is our biggest issue and we ought to invest the greatest chunk of time and effort there. -JD-

Peek, Your referral to a competition-oriented person proves my point. Why did the USPA update its licensing standards to bring them into line with the FAIs? So that US competitors participating in international contests would encounter no resistance when asked to produce proof of proficiency. Their licenses would be just as valid as those issued by the FAI - as the prerequisites were identical. Competitors had everything to gain from the license upgrades, while us mere mortals have to "jump" through more hoops for our licenses. These rules also address a phase of our sport that has - over time - proven statistically safer than the canopy phase. ...so I'll restate what I said earlier: the USPA has failed to prioritize it's stated mission goals by placing "competition" ahead of "safety." The latter should come before the former. -JD-