Hooknswoop

Isnt demo insurance a separate, additional cost from regular USA membership? I'm not saying us-a does nothing for its members, I'm saying it try's to serve two masters and when there is a conflict of interest, the individual member ship almost always loses. Several of my points have not been addressed or countered. Derek V

I've seen most of these at USPA GM DZ's. Or worse. One has nothing to do with the other. My issue with USPA is they don't just serve the skydiving members. They serve DZ's as well. When they must choose between the two, jumpers generally lose. USPA gives the impression that they are checking on aircraft maintenance (they are not), and the GM membership means something (it doesn't). I agree that do some good things, but they cannot serve 2 masters. As long as membership is mandatory (I know you say it isn't, but aside from a handful of DZ's, it is mandatory), USPA does not have to answer to its membership. 1. Eliminate the GM program. Or require the Inspection Program for membership. 2. Eliminate the mandatory membership 3. Eliminate the maintenance reporting system. 4. Return the AFFICC standards to the pre-2001 level. Derek V

In 2008, in response to; "> Without a doubt, the standards of the program could be raised and > you could implement jump numbers, licenses, hours and yada yada > requirements – but would that really solve anything?" Bill wrote: "I don't think it would solve anything, but it might keep the problem of unqualified instructors from getting worse." http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3154737;search_string=Afficc;#3154737 Has your opinion changed? Derek V

I did not know the course director or any of the evaluators at my course and I passed first try, no problem. 7 or 8 of the 15 candidates in my course passed. None failed because of who they did or did not know. One had failed 2 previous courses. He did not possess the flying skills to be an affi. He later passed the new, lower standard course. The old course had standards as well. The new course has easier standards. Derek V

You still skipped the best one; - Why did they create a program that gives the impression they are tracking jump ship maintenance when they actually are not? "3. If the drop zone does return the form, will it be verified for accuracy? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3695667;search_string=uspa%20inspection%20accuracy;#3695667 USPA will ensure that the form is accurately completed, e.g. that a Twin Otter operator doesn’t indicate that it is on annual/100-hour inspections, that an operator lists the FSDO its program has been filed with, that all “last” and “next” inspection blocks are completed, and the certifying IA or repair station is listed." I've made some, yes. Why does USPa require GM DZ's to require membership? They aren't dying? That is the standard? Setting the bar kinda low, aren't you? Isn't the quality of the Instructor important? How did lowering the quality of the Instructor benefit the membership? Is it a coincidence that the standard was lowered at the same time that Don Yarling presented a seminar at PIA (2001-ish) about the Instructor shortage? I have not observed the same. Derek V

"GROUP MEMBER PLEDGE Require introductory or regular individual USPA membership of: 1. all licensed U.S. skydivers (a skydiver is considered a student until licensed) 2. non-resident foreign nationals who do not have proof of membership in their national aeroclub" So, lowering the standard was a good idea??? How? Safer in some respects.... That is not what I have seen. Sending a check to USPA and signing a pledge has no bearing on the level of safety at a DZ. And you skipped the best one; - Why did they create a program that gives the impression they are tracking jump ship maintenance when they actually are not? Derek V

Research the USPA Voluntary Inspection Program (VIP). No one has taken a shot at these; - Why is membership mandatory? - Why did USPA lower the standards to pass the AFFI course? - Why did they create a program that gives the impression they are tracking jump ship mainenance when they actually are not? - Why can't members use USPA as a tool to help determine which DZ's to spend their skydiving dollar? - Why do they promote the myth that a GM DZ is somehow safer than a non GM DZ? Derek V

If USPA is so great; - Why is membership mandatory? - Why did USPA lower the standards to pass the AFFI course? - Why did they create a program that gives the impression they are tracking jump ship mainenance when they actually are not? - Why can't members use USPA as a tool to help determine which DZ's to spend their skydiving dollar? - Why do they promote the myth that a GM DZ is somehow safer than a non GM DZ? Derek V

I have stuffed my V303 into a 1510 and carried it on. It is listed as a carry on sized case. I have also carried the 1510 on for other, non-skydiving trips. Great case. Derek V

I explained above, the Federal government is giving the bonus and then taking part of it back. It would be more efficient to just give the net bonus. I would imagine some people focus on (or don't realize it will be taxed) the gross bonus number and not the net. This makes is seem like they will get more money for re-enlistment than they actually will, making the bonus system more effective. Derek V

Because it is the Federal government that is giving the bonus and then taking back a percentage. That is extra steps for the same result of just giving the net bonus instead. If I owed you $20 and you bought my Velo 84 for $1500. It would make the most sense to just pay me $1480 and call it done. It would be inefficient for you to pay me $1500 and then me send you $20. Want to buy a Velo 84? Derek V

So we shouldn't do anything? Isn't doing something worth saving at least one life?!?! Derek V

You "just mentioned" does not equal "engineering data". I still have not seen any engineering data and therefore it is impossible I am ignoring any engineering data. As a rigger, what do I have to go by? Someone mentioning some drop test results they heard about? Nope. All I have is the FAR's. Mirage is certified in the low speed category and some PDR's exceed what the harness is certified to. Will it handle more? Sure. Doesn't matter. I can't put 1.2x the max weight on the reserve data card that the reserve was certified to because I know it held together at that weight during tests. I have to put what the reserve is certified to. Derek V

What engineering data? AllI have as a rigger is that the Mirage is TSO'd in the low speed category and some PD's can produce more opening force than the harness is certified to. No "subtle wordings". Derek V

I'm following now, thanks

I'm not following you when you say limit the canopy. You cannot just placard for a reduced weight or speed. Under TSO 23D, the reserve is required to have on it's placard, the average peak force generated that was measured during drop tests. Not all TSO C23d reserves have this data on the placard. This force that is generated by deployment must be lower than the force the harness was certified to. For example, if the canopy generates 3,500 pounds of force and the harness is only certified to 2,500, then the harness is not certified to handle the load that could be put on it during deployment. Derek V

I originally brought this issue up in 2005: AC-105-2C, 11e states: “The strength of the harness must always be equal to or greater than the maximum force generated by the canopy during certification tests. (1) In a case where the harness is certificated under TSO-C23b and the canopy under TSO C23c, the maximum generated force of the harness and container; i.e, Low-Speed Category (3,000 lbs.) and Standard Category (5,000 lbs.). In this instance, no additional marking on the container is necessary. (2) In the case where the canopy is certificated under the TSO-C23b and the harness under TSO-C23c, the strength of the harness must be equal to or greater than the certificated category force of the canopy” A PD-113R label shows the average peak force of 3639 pounds. The Mirage is TSO’d under TSO-C23b, Low-Speed Category (3,000lbs.). The way I am reading this is according to AC-105-2C, a PD-113R cannot be put into a Mirage. That also means any reserve TSO'd under TSO-C23d with an average peak force over 3,000 pounds can't go into a Mirage. Derek V

No one has suggested anything that would 1. Have a meaningful impact on gun related fatalities AND, 2. Not unreasonably limit the 2nd amendment rights of citizens. I am tired of the rallying cry, "We must do something!" How many do you know have been killed with a gun? How many people do you know have died skydiving? BASE jumping, driving, biking, on a motorcycle? Cell phone makers could save lives by preventing phones from receiving texts, emails, or phone calls when the phone is moving in a vehicle. But they don't and distracted driving related fatalities are on the rise. Think about that for a minute. Do you want to save lives or ban guns? Derek V

We should do something!!!!!!!! Derek V

So a tandem instructor could have a D license, a manufacture's rating and be FAA legal? The FAA doesn't recognize FAI licenses? Derek V

Right so you can have a D license, USPA membership, and a UPT tandem rating and be legal, yes? Derek V

Why do you say that? Derek V

Why must they stop doing tandems if they don't have UPT AND USPA tandem ratings? Why did they revoke USPA memberships before the investigation was complete? I am impressed that USPA is taking action. Derek V

It protects the BOC material. Works very well too. Derek V