Hooknswoop

Last time I check, it's been a few years, the pass rate was 50%. Half of the helmets with a DOT sticker failed an independent test. I would rather have the FAA doing ramp checks than the USPA's self reporting program. One is an actual check, the other is a DOT helmet sticker. Derek V

It wouldn't. So let's drop the charade. Right, DOT certification means nothing. When tested, DOT helmets routinely fail to meet the standards to be DOT certified. USPA GM for DZ's = DOT certification for helmets. This is worse than not having anything because it gives the appearance that they meet a standard, when, in reality, they may or may not. Derek V

Then I guess it doesn't happen..... "It's true that USPA dz's are held to certain standards and requirements. So you expect to get that at a USPA affiliated dz." You didn't answer how this benefits the membership. Derek V

They give the membership and the FAA the impression they are checking on jumpship maintenance with their self reporting program. This reduces, by design, FAA ramp checks. It does not ensure that the jumpship maintenance is actually done. USPA is complicit. How does the program benefit members? If a DZO is doing all the required maintenance on their jumpships, I would think they would welcome the FAA doing more ramp checks on DZ's. This levels the playing field and prevents a competitor from being able to compete by offering cheaper prices and making up the difference in less jumpship maintenance. USPA has proven ove and over again that when choosing between DZO's and members, DZO's always win. "What's good for DZO's is good for members" is USPA unofficial motto. Derek V

They aren't. They should drop their maintenance self-reporting program that doesn't do anything to ensure that the aircraft are being correctly maintained and gives the appearance that USPA is checking on aircraft maintenance. Derek V

I would be happy if USPA didn't help hide the operators that don't meet Part 91. Derek V

The cost to skydivers to ensure that jumpships are maintained to Part 91 is $0. If the jumpships are being maintained then the increase in cost to DZO's is $0. Derek V

I would gladly support USPA if they prioritized supporting the membership over DZO's. How did lowering the AFFICC standard benefit the membership? New skydivers often ask, "How do I know if a DZ is safe or not?" The answer is, "You don't." And the USPA is less than helpful in this area. In reference to the recent tandem fatality at Lodi, Ed Scott said; "Skydiving will never be a perfectly safe thing to do," said Ed Scott, executive director of the USPA, a nonprofit organization which works with state and federal officials to promote skydiving safety. If you don't find a location listed on our site, you don't know what you're getting, you don't know what the standards are," Scott said. The important factor with tandem skydiving is the certification and instructor." This perpetuates the myth that an USPA Group Member DZ is safer than a non-GM DZ. USPA does nothing to ensure this is true and there is no evidence to show that a GM DZ is safer than a non-GM DZ. Send in your check and you are GM DZ. The NTSB has repeatedly found that jump operations fail to meet very minimal requirements for jumpship maintenance and pilot training. What was USPA's response? Let's have the DZO's self report if they are meeting the minimum standards. This was designed to keep the FAA from performing more ramp checks. The problem is if the DZ is not meeting the standard, they are not going to report themselves and these forms are not checked for accuracy. "USPA will ensure that the form is accurately completed" is not the same as checking that the forms are accurate. How does this serve the membership? NTSB report here: http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR0801.pdf "Plane & Pilot December 16, 2008 Parachute Jump Operations The risks go beyond just jumping out of an airplane This past September, the NTSB completed a special investigation on accidents involving aircraft used in parachute jumping. The U.S. Parachute Association asserts that there are between 2.2 million and 3 million parachute jumps yearly in the United States. The NTSB doesn’t collect statistics on jumper injuries and fatalities unless they’re associated with an aircraft accident. According to the NTSB, since 1980, 172 people, mostly parachutists, have been killed in 32 accidents involving parachute operations. The NTSB became interested in doing the special investigation after a twin-engine de Havilland DHC-6-100 crashed in Sullivan, Mo., on July 29, 2006. The pilot and five parachutists were killed, and the other two parachutists on board received serious injuries. The turboprop had just taken off when flames began shooting out of the right engine. It flew to just above treetop level, then entered a right turn and crashed. Investigators found that compressor turbine blades in the right engine had fractured and that the engines were being operated beyond the manufacturer’s recommended TBO (this was legal because the airplane was being flown under Part 91). The NTSB suggested that the developing fractures might have been detected during an overhaul. It also noted that the onboard single-point restraints used by the parachutists to fulfill the seat-belt requirement weren’t as effective as other systems, and likely contributed to the number of injuries and fatalities. Additionally, the airplane’s seating configuration hadn’t been properly documented. Investigators found that the propeller autofeather system was inoperative and suggested that if it had been working, it might have helped the pilot feather the right prop and, thus, maintain aircraft control. The NTSB concluded that the pilot didn’t maintain adequate airspeed after the engine problem developed. In its report, the NTSB identified three recurring safety issues in parachute aircraft accidents: inadequate aircraft inspection and maintenance; inadequate FAA oversight/direct surveillance of parachute operations; and deficient pilot performance in basic airmanship. Parachutists may accept the risks associated with jumping out of planes, but they shouldn’t have to accept undue risks while riding inside them. Parachutists are entitled to, at a minimum, an airworthy airplane, an adequately trained pilot and enough FAA oversight to ensure the safety of the operation. The NTSB found that engines on planes used for parachute operations are often subjected to more wear and tear than those used in other Part 91 operations. They’re exposed to brief cycles of idle, takeoff, climbing, descending and landing, and often aren’t shut down between flights. In a service letter, Continental noted that engines used in parachute operations may require more frequent overhauls than are provided for by published TBO numbers. Pratt & Whitney excluded its turbine engines used on parachute aircraft from participation in programs to extend TBOs. The NTSB expressed concern that jump operators are allowed to fly under Part 91 while advertising their services to the public and carrying annual passenger loads into the millions. It was also troubled that pilots don’t have to undergo initial and recurrent training specific to parachute flight operations. In its safety recommendation, the NTSB called on the FAA to require jump operators to develop and use FAA-approved aircraft maintenance and inspection programs that include compliance with engine manufacturers’ service recommendations (e.g., TBOs and component life limits). The NTSB says the FAA should work with the U.S. Parachute Association to assist operators in implementing effective inspection and maintenance quality assurance programs. It wants the FAA to require jump operators to institute periodic flight checks to determine pilot competence, and to develop pilot training programs that address weight-and-balance calculations, preflight inspections and emergency and jump procedures for each type of aircraft flown. The NTSB also says that the FAA should be conducting, at a minimum, periodic on-site inspections of maintenance and operations. It noted that the FAA advisory circular “Sport Parachute Jumping” was published in 1991, and hasn’t been updated since. In its review of the 32 accidents since 1980, the NTSB found that eight of the airplanes weren’t airworthy at the time they were dispatched. In nearly all of the accidents, the pilots held commercial or ATP certificates, yet didn’t perform adequate preflight inspections, do proper weight-and-balance calculations, maintain airspeed or properly execute emergency procedures—a fact the NTSB characterized as a “disturbing common denominator.” Twelve of the airplanes were loaded beyond their max allowable gross weights; nine of those were loaded outside of center-of-gravity limits. Twelve accidents involved loss of engine power, and nearly all of the pilots allowed the plane to stall. On September 10, 1995, a Beech 65 crashed into a house about 2.5 miles from the municipal airport in West Point, Va. The ATP-rated pilot, 10 parachutists and a resident of the house were killed. The accident occurred in day VFR conditions. Witnesses heard unusual engine sounds during takeoff. One person heard the engine stop for about four seconds, then regain power during takeoff. Black smoke trailed the airplane, and the witness saw it enter a shallow right turn that gradually increased to 70 to 80 degrees. The airplane then rolled into a left bank with a nose-down attitude of 45 degrees. Investigators found that in 1975, the airplane crashed in Minnesota and was reported as destroyed; it was sold for salvage for $1 in June 1976. In November 1976, the airplane was again registered with the FAA. In 1995, the airplane was sold to the skydiving club that owned it at the time of the accident. Maintenance records didn’t indicate when the cabin seats were removed to accommodate parachutists. An FAA Form 337 had been filed indicating that floor-mounted seat belts were installed in 1990. The aircraft’s weight and balance had been recalculated, and logbook records were updated, but no such figures were found in the logbooks. More modifications were reported in 1995 via FAA 337s, but logbook entries didn’t match what was reported. The airplane’s aft boarding door had been removed for sport parachute operations. Some Beech 65 airplanes were approved for flight with the cabin door removed, but not this one. The NTSB reported that the operator produced a “Flight Manual Supplement” stating that such door removal was authorized. The NTSB, however, reported that the document had been altered, and there were no records to indicate that the airplane had been flight-tested and authorized for flight with the door removed. Teardown examination of the engines and propellers failed to find preexisting conditions that may have led to the accident. The airplane was found to have been about 170 pounds over gross weight, with the center of gravity about three inches aft of the limit. The NTSB’s report quoted from the FAA’s Flight Training Handbook: “Generally speaking, an airplane becomes less controllable, especially at slow flight speeds, as the center of gravity is moved aft. An airplane that cleanly recovers from a prolonged spin with the center of gravity at one position may fail completely to respond to normal recovery attempts when the center of gravity is moved aft by one or two inches.” The probable cause of this accident was determined to be the pilot’s inadequate preflight/preparation, his failure to ensure proper weight and balance of the airplane, and his failure to obtain/maintain minimum control speed, which resulted in a loss of aircraft control after a loss of power in the right engine. The reason for the loss of power couldn’t be determined. On June 21, 2003, a Cessna 182H was conducting an airdrop of parachutists near Cushing, Okla. A commercial pilot and five skydivers were on board, and day VFR conditions prevailed. Witnesses saw the airplane take off, circle while climbing to altitude and fly over the landing area, at which point the first parachutist jumped. The plane then made a left turn and “seemed to hang in the air,” according to a witness. The nose dropped, and the airplane started down. Two more parachutists then jumped out. When the airplane was about 300 to 400 feet AGL, a witness heard the engine power increase, but saw the airplane continue in a spin until impact. The pilot was fatally injured, two parachutists received serious injuries, two received minor injuries and one escaped injury. Marks made in the ground and wreckage indicated that the airplane impacted in a flat attitude. There was no evidence of preimpact problems in the engine. The NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot’s failure to maintain airspeed, which resulted in an inadvertent stall/spin. Peter Katz is editor and publisher of NTSB Reporter, an independent monthly update on aircraft accident investigations and other NTSB news. To subscribe, write to: NTSB Reporter, Subscription Dept., P.O. Box 831, White Plains, NY 10602-0831." September 8, 2005: "All fair questions, Derek. Here are the responses: 1. How does this affect non-USPA Group Member drop zones? USPA can’t compel participation by non-GM DZs, but they may want to use the guidance to ensure they comply with the regs. 2. What happens if the drop zone does not return the Aircraft Status Form? Renewal of the Group Membership requires completed, returned forms. 3. If the drop zone does return the form, will it be verified for accuracy? 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. 4. If yes, how? USPA isn’t the FAA; we won’t be conducting surprise inspections or demanding logbooks. Though, as the result of a recent NTSB recommendations, the FAA might. 5. What will be done with the information on the Aircraft Status Form? We’ll note that the DZ provided the information for the aircraft they list. 6. Will USPA maintain a database that USPA Members can check to see what a drop zone is reporting? No. But a skydiver has always had the right to ask a DZO about their maintenance. 7. Will a drop zone’s Group Membership not be renewed or revoked for failure to submit or falsifying the Aircraft Status Form? Completed forms are required for Group Membership. USPA’s by-laws already allow for sanctions on any member who intentionally falsifies a USPA form. 8. If there is a lawsuit resulting from a jump plane incident, will the Aircraft Status Forms be made available to either party involved in the lawsuit? The form will be discarded after being received and checked for accuracy. 9. If the last addition to the Group Member Pledge, separating landing areas by either distance or time was a dismal failure with many DZ’s failing to separate landing areas, how will this be any different? We don’t agree that BSR has failed. Many DZs have chosen to separate landings by time, if not distance. Canopy collision fatalities are not only down in number, they are substantially down as a percentage of all fatalities; they were 30% of the total in 2007, 13% of the total in 2008, and so far are 8% of the total in 2009. The program may not be perfect, but it will clarify what the regulations require and it will urge the operators to make sure they comply. And it will accomplish this without heavy-handed government action. Ed Scott " GROUP MEMBER PLEDGE As a person with operational control, I pledge to: • Comply with the USPA Basic Safety Requirements (BSRs), which include compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations relevant to skydiving operations, including aircraft operations. • Ensure that all pilots employed or utilized for the purpose of parachute operations hold at least a commercial pilot certificate and a second-class medical certificate. • Ensure that all aircraft utilized for the purpose of parachute operations comply with commercial maintenance requirements described in FAR Part 91.409(a) through (f) as applicable. • Ensure skydiving staff of the Group Member are appropriately qualified and trained in accordance with the SIM and (where applicable) hold current USPA ratings commensurate with their duties. • Establish landing procedures that will include separation of high-speed and normal landings.These landing procedures must be prominently displayed and communicated to all jumpers at the drop zone. • Support USPA promotional programs at the drop zone. • 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. • Include USPA and manufacturers, distributors and dealers of skydive equipment in the Group Member hold-harmless release, consistent with state laws. (New applicants, please provide a copy of the waiver with this application.) Derek V

Group Member DZ's are required by the USPA to require membership. It isn't the dzo's. I think if USPA membership was worth the $55.00+/year, it wouldn't need to be mandatory. Derek V

If it so great, why is it mandatory? Derek V

If USPA membership was not mandatory, would you renew yours? Derek V

I just think it is dishonest to say they were shot at for playing Pokemon. That is a lie. Something a low integrity news agency would do in order to get people to click on the link. Derek V

Why did the shooter pull the trigger? Because they were playing pokemon? Just to make sure sure there is no confusion, I am not supporting or defending the shooter. Derek V

No worries. Your title would have been more accurate, but it would not have created the emotional response the current thread title does. Derek V

Because the title of the thread; "Teens shot at for playing Pokemon in Florida..." I'm wondering how the OP knew the shooter knew they were playing pokemon. Agreed and no, I am not defending him. Derek V

Do you think the shooter knew the teens in the car were playing pokemon? Derek V

Or combine these 2 steps. Derek V

Best bet is to ask the NRA. I don't know. I suspect it is because the NRA's focus on gun rights and not militias. The point of the 2nd amendment is simple, an armed populace from which to form a militia, if necessary. Not gun control. Ironic that we find ourselves having traded positions from a wingloading BSR to gun control. You felt (feel?) education, not regulation, if it could be proved to you that that was even necessary, was the best course of action. Derek V

A well regulated militia. Not well regulated arms. That interpretation of the 2nd amendment just doesn't follow logic. The point of the 2nd amendment was to have armed citizens to be called up into (well regulated) militias. Nowhere in there does well regulated militia equal gun control. Hence my confusion earlier. Derek V

It makes sense that "the people" need to have firearms so that they could be called up into a militia, if needed. In that sense, the two are connected for sure. The reverse just isn't true. Derek V

I honestly did not. That is why I kept asking about poorly regulated militias. It didn't make any sense to me. Now that I understand your argument (thanks DanG), we can move forward. Getting from "well regulated militia" to gun control is amazing jump. Especially when it also says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Derek V

I haven;t heard that argument before. That is more than a reach to apply "well regulated" through militia and into gun control. Derek V

I really would like to understand if normiss is trying to apply well regulated to arms or to militia. As is stands, what he keeps saying makes no sense. He is implying that well regulated applies to arms and, when questioned, he dodges the question. I'll be clear, normiss, do you think that well regulated applies to militia or to arms? When you say, "I, and many many others, feel it's past time for more of the "well regulated" part of the second.", what exactly, do you mean? Derek V

You feel it is past time for better regulating militias? You still have not provided a link showing where poorly regulated militias are causing all the problems you listed. Derek V

I read the carefully and still did not see a single link...... Derek V