michaelmullins

This is dishonest at best. Remove the requirement from the GM pledge and let the chips fall where they may. Derek V I disagree. However, feel free to contact the Chair of the GM Program, Chuck Akers, and ask him to put the following item on the GM Agenda for the next BOD meeting: "Discuss the requirement for USPA Membership at GM DZs and the possibility of removing the requirement". You may go to the meeting next board meeting and state your case, or you may send emails or letters, or you may even possibly skype into the meeting. Contact and meeting info: Chuck Akers Gulf (GU) Regional Director Chair, Group Membership USPA Member # 49855, D-10855 [email protected] 19514 Pitchstone Dr. Tomball, TX 77377 (832) 630-1213 The Winter 2019 USPA Board of Directors Meeting: USPA BOD: February 1-3, 2019 Hyatt Regency Dallas 300 Reunion Blvd E, Dallas, TX 75207 (214) 651-1234 FFI: [email protected] I have given you all the contacts, addresses, dates, the procedure, and have ever written the agenda item for you. Complaining on DZ.com is not going to help you with your goal of removing the requirement of USPA Membership at GM DZs. I have told you exactly how to go about achieving your goal. It is up to you to follow up with it and enlist whatever support you think you have. However, in the unlikely event that you prevail I doubt that there will be any additional DZs that will allow you to jump without USPA Membership, aka liability insurance. Those that complain about having to have USPA membership to jump at a GM DZ are a small minority, but please indulge your passion. Mike Mullins

***Isn't that the job of the S&TA? Last I checked, I don't work for the USPA. The S&TA is appointed by the RD, period. He is only as good as the RD requires. Some are very good, some are not. If you are concerned about safety and violations and the S&TA is not doing his job, then report it. If an RD is not doing his job and is appointing S&TAs that are not doing their job, then elect someone else. DZs are free to be a GM DZ or not. If they choose not to be a GM DZ then they are free to allow non-members to jump there. It is not a matter of insurance, a GM DZ and a non GM DZ have exactly the same USPA liability insurance as long as the jumper is a USPA member. The liability insurance is an individual benefit and is in effect regardless of the DZ. So, again, it is a DZ decision. They are not required to be a GM and if they choose not to be then they can choose to allow non members to jump. Regardless of GM or not, they probably will not let non members jump because NON-USPA MEMBERS DO NOT HAVE LIABILITY INSURANCE. Why should any business or person risk their livelihood to allow someone to jump with NO LIABILITY INSURANCE just because that person does not like USPA? It is virtually universal in the US that you have automobile liability insurance so when you hit someone going 70 mph their injuries are covered. So why would a swooper going the same 70 mph and hitting the same person not be required to have insurance? Again, it is a DZ decision. GM or not, they have the same insurance if the jumpers are USPA members. Even if they are not a GM, they most likely will require you to have USPA membership for the insurance. Of course, if they are dirt poor meth heads that own nothing, they are judgment proof and have nothing to lose so they may indeed allow those without liability insurance to jump. However, those DZOs that have put time and money into a business that is their livelihood would probably prefer not to lose everything they own because someone who has no insurance kills a spectator on a high performance landing gone bad. USPA is not demanding membership, the DZ is demanding membership regardless GM or not. First, there is the statute of limitations that USPA must abide by in disciplinary procedures, which is one year. This action actually started in 2014 and the violation was earlier than that. When a complaint is made to the FAA it does not necessarily mean that USPA hears about it. Next, typically is a case such as this the DZ simply blames the pilot and the pilot is often not a USPA member. "We told him not to do it". Pilot is usually not available to refute this. I am not saying that this is what happened in this case, I am saying this is what typically happens. Recently, there have been actions taken against members in this region, and one DZ in this region did voluntarily relinquish their GM for their own reasons. Yes, I agree it is a FAR. However, some DZOs argued that they were not paying their pilot and they did not need to use a commercial pilot. USPA wanted to make it crystal clear that it was required and that is why it is in the pledge. The Chester Judy award:The USPA Safety & Training Advisor in consultation with the drop zone owner selects one individual from the drop zone to which the award is appointed..... If you do not like who got it, talk to the S&TA and the RD that appointed him. If the S&TA says someone gets the award, they get the reward, period. The FAR's are quoted in the GM pledge to make it absolutely certain that the GM knows exactly what is required and gives no wiggle room for what may be their particular interpretation of the FAR. Bottom line: You will most likely be required to be a USPA member at a very high percentage of all DZs. GM or non GM, doesn't matter. What matters is that for the same reason that the state requires you to have liability insurance on what can kill, main, or do property damage, your car, the DZ is going to also require you to have liability insurance on what can kill, maim, or do property damage, your parachute. USPA is the only one providing said liability insurance. Mike Mullins

***Tried that. A DZO doing AFF without a rating. The RD’s response: “What do you want me to do, take away a rating they don’t have?” I do not know who the RD was, but that is both an incorrect and unacceptable answer. That is why I specifically said to report it to the Director of Safety and Training and the RD. That way action is assured to be taken and an RD cannot ignore the problem. Any DZO that is a USPA member, or any USPA member, that does AFF without a rating will lose their membership, or license, or both. So, if you want this action to stop then report it to the Director of Safety and Training where it will then be disseminated to the Compliance Group, and the applicable RD. I did read it again, slowly, and my answer is the same. USPA is not requiring you to be a member, the DZ is. You are free to jump without USPA membership anywhere the DZ does not require it. You can jump anyplace that the land owner will allow it and the airspace does not restrict it. Any number of skydivers, USPA members or not, can get together and jump wherever it is legal, you do not need any membership from USPA to do this. USPA is not forcing any DZs to be GMs, they are free to make that decision, and if they choose not to be GMs, they are free to allow non USPA members to jump. Love this! USPA will take action whenever any violation is reported in a credible manner. Including dates, location, people, and video is helpful. Just because you "have seen every one of those pledges ignored" does not mean that USPA knows about them. If you are concerned, then do something about it, report it, and USPA will take action. And, as explained above, there is no mandatory membership requirement. Comply with FAA regulations and you are free to do anything you wish. No BSRs, no GM, nothing but the FAA. Find an airplane, find a field, and jump. No dealing with that pesky USPA, no membership dues, do as you please. Mike Mullins

USPA does not "allow" any of the above. USPA is not a police force but anytime that USPA is made aware of any of the above, action is taken. I have been involved in every disciplinary procedure as either a member of the Compliance Group or the Executive Committee for the last 20 years and every item you list has been involved in a disciplinary action. If you see something unsafe, that is a violation, or that you are concerned about you should report it to the Director of Safety and Training, or your Regional Director, or both. If you see something unsafe and take no action then you are part of the problem. USPA doing "zero enforcement" is complete nonsense. USPA does not require anyone to be a member. As part of the GM Pledge, all skydivers at least on self supervision must be USPA members to jump at a GM DZ. Some, probably most, non-GM DZs require the same. A very strong reason that any DZ would require USPA membership is the liability insurance that it brings. Many public airports, and private, are much more amenable to jump operations if the jumpers have insurance and the demo industry would virtually disappear without the demo insurance that is provided through your USPA membership. This insurance is not available from any other source, it costs USPA about $240,000 per year for the premium, that works out to about $6.00 per member, about the cost of a burger. DZs operate as a business, or club, but in the case of insurance there is no difference. What business would operate knowing that any customer can virtually put them out of business by having an accident. Who pays when uninsured Sammy Swooper plows into a spectator, or another jumper, and injures them severely? Who pays when Stevie Student plows into a Cadillac CTS V minding its own business in the parking lot? Why should these DZs take the risk of a jumper who has no liability insurance and, probably, no money to pay for his skydiving mistake? USPA insurance has paid out on many, many, of these claims and to avoid repetition, you can see my previous post on the subject. From my exalted position I am happy to educate and enlighten, grasshoppa. Here are the benefits to the individual USPA Member that jumping at a GM DZ provides and they are all safety related: GROUP MEMBER PLEDGE ----------------------------- 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 U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91.409(a) through (f) as applicable. Ensure skydiving staff of the Group Member (i.e., the undersigned applicant) are appropriately qualified and trained in accordance with the Skydiver's Information Manual 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. ---------------------------- Without question, the above are a benefit to the individual USPA Member. GM DZs have lost their Group Membership for not complying, and GM DZOs have lost their individual USPA Membership for not complying. Mike Mullins

However you decide to comment on any issue it will be heard. All emails, letters, and any comments however received are definitely read by whatever Committee is considering the action that you are interested in. Very few comments are received, some members come to the meetings and voice their opinions. Please do not confuse what you may consider an adverse decision as a result of not listening to those that wish to voice their opinion, the BOD may just not agree with you. For every decision your BOD makes, there are some that like it and some that don't. It is not possible to please everyone. Since you have mentioned some disciplinary issues that you do not like, I will say that in most cases any member complaining about disciplinary actions taken against others do not have the complete story. Due to the confidentiality requirements of our By-Laws, it is simply not possible to tell everyone, everything. Half of the membership claims that the BOD does not take action against miscreants, half claims we are too severe and take too many actions. The general explanation of a disciplinary action taken is in the minutes. The gory details are confidential. I have been on the BOD for 20 years and I have been involved in every disciplinary action taken during that time as first a member of the DG (Disciplinary Group, now Compliance Group) and as a member of the Executive Committee. USPA strives for compliance over discipline (when possible) and in that light I was the one that put forth the motion to change the name of the Disciplinary Group to the Compliance Group. I was also the Chairman of the 1-6 Task Force and, along with Directors Finley and Hall, we recently completely revised the 1-6 Disciplinary Process. This revised process is much fairer, quicker, and gives 2 avenues of appeal to any member facing discipline. I will tell anyone that thinks that USPA is unfair, or does too much, or does too little in disciplinary procedures, that all involved do our best to be as fair as possible with everyone. We do not go on witch hunts. Remember, due to our By-Laws, you are only getting half the story. The members who have been disciplined can put forth whatever story they choose, the BOD cannot comment. As for USPA member participation, in the last election there was 6,400 votes cast out of a total of about 35,000 members. This is truly apathetic. If you do not wish to get involved in the process and look at the information readily available on the agendas for the meetings, then don't bitch if you don't like the results. As for those of you who say that they "would drop their membership in a heartbeat", I hope they have some way to get liability insurance as without it there may be a real problem with public airports and demos. The insurance alone is worth the entire cost of your membership. And for those of you who may not like how a GM DZ operates, or their policies, or their procedures, USPA cannot dictate how they operate, only that they follow the BSR. The only real difference between a GM DZ and a non-GM DZ, is that the GM DZ requires USPA Membership of anyone on solo self supervision. Your individual USPA Membership requires you to follow the BSR wherever you are jumping: GM DZ, non-GM DZ, your backyard, farmer Brown's field, anywhere. For all you haters out there, just keep on hating and spreading false information, half-truths, and claiming that we are on "witch hunts", instead of doing something productive like reading the information available to you and being involved in the elections and the matters that come before your BOD. Mike Mullins

I have been reading the complaints that the BOD does not care about the jumper, that we are only for the big DZs, that we do things on the spur of the moment that is detrimental to your particular view of things, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth. First, USPA is not a democracy, it is (just like the USA) a republic. You elect your representative to the board, the board makes the decisions. Just like you elect your Representative or Senator in the US Government. A true democracy would have every member voting on every decision, and, just as in the US Government, this would not work. As for how your BOD works, we follow our By-Laws and Robert's Rules of Order, as does virtually every other organization. I have read all your complaints about "surprise" actions you did not like, and how you were not consulted, and how you had no say. Wrong. Before any change to our BSR, SIM, Licenses, or most anything can happen, it must be put on the Agenda for a USPA BOD Meeting, and it will appear on the Agenda for the appropriate Committee. It will be discussed in Committee, the meetings are open to any member, any member can speak and give his opinion, or any member can write, email, or contact anyone on the Committee to give his opinion. If the item passes the Committee, it is then presented to the full BOD for a final vote. Foe example, the currently much discussed in this thread changes to USPA licenses to meet FAI standards. This was on the Agenda of the Safety & Training Committee well before the meeting, it was: Item #4: "License Requirements- To meet the equivalent of an FAI license, USPA needs to add or change a few requirements to the USPA A B and C license requirements." The agenda was published on the USPA website for all USPA members, or anyone, to see. Also on the website are a list of the Committee members with all their contact information. I would like to know, of those who did not like this particular change, who went to the agenda to actually see what your representatives were discussing? Who contacted anyone on the Committee to ask about this change or to give your input? Who asked what the hell is this change? And, the agendas for all the other Committees were also on the website. Any change, or discussion of a change, is listed on every Committee agenda for all to see. We cannot do anything that is not proposed in advance for the membership to see. Any comments from any members on anything we discuss are presented to the committee. There were some comments from those members attending the meeting but there were no comments or questions sent from anyone else. So, some bitch about decisions that they do not like but made no effort to actually see what your BOD is discussing and comment on it, or ask for explanations, before the meeting. If you make no input before a decision, do not complain about the decision, and especially do not complain "where did this come from". If you want your voices to be heard, do your homework. Mike Mullins USPA National Director

I never really understood the need for skydivers to have liability insurance. Liability against what? The scenario I was given when I asked was if someone pounded into a car on landing, damaged it and the owner sued the skydiver, the USPA's insurance would cover the tab. That sounds like an exceedingly rare scenario. Like, so rare it's probably never happened. In any case, umbrella insurance costs around the same as the USPA membership, but covers all your activities, not just skydiving, and is much more broad in scope allowing for far greater coverage. If you want to protect yourself from liability while skydiving, there are certainly better products out there. Anyway, can anyone cite an actual example of when a skydiver used the USPA's liability insurance benefit? Rare?? Hardly!!! I can guarantee you that there have been many, many cases just like you describe. Here are a few: Skydiver pulls up to a new DZ, parks his van in the parking lot. Soon after, one of their students lands on top of the van, crushing the roof. USPA insurance paid. Skydiver has his car parked in another DZ parking lot, experienced jumper goes through back window, USPA insurance pays. Skydiver has his car parked behind the DZ fuel tanks so that to hit his car a jumper would have to fly above the tanks, go through a 20', 2", steel vent pipe to get to the car. Skydiver did just that, USPA insurance did not pay as jumper was not a member. A group of 6 skydivers hanging on the side of a King Air blow the exit and one destroys a $5,000 flap. USPA paid. How can I be sure that all of the above actually happened? Easy, it all happened to me. And, as a member of the Membership Committee, I have seen all the accidents that USPA insurance has paid for over many years and I could name a lot more. BTW, there is no other insurance available to a skydiver that will pay for the damage he causes, and if not for the availability of this insurance many DZs would not exist at public airports, and without the USPA demo insurance, there would be very few demos. The insurance alone is a bargain that is worth your entire membership fee. The cost of the insurance to USPA varies, it has been about $250,000 per year, this year we have had a carrier change and it went down to $240,000. That works out to about $6.00 per member, per year, or about the cost of a burger at McDonald's. Mike Mullins USPA National Director

Then why make it FF/FS specific or even have it at all. I don't particularly think its onerous - just the fact that it excludes other disciplines and the fact that AFF counts make it a joke. Make it mean something, set a standard rather than simply to jump out with 3 other people in freefall and define that as success. How about making the coaching standard a C license - that potentially doubles the experience requirement, if you want to make the 10 4 way jumps mean something how about actually defining success - ie. 10 4 way or larger jumps of 5 points or more and make that in FS/FF/CF disciplines where points are scored. And how about not including student training jumps in those license jump - so AFF jumps wouldn't count. That truly is a joke if you want to say that counts. Coaches can do a lot more than jump with people between 7 and 25 jumps who are cleared for self-supervision and not yet licensed and there are no requirements for only doing belly flying. What its original intent was and what is written seem to be quite a bit apart and I stand by my opinion that 100 jumps is too low with limited experience. USPA did not make the requirement for the 10, 4 ways, and they can be any belly or freefly. IPC/FAI came up with that standard. For reasons that have been already thoroughly debated, USPA has decided to make this change to make USPA licenses equivalent to the world standard, which is the IPC/FAI Certificate of Competency. As you may not have recognized in the previous post, you do not need to be a Coach to jump with a licensed jumper, any licensed jumper can jump with another licensed jumper: "When the students become licensed, then any other licensed skydiver can jump with them and they can do any discipline they please." The Coach rating was designed to help with students who are on solo self-supervision, before they are licensed, typically between 7 and 25 jumps. These students were largely being ignored, USPA did something to help. Please, all, do not blast me with stories about how this was not true at your DZ, I am sure that there were those DZs that were doing a great job on this, many were not. A Coach jumping with another licensed jumper has no more authority or duties than another licensed jumper. He may use his skills learned as a Coach to help other licensed jumpers, that is up to the Coach, there is no duty or burden placed on the Coach to be anything other than a licensed skydiver when jumping with another licensed skydiver. If a DZO thinks that a Coach is not doing a good job, the DZO can simply say that you can't act as a Coach, same authority that the DZO has with any jumper at his DZ. Mike Mullins

Well perhaps if the change is about international competitors which represent a small proportion of USPA members then you should consider something that they pay for to meet any international requirement rather than simply changing the requirements for everyone else. Instructors pay additional amounts every year as do pro rating holders then why not competitors, And you think that the standard is good? Or merely acceptable. Shouldn't all coaches courses be real? Shouldn't the coaches be monitored and mentored themselves to ensure they are actually doing a good job. Shouldn't the idea of coaches be specific to the disciplines? (Example - Someone with 100 jumps most of which are freefly shouldn't be coaching in another discipline they know nothing about such as CRW for example). The UK has discipline-specific coaches and endorsements. So someone that does FS isn't a general coach for other disciplines they know nothing about and want to bullshit they know. Also up until A license they are taught and supervised by Instructors in the training method being used not using low experience jumpers. I will say again: I do not think that the requirement to make 10, 4 way jumps for a C license is onerous. The standard to become a Coach is not the problem. The Coach rating is designed for Coaches to Coach those students on solo self supervision. The students usually have between 7 and 25 jumps. They are not doing anything but belly flying at this stage, the Coaches need not have any other discipline skills. When the students become licensed, then any other licensed skydiver can jump with them and they can do any discipline they please. The Coach rating was never designed to give coaching in any other discipline than belly flying, and to serve the purpose designed does not need any other discipline. Of course I think that all Coach Courses should be real. Did you think I would say that they should not be real after complaining about how some courses are conducted? USPA is aware of the problem and takes corrective action whenever possible. Mike Mullins

Not that I'm saying the BPA is better/worse but at least they have addressed basic skill levels and coaching in most of the disciplines. Other countries have more than the A-D license. To compete in international competitions or record attempts a separate sporting license is often required. As far as I can tell its just an additional money-making exercise for the organizations in both UK/USA. I have no problem with certain skills being required for licensing but consider all disciplines. The USPA has made the instructor/coach licensing so simple that virtually anyone can become a coach - leading to a lowering of standards. 100 jump coaches are often barely able to fly themselves ket alone giving good advice. The FF/FS requirements are OK - except when you turn around an say AFF jumps can count towards that. Little definition off what is "success" - 4 people can hold each other for exit and that counts as success irrespective of if it funnels or not. As that was all they briefed and attempted. So if its a measure of skill - actually define a standard - such as more than 5 points on a 4 way or larger formation. At least set a standard. And this is not specifically directed at USPA but more to the FAI/IPC. If the change is simply about licensing for competitions - then make this endorsement available to competitors who meet a standard. I cannot speak for the UK/BPA but in the USA the NAA (National Aeronautic Association) issues the sporting license for the FAI. NAA charges $55, none of which goes to USPA. The USPA Coach Rating came about due to a lack of mentoring of students on solo self supervision, and, due to this lack of attention, the students would drop out of the sport prior to becoming licensed. Historically, the more experienced skydivers, or skygods, would mentor these students but this has become rare in recent years. Please don't shoot the messenger, I know there are DZs that still do this and I applaud you for your attention to these students. D License holders are also permitted to jump with students on self supervision and those D License holders who give of their time to do this are appreciated. The Coaches are only as good as the courses given by the Coach Examiner. The course should take about 2 1/2 days. However, some courses are being done in 1 day, and even 1 afternoon. Sometimes the Coach Examiner is not even at the DZ. USPA is aware of these problems and are now requiring Coach Examiners to attend a Coach Standardization Course every 2 years to keep their Coach Examiner status. Garbage in, Garbage out, our Coaches are only going to be as good as the course they receive. Some are great, all should be at least as good as the requirements. If they pass a real Coach Course that upholds the standards, they should be able to do a good job. Mike Mullins National Director

All of the definitions are in the Skydivers Competition Manual which you can download from uspa.org. Here is the link: https://uspa.org/Portals/0/files/SCM_ch09.pdf Mike Mullins

Doesn't say anything about successful... It actually does say successful, the full text was in an earlier post.

Here is the bottom line: The only really substantial change is that for a C License you now must make 10, 4 way jumps in order to bring USPA License requirements in line with IPC/FAI. I do not think that this requirement is onerous. Some of you do, I think most do not. This is my last comment on the subject. Mike Mullins

Your sentence "never fly a poor pattern, you'll never have to know how to land in a tight area" does not really make any sense. However, if you change the sentence to "never fly a poor pattern AND you'll never have to know how to land in a tight area" conveys the point you are trying to make. I completely agree that everyone should practice for scenarios such as off DZ landings, etc, things that can happen on any given jump day. However, there is never a reason to take off on a skydive after sunset or to exit an aircraft 30 minutes after sunset. If you exit to land no later than 30 minutes after sunset you will have plenty of light to land without any other skills (take a light visible for 3 miles with you). Unless, of course, you decide that you are on an episode of "Ripcord" and there is someone in distress, after sunset, that you must jump in and rescue. Lassie came and told you, you must go. Mike Mullins

I agree with all that. Nevertheless, I have been on several loads that exited well after sunset - and at least two more that would have exited had I not balked. I don't know if they were more than 30 minutes after sunset, but we took off after sunset - and it was certainly dark enough that the landing area was barely visible, and the streetlights on nearby roads (or taxiways) were the brightest lights around. On jumps such as those, having experience flying and landing in very low light conditions is invaluable. It's akin to being able to do a steep approach in brakes, or being able to S-turn to make it into a tight landing area. You should not need to do either with a well-planned approach - but sometimes you find yourself in such situations anyway. Overall it is better to have such skills and work not to need them, then not have them to begin with - in my opinion, of course. And having such skills makes people safer in the air under the range of conditions a skydiver might experience. Don't exit after sunset and certainly do not take off after sunset, you will never need the added skill of having made night jumps, problem solved. BTW, the FAA allows ultralight aircraft to fly until 30 minutes after sunset (if they display a proper light). So, the FAA feels that an ultralight pilot with no specific night training in an aircraft without landing lights can see well enough to land safely 30 minutes after sunset.

I agree with you, you would not be a safe skydiver on a formation jump if you have never made formation jumps. My point was that if you wish for the higher ratings then meet the requirements. As for night jumps, night jumps only count for the rating if they are made 1 hour after sunset. Getting out a bit after sunset does not really provide any challenge, there is plenty of light to jump until the end of civil twilight, which will vary with date and location, but usually end about 30 minutes after sunset. I cannot imagine a reason that you would need to jump 30 minutes after sunset, it the load is delayed that long then land, you are illegal anyway if you do not display a light after sunset and under canopy. Mike Mullins

This has nothing to do with safety, it has to do with bringing our license requirements in line with the international standard. For example, USPA also has the requirement for 2 night jumps to get a "D" License, which has been debated endlessly. The international license has no such requirement, and making 2 night jumps has nothing to do with safety. If it has nothing to do with safety, why have the requirement at all? Shouldent the point of a license requirement be to prove a level of higher competence (relative to a lower license level)? Please do not confuse safety with competence. You can have made no formation skydives whatsoever and be a safe skydiver. The D requirement for 2 night jumps does not make you a safer skydiver during the day, it just means that you are probably competent to jump at night. Likewise, many of the tasks required to gain higher licenses are done to show competence at something that requires a greater skill. When you take a history test in school, the higher grade you receive means a greater competence in the subject. Just like skydiving licenses show a higher level of competence the higher your license. There may be disagreement over what the requirements should be (what is tested) but they are designed to show higher competence as you go up the ladder. And, the D License (after completing the A, B, and C requirements) only requires 500 jumps and a written test, there is nothing safety related required other than the competence acquired in making the 500 jumps, 3 hours of freefall,and 2 night jumps. For the IPC/FAI it just requires 500 jumps and 3 hours of freefall. Mike Mullins

Not only is it necessary for our members who wish to travel or compere internationally, it is necessary for our jumpers who wish to set world records in the US. This has nothing to do with safety, it has to do with bringing our license requirements in line with the international standard. For example, USPA also has the requirement for 2 night jumps to get a "D" License, which has been debated endlessly. The international license has no such requirement, and making 2 night jumps has nothing to do with safety. We do indeed have representation. The FAI Parachuting Commission (IPC) is the division of the FAI that represents parachuting. We have a delegate on the IPC who represents the interests of the US and USPA. Each country has a delegate. Cessna 182s have been the backbone and the standard for skydiving for many years and probably more 4 ways have been done out of them than any aircraft in history. Why do you think that the first RW competitions were 4 way and 4 way persists to this day? It is because a Cessna 182 holds 4 jumpers. If Cessna had originally decided to produce the 182 as an aircraft that would hold 5 jumpers, then everything would have probably been based on 5 ways. I have simply never heard of jumpers complaining that it is difficult to make a 4 way from a 182. Mike Mullins

A successful completion would be to complete at least one formation, you pick the formation. And, yes, AFF student jumps are indeed formation skydiving and they would count. ... Mike Mullins USPA National Director ------------------------------------- I admittedly don’t know much, but if the goal of each license is to show some higher level of proficiency than the last, counting AFF jumps as FS jumps is a farce. You have two people holding on to a jumper, then in later levels you have one instructor most likely chasing someone around the sky while they perform flips and turns. That isn’t in the spirit of why the BSR was changed. What’s wrong with actually requiring people to get better before awarding them higher licenses? The verbiage is vague and I’m guessing that was done intentionally. Zach Breaux ---------------------------------------- There has been no BSR change. License requirements are in Section 3 of the SIM. As far as AFF jumps counting as formation skydiving jumps, they technically do and certainly the release jumps where the student is required to hook back up with the instructor would fulfill both the spirit and the letter of the definition. I doubt that most skydivers actually count their AFF jumps towards the license requirements, but they can. As stated previously, these changes were made to bring our licenses in line with the IPC/FAI standards. Our licenses exceed the requirements in other areas but were deficient in the areas changed. Mike Mullins USPA National Director

USPA does not hate small dropzones and everyone on the Safety and Training Committee that is responsible for this sort of action is well aware of the value of our Cessna DZs. This action was taken solely to bring our license requirements in line with the IPC/FAI "Certificate of Proficiency" which is the world recognized standard for skydiving licenses. Had we not taken that action, it is possible that USPA licenses may not be recognized internationally, especially in international competitions. For the C License, I personally do not think that having to do 10 4 ways in 200 jumps or having for the B License to do 10 formation jumps with, 5 of them being 3 ways, is particularly burdensome. BTW, AFF jumps count as formation jumps, so anyone doing AFF probably has 3, 3 ways, and 4, 2 ways after completing the AFF program. Here is the complete list of the Certificate of Competency (world license requirements): ‘A’ Certificate: ‘Parachutist’ 1. 25 freefall jumps. 2. 5 minutes of freefall time. 3. 5 formation skydives involving at least two participants OR 5 freefly jumps under the supervision of an instructor. 4. Demonstrate control of the body in all axes (backloops, turns, barrel rolls etc.) 5. Ability to pack a main parachute. 6. Demonstrate ability to land a parachute within 50 meters of a target, on at least 10 jumps. ‘B’ Certificate: ‘Freefall Parachutist’ 1. 50 freefall jumps. 2. 30 minutes of freefall time. 3. Successful completion of ten formation skydives, OR ten formation freefly jumps, at least five of which, in either discipline, must involve at least 3 participants. ‘C’ Certificate: ‘Experienced Parachutist’ 1. 200 freefall jumps. 2. 1 hour of freefall time. 3. Successful completion of fifty formation skydives, OR fifty formation freefly jumps, at least ten of which, in either discipline, must involve at least 4 participants. ‘D’ Certificate: ‘Senior Parachutist’ 1. 500 freefall jumps. 2. 3 hours of freefall time. Mike Mullins USPA National Director So do CRW jumps count? as you appear to specifically call out freefly jumps. Define "successfully complete"? Survived, achieved a physical number of points. And really if you counting AFF jumps then you are stretching things a bit to count these as formation jumps towards a license ? IT is also possible that the earth will crash into the sun - however that is not that likely. So the threat the license would not be recognized at international competitions is pretty hollow. I am not "specifically calling out anything", the requirements come from IPC/FAI, not me, not USPA. As for your question about defining "successfully complete", here is the definition of formation skydiving from the USPA SIM Glossary: "FORMATION SKYDIVING (RELATIVE WORK): 1. Aerial maneuvers by two or more freefalling skydivers with each other, usually to form geometric formations. 2. Competition discipline of flat-flying." A successful completion would be to complete at least one formation, you pick the formation. And, yes, AFF student jumps are indeed formation skydiving and they would count. CRW jumps do not count by the definition of "formation skydiving" as mentioned above. As far as the likelihood of a competitor being prevented from competing, that is actually a real possibility. Also, our new membership cards have the following statement: "International Parachutist Certificate All USPA Licenses meet or exceed the requirements for International Parachute Certificates of the same letter (A,B,C or D)." The above statement would not be true without the changes. And, as far as the likelihood of the "earth crashing into the sun", yes, indeed, the earth will actually crash into the sun in 7.6 billion years when the sun becomes a red giant and absorbs the earth. Mike Mullins USPA National Director

USPA does not hate small dropzones and everyone on the Safety and Training Committee that is responsible for this sort of action is well aware of the value of our Cessna DZs. This action was taken solely to bring our license requirements in line with the IPC/FAI "Certificate of Proficiency" which is the world recognized standard for skydiving licenses. Had we not taken that action, it is possible that USPA licenses may not be recognized internationally, especially in international competitions. For the C License, I personally do not think that having to do 10 4 ways in 200 jumps or having for the B License to do 10 formation jumps with, 5 of them being 3 ways, is particularly burdensome. BTW, AFF jumps count as formation jumps, so anyone doing AFF probably has 3, 3 ways, and 4, 2 ways after completing the AFF program. Here is the complete list of the Certificate of Competency (world license requirements): ‘A’ Certificate: ‘Parachutist’ 1. 25 freefall jumps. 2. 5 minutes of freefall time. 3. 5 formation skydives involving at least two participants OR 5 freefly jumps under the supervision of an instructor. 4. Demonstrate control of the body in all axes (backloops, turns, barrel rolls etc.) 5. Ability to pack a main parachute. 6. Demonstrate ability to land a parachute within 50 meters of a target, on at least 10 jumps. ‘B’ Certificate: ‘Freefall Parachutist’ 1. 50 freefall jumps. 2. 30 minutes of freefall time. 3. Successful completion of ten formation skydives, OR ten formation freefly jumps, at least five of which, in either discipline, must involve at least 3 participants. ‘C’ Certificate: ‘Experienced Parachutist’ 1. 200 freefall jumps. 2. 1 hour of freefall time. 3. Successful completion of fifty formation skydives, OR fifty formation freefly jumps, at least ten of which, in either discipline, must involve at least 4 participants. ‘D’ Certificate: ‘Senior Parachutist’ 1. 500 freefall jumps. 2. 3 hours of freefall time. Mike Mullins USPA National Director

Mike Mullins Pitts Special Biplane will be at Chicagoland Skydiving Center 4-6 July for their Independence Boogie. It is now equipped with 4 cameras, 2 one the wing for a side view, and 2 on the fuselage for a front view, 2 taking video, 2 taking stills. Video and stills will be uploaded to Smug Mug.

You think that 2 students in a 4 way is scary? Prior to this recent change (within the last year) a Coach, or Instructor, could take as many students on a group jump as he chose. He literally could take 99 students with him for a 100 way. Mike Mullins

Actually, keeping your Coach rating current is not as difficult as some may think. Definition of a Coach Jump, from the USPA SIM: "A Coach jump is any jump where a USPA Coach jumps with any person and provides instruction and/or critique to that person". You need not jump with a student to count it as a Coach jump. I am very familiar with this definition as I wrote it. Mike Mullins USPA National Director

5/11-5/13 3rd Annual WTS SIS Boogie, West Tennesee Skydiving, Ladies jump 1/2 price! See:https://www.facebook.com/events/382934648830860/