CODE OF ETHICS

[sar911 0]

In light of recent post about certain drop zones banning sport/fun jumpers and their fraud/misrepresentation, do you feel that the USPA should develop a “code of ethics” for drop zones? If the mission statement of the USPA is Dedicated to Promoting Safe Skydiving and Supporting Those Who Enjoy It”, do we want these drop zones using their membership, displaying our logo and representing us publicly for the sole purpose of making money?

[skymedic 0]

This is proof positive that the USPA does not represent skydivers...they represent Dropzones first...Then skydivers second....as it is obviously all about the money to them. I think DZ's should have there own organization....oh wait...they do...PIA....

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[freeflir29 0]

As nice as it sounds I think you would just end up with a lot of politics and arbitrary enforcement.

[sar911 0]

Quote

As nice as it sounds I think you would just end up with a lot of politics and arbitrary enforcement.
Thanks for the reality check. For a second there I had a brain fart and thought there was a solution!

[Designer 0]

Interesting thought.In light of recent corporate developments,at least more skydivers thinking about ethics can,t be all bad.For sure we could get lost in B.S. and loose sight of Dropzone not promoting saftey above return.Over the years we keep trying to change our image.The reckless find a way to not be dedicated to promoting safe skydiving all the time.Then of course if a board if formed some D.Z. owner will get pissed off because he/she could get a bad recommendation for not promoting safety over return.Bad blood against our fellow jumpers and operators is never good.Just thinking about ethics most of the time by everyone involved should be enough.Any thoughts?

[Shark 0]

Quote

This is proof positive that the USPA does not represent skydivers...they represent Dropzones first...Then skydivers second....as it is obviously all about the money to them. I think DZ's should have there own organization....oh wait...they do...PIA....

If you believe the USPA represents only the dropzones, then it is also true that the skydiving leadership at your dropzone represents/promotes safety. Highly visible at my dropzone.

[billvon 3,067]

>do you feel that the USPA should develop a “code of ethics” for drop
> zones?

What does that mean? Require them to be nice? Require them to put up at least X freeflyers and Y RW people for every Z tandems? Not sure how you would institute a common code of ethics, when you have DZ's ranging from Eloy to The Ranch to tiny one-cessna DZ's in Arkansas.

[skymedic 0]

I think that DZ's sometimes bend the rules to get jumpers up...and you all know they do. this is why I think an S&TA should not be an employee of a DZ. as there is too much of a conflict of interest...(is this the safest this jump could be or should I be able to pay for food next week).....

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

this is why I think an S&TA should not be an employee of a DZ. as there is too much of a conflict of interest...(is this the safest this jump could be or should I be able to pay for food next week).....

Yes and no, I agree with your point, to a point. What about the smaller DZs, the ones where they use tandems to stay afloat finacially just so they can continue supporting their fun jumpers. Not tandem factories like some of the DZs we know, but ones where they *have* to have that revenue. At those, the majority of the experienced jumpers, or atleast the ones that would be any where near qualified to be S&TA's are on staff. They just don't have enough people to do it any other way.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jlmiracle 7]

Yes.

I believe this discussion was brought up at the USPA board meeting and with as many dzo's that are on the board it was thrown out.

One of my suggestions was to be a GM DZ they must have a satisfactory rating with the better business bureau. One director told me that wasn't feasible, yet I managed to look up pretty much every dz listed in less than 1 hour. I did find 2 dz's with unsatisfactory ratings. One of them had several complaints against them and they are still a Group Member DZ.

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

One of them had several complaints against them and they are still a Group Member DZ.

I bet it was in Georgia. I think they have a special mail box for the process server so he doesn't have to hang waiting to ambush Ben or Cary.....

[goose491 0]

Quote

In light of recent post about certain drop zones banning sport/fun jumpers and their fraud/misrepresentation...

???


what happened?

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[skymedic 0]

he is referencing skydive Las Vegas.....

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[goose491 0]

Quote

he is referencing skydive Las Vegas.....

Oooooohhhhhhh...

???

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[Shark 0]

Quote

I think that DZ's sometimes bend the rules to get jumpers up...and you all know they do. this is why I think an S&TA should not be an employee of a DZ. as there is too much of a conflict of interest.

They do, but it is a judgement call. We also have the benefit of having a few roaming the dz. For instance, would you jump in a low-ceiling environment? If the S&TA gives the go-ahead, would you jump anyway? Skydivers have to take that ultimate responsibility.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

would you jump in a low-ceiling environment? If the S&TA gives the go-ahead

What if he offers to fly the plane?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Skydivers have to take that ultimate responsibility.

I thought that the pilot was ultimately responsible for that stuff, well, in the FAA's eyes atleast.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Shark 0]

Quote

Quote

would you jump in a low-ceiling environment? If the S&TA gives the go-ahead

What if he offers to fly the plane?

Well, if in my judgement, if not impaired, will consider the possibilities. Hard to accomplish without violating FARs. Unless, of course I wasn't the PIC...

[sitflyr 0]

Quote

What does that mean? Require them to be nice? Require them to put up at least X freeflyers and Y RW people for every Z tandems? Not sure how you would institute a common code of ethics, when you have DZ's ranging from Eloy to The Ranch to tiny one-cessna DZ's in Arkansas.

Oh, I'll bet it wouldn't be all that difficult. Here's a couple of suggestions to start:

1. In order to be affiliated with USPA, a dropzone
must not refuse service to any USPA individual
member in good standing without just cause.
(As an aside, items which would constitute
"just cause" could be negotiated among those
charged with the task of developing a code of
ethics.)

2. In order to be affiliated with USPA, the owner(s)
of a dropzone will pledge that business conducted
by or on behalf of the dropzone will be conducted
without the employment of deceptive advertising,
or false claims made by the dropzone owner(s),
its employees, or others working under contract
with the dropzone.


Julie

[billvon 3,067]

>1. In order to be affiliated with USPA, a dropzone
>must not refuse service to any USPA individual
>member in good standing without just cause.

That's pretty meaningless. What about ten experienced jumpers showing up on a slow day when the owner is changing the oil on the plane? Or 100 showing up for a small boogie, with many ending up unable to jump? Such a provision would be used far more for inter-DZ wars than for any kind of enforcement, and any attempt to define 'just cause' would be like trying to nail jelly to a tree.

One thing that's always bugged me is an attempt to change an organization to get rid of a specific member someone doesn't like. Come on - if you don't like the DZ, don't go there! Passing laws to try to oust someone is sure to backfire. Slimy operators will find a way around new rules (i.e. have the "slot of the day" available to one experienced jumper) and the rules will inevitably hurt someone else. Someone will lose at the Nationals, for example, and charge Eloy with an ethics violation in response. "But we meant that rule for Michael Hawkes, not Larry Hill!" Too late.

Personally, a DZ that does tandems only doesn't bother me. It's a carnival ride. There are plenty of them in Vegas. Avoid the DZ and you avoid the issue altogether.

[sitflyr 0]

Quote

That's pretty meaningless. What about ten experienced jumpers showing up on a slow day when the owner is changing the oil on the plane? Or 100 showing up for a small boogie, with many ending up unable to jump? Such a provision would be used far more for inter-DZ wars than for any kind of enforcement, and any attempt to define 'just cause' would be like trying to nail jelly to a tree.

Of course, meaning is added if you include the last sentence of number 1, instead of snipping it out.
Specific allowances for "just cause" would, of course, need to be a part of any such pledge requirement.
There's no reason why such common things couldn't
be included in valid reasons for being unable to provide service.

And no, it wouldn't be like nailing jelly to a tree. It's just soooo much easier to throw up one's hands and say, "Well, we just have to put up with it. No since in trying to change it, because things will only get worse."

If any dzo wants to institute a widespread ban on fun jumpers who are USPA individual members in good standing, that's fine by me----AS LONG AS THAT DROPZONE IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH USPA. When the dropzone receives any manner of support from USPA, which is supported with our dollars, then that dropzone should lose its group membership privileges if it refuses to serve the majority of USPA members in good standing.

Quote

One thing that's always bugged me is an attempt to change an organization to get rid of a specific member someone doesn't like. Come on - if you don't like the DZ, don't go there! Passing laws to try to oust someone is sure to backfire. Slimy operators will find a way around new rules (i.e. have the "slot of the day" available to one experienced jumper) and the rules will inevitably hurt someone else. Someone will lose at the Nationals, for example, and charge Eloy with an ethics violation in response. "But we meant that rule for Michael Hawkes, not Larry Hill!" Too late.

It's the practice, not the individual, which is at issue. Mr. Hawkes would have the same opportunity as every other dzo to decide whether he would prefer to live with a code of ethics or become a non-affiliated dzo.

Quote

Personally, a DZ that does tandems only doesn't bother me. It's a carnival ride. There are plenty of them in Vegas. Avoid the DZ and you avoid the issue altogether.

No, you don't avoid the issue as long as your dues are used to support that dz. A tandem factory which doesn't welcome USPA members doesn't bother me either, unless it's USPA Group Member.

Julie

[billvon 3,067]

>And no, it wouldn't be like nailing jelly to a tree. It's just soooo much
> easier to throw up one's hands and say, "Well, we just have to put
> up with it. No since in trying to change it, because things will only get
> worse."

Actually, that's not my objection. We should pass rules that are needed for safety, for propagation of the sport, whatever. Rules are serious and should be enforced by the organization. To pass rules that say basically "you should be nice to experienced jumpers" weakens the rest of them.

>If any dzo wants to institute a widespread ban on fun jumpers who
> are USPA individual members in good standing, that's fine by me---
>AS LONG AS THAT DROPZONE IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH USPA. When
> the dropzone receives any manner of support from USPA, which is
> supported with our dollars, then that dropzone should lose its group
> membership privileges if it refuses to serve the majority of USPA
> members in good standing.

If Hawkes required some of his tandems to join USPA, would your objections go away?

[sitflyr 0]

Quote

Actually, that's not my objection. We should pass rules that are needed for safety, for propagation of the sport, whatever. Rules are serious and should be enforced by the organization. To pass rules that say basically "you should be nice to experienced jumpers" weakens the rest of them.

Well, what this rule actually says is, "If you wish to be affiliated with and supported by our association, then you must act in good faith to provide your services to its members." I think that's a reasonable requirement.

Quote

If Hawkes required some of his tandems to join USPA, would your objections go away?

My objections would go away if Skydive L.V. either:
a. Acted in good faith to provide USPA members
in good standing with the services of the dz;

or

b. Was not affiliated with USPA.


Whether or not he requires his tandems to join is of no concern to me.

Julie

[bodypilot90 0]

let's do away with the group member program all together. The uspa is a club, The dz's can join the pia if they want to. The will lessen the liability to the uspa as they have not "approved" the DZ. We would no longer be putting money into the group member program from the fun jumpers dues.

If we do keep the group member program then they should not be able to turn a fun jumper away and still be a member. Also no group member should require a aad for a non student.


The uspa is suppose to help keep jumpers in the air, it's time they start doing it

[billvon 3,067]

>Well, what this rule actually says is, "If you wish to be affiliated with
> and supported by our association, then you must act in good faith
> to provide your services to its members." I think that's a reasonable
> requirement.

I think that's even worse. A DZO that takes a vacation and shuts down his DZ for a week is arguably much worse than a DZO who only allows tandems, students and USPA members who trained at his DZ. One is a complete denial of service; the other is not.

Or imagine a DZ with a tight landing area that had a lot of fatalities from 3:1 loaded canopies trying to land in a tiny area. They might ban canopies loaded over 1.8:1 for safety reasons; under your rules, you are denying an entire class of skydivers (professional/competition swoopers) the use of the DZ, and they would be in violation of the rule.

I think such a rule is in general a good idea. I do not think it can possibly be implemented in an effective fashion. Even if you start a many page list with all the things that you can do (or a shorter list of the things you can't, or more specifically, what Hawkes can't do) skydivers and DZO's _will_ use the rules to their own ends. We have a hard enough time enforcing BSR's; you really think USPA is willing to create a judiciary to mediate ethics disputes between competing DZ's?

>My objections would go away if Skydive L.V. either:
>a. Acted in good faith to provide USPA members
>in good standing with the services of the dz;

If he provided tandems a service, and they were members of USPA, then he would fulfill that.