CODE OF ETHICS

[quade 4]

Ethics and regulation are two different things.

The word ethics implies something that is driven, not by federal regulations or a self regulating body, but by the collective morals of the individuals involved.

In the case of the S&TA approving a lower than legal jump due to weather conditions, that really has nothing to do with the ethics of the situation, but everything to do with a USPA BSR violation or in the case of cloud jumping an FAA FAR violation. However, I think a pretty good case could be made that it would not necessarily be an ethical violation, since in some instances I can see where it would be acceptable and could even be done with a reasonable amount of safety.

On the other side of the coin, there is no USPA or FAR that prevents an instructor from making sexual advances toward students, but think most truly professional instructors would tell you that would normally be considered unethical.

If the USPA decided to take some sort of action guaranteeing that Individual Members would be allowed access to Group Member Drop Zones, then I would not be in favor of a "Code of Ethics", but rather an actual USPA rule. That said, I do not see this ever happening.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sitflyr 0]

Quote

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.

I disagree (and I think you're really reaching, now.) Most people deserve enough credit for understanding that, if a dzo temporarily closes his dz for vacation, repairs, illness, lack of staff, etc., it does not constitute an ongoing lack of good faith in providing services. It's a reasonable, temporary situation and not an ongoing attempt to keep USPA members in good stand away permanently. There's a huge difference, which I don't believe is lost on most people.

I can't understand how you could possibly believe that a guy going on vacation is worse than a USPA Group Member dropzone having a permanent, blanket ban on thousands of USPA Individual members who have done nothing wrong.

Quote

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.

No, they would not. The history of the fatalities would constitute a legitimate safety concern. Again, you're really reaching here, IMO.

Quote

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?

I don't fear that skydivers and dzo's will succeed in using a code of ethics to harm competing dz's. A few may try, but I don't think it would be difficult to see through insincere complaints.

No, I don't believe that USPA is willing to create a special judiciary for this; nor do I believe that one is needed. This can be handled in the same manner that other complaints are currently handled.

Quote

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

Not if he continued to ban the rest of the membership. He would still be imposing a ban on tens of thousands of USPA members who have done nothing to warrant being banned from a USPA Group Member dropzone.

Julie

[MrHixxx 0]

Food for thought:
The USPA makes more money from membership than from Group Members...
Would you rather have the FAA take over? A little hint, the FAA does not represent the interests of the individual private pilot...

-Hixxx

death,as men call him, ends what they call men
-but beauty is more now than dying’s when

[skymedic 0]

I know exactly what the FAA does and does NOT do for me...I'm a pilot....

I also know what the USPA does and DOES NOT do for me...

I want the USPA to represent the skydivers first...and the Dropzones to have there own orginization to represent them....

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I want the USPA to represent the skydivers first...

Kind of like the AOPA.....

[bodypilot90 0]

***I want the USPA to represent the skydivers first...and the Dropzones to have there own orginization to represent them....


vote for people that support the fun jumpers, get the good old boys out of there.

Bill
for the fun jumper

[skymedic 0]

Bill,

DUH....

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[billvon 3,070]

>I disagree (and I think you're really reaching, now.) Most people
> deserve enough credit for understanding that, if a dzo temporarily
> closes his dz for vacation, repairs, illness, lack of staff, etc., it does
> not constitute an ongoing lack of good faith in providing services.

Ah, but see, you're introducing common sense here. A rule largely takes the place of common sense. Of COURSE a vacation is OK, but here we have a rule that says you can't turn away jumpers. What about Nationals? Is it OK to exclude fun jumpers because you are down a plane, and need every plane you've got to get the jumpers to altitude? How is that different than excluding fun jumpers for a week so you can do tandems? What about a CRW camp weekend, where you have simply dedicated your one aircraft to CRW? Is it OK to exclude 90% of the skydivers out there from jumping? What about a 4-way training DZ with a caravan, that only does RW training because they've had problems with exit separation and simply do not want to deal with freeflyers?

So you need someone who is in charge of interpreting that rule. A judge, IOW. There have been disputes over half a dozen rules; none of them as vauge as the one you are proposing.

>I can't understand how you could possibly believe that a guy going
> on vacation is worse than a USPA Group Member dropzone having a
> permanent, blanket ban on thousands of USPA Individual members
> who have done nothing wrong.

See, again, you're talking about a rule to get ONE GUY. I hate rules like that - rules that have nothing to do with safety, but that are designed to "get" someone. That's not the purpose of the rules we agree to abide by. If you want him out, vote him out. Write to your reps. If you don't like their actions, vote them out and get new ones.

>I don't fear that skydivers and dzo's will succeed in using a code of
> ethics to harm competing dz's. A few may try, but I don't think it
> would be difficult to see through insincere complaints.

Heck, they've used the BSR's and the FAR's! Surely you have heard of DZ's going after each other for going through clouds, using old student gear, and violating weight and balance. And those are pretty hard and fast rules. An "ethics" code? What about a clique at a DZ that gets unpopular with the DZO, and is always the first to get bumped? Or a clique that is popular, and always gets the slots when they're scarce - like say the local 4-way team? Do you really want to make that a national issue that will require your dues to resolve?

>Not if he continued to ban the rest of the membership. He would still
> be imposing a ban on tens of thousands of USPA members who
> have done nothing to warrant being banned from a USPA Group
> Member dropzone.

I see nothing wrong with a tandem-only DZ, or a student-only DZ, or a freefly-only DZ, or a CRW-only DZ, or a big-way-only DZ. Yes, each one is "banning" a huge section of USPA, but it is the DZO's dropzone. USPA should not be in the business of legislating who a DZO must allow to jump at his DZ.

[sitflyr 0]

Quote

>I disagree (and I think you're really reaching, now.) Most people
> deserve enough credit for understanding that, if a dzo temporarily
> closes his dz for vacation, repairs, illness, lack of staff, etc., it does
> not constitute an ongoing lack of good faith in providing services.

Ah, but see, you're introducing common sense here. A rule largely takes the place of common sense. Of COURSE a vacation is OK, but here we have a rule that says you can't turn away jumpers. What about Nationals? Is it OK to exclude fun jumpers because you are down a plane, and need every plane you've got to get the jumpers to altitude? How is that different than excluding fun jumpers for a week so you can do tandems? What about a CRW camp weekend, where you have simply dedicated your one aircraft to CRW? Is it OK to exclude 90% of the skydivers out there from jumping? What about a 4-way training DZ with a caravan, that only does RW training because they've had problems with exit separation and simply do not want to deal with freeflyers?

Still reaching.

Quote

So you need someone who is in charge of interpreting that rule. A judge, IOW. There have been disputes over half a dozen rules; none of them as vauge as the one you are proposing.

You don't have to have additional people to handle complaints. The system already in place would suffice.

Quote

See, again, you're talking about a rule to get ONE GUY. I hate rules like that - rules that have nothing to do with safety, but that are designed to "get" someone. That's not the purpose of the rules we agree to abide by. If you want him out, vote him out. Write to your reps. If you don't like their actions, vote them out and get new ones.

I believe I addressed this earlier. It is the practice and not one individual which I find objectionable. I'm not interested in "getting" someone. The only way that I can see to get rid of the practice of instituting widespread bans against the individual members is to require USPA GM dropzones to act in good faith to provide their services to the membership. "Getting" one person would not accomplish that.

Quote

I see nothing wrong with a tandem-only DZ, or a student-only DZ, or a freefly-only DZ, or a CRW-only DZ, or a big-way-only DZ. Yes, each one is "banning" a huge section of USPA, but it is the DZO's dropzone. USPA should not be in the business of legislating who a DZO must allow to jump at his DZ.

And herein lies the crux of our difference of opinion.
From my point of view, as long as a dropzone receives any endorsement or benefit as a member of the USPA GM program, that dropzone should be obliged to operate under USPA rules, one of which should require the dropzone to act in good faith to provide services to the membership at large.

If a dropzone is not a USPA Group Member, then I have no problem at all with that dz banning whomever they wish. In that case, the dzo is operating without receiving any USPA benefits and has no particular obligation to its membership.

You have made it very clear that your point of view is not the same as mine. I understand where you're coming from, but my opinion remains as stated. I expect that yours will as well. I think that we've reached the point in our discussion when we must simply agree to disagree.

Julie