bdiver1 0 #1 February 28, 2009 Do you think a DZ and DZO should lose membership in USPA for knowingly flying and let others fly unairworthy aircraft? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Milo 0 #2 February 28, 2009 USPA=US Police Agency? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bdiver1 0 #3 February 28, 2009 Do you think thay our the same? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 February 28, 2009 QuoteDo you think a DZ and DZO should lose membership in USPA for knowingly flying and let others fly unairworthy aircraft? You'd have to be extremely careful what part of "unairworthy" you're talking about. There are very minor paperwork things that make an aircraft technically "unairworthy" but it's absolutely no less safe to fly than an aircraft with perfect paper. On the other hand, there are certain items that might seem "ok" but will actually kill a person quite well. The USPA tried a few years ago to offer voluntary inspections of DZs. Essentially the DZ would pay the USPA to send in a person, fully qualified and trained in what to look for, and if they found an issue, because they weren't a part of the FAA they'd tell the DZO about it and allow them to fix it. If they passed the inspection, they'd get a little "Seal of Approval" and would have been able to advertise as such. But in any case, there would be no FAA involvement. DZs all "said" they wanted this program, but when time came and people were trained, nobody ever asked for it to be done. Why? I can only guess that they all knew that if you look hard enough, it's actually quite easy to find dozens of little things in any operation that aren't exactly by the book. So, what the hell are you talking about?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bdiver1 0 #5 February 28, 2009 Is a plane less unairworthy for paperwork or certain items.i am not talking about minor paperwork.like some one forgot to put in the logbook. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 February 28, 2009 What -ARE- you talking about? Is the wing held on with duct tape? Is there a jug missing from the engine? Is there a piece of tape that says "Inop" over one of the instruments? Be specific. Or . . . are you just on a fishing expedition?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bdiver1 0 #7 February 28, 2009 I am talking mechanical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 February 28, 2009 QuoteI am talking mechanical. Mechanical encompasses a LOT. Some stuff will kill you dead and other things are minor but still technically make the aircraft unairworthy. Again, BE SPECIFIC . . . or this conversation is over.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #9 February 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteI am talking mechanical. Again, BE SPECIFIC . . . or this conversation is over. I believe the axes our fine fisherman is looking to grind are along the lines of: Seat rails not inspected Not offically logging whether the on/off switch actually works Running an engine/prop combo on a 206U that's only approved a plain 206 ect, ect. The sad thing here is that there any potential lessons to be learned from this incident are likely to get buried under all this "cloak & dagger" hiding in the shadows bs. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #10 February 28, 2009 Quades discussion of semantics is interesting, but it's irrelevant. The USPA does not regulate jumping aircraft. The FAA does. It's the FAA that would punish a DZ for flying unairworthy aircraft, not the USPA. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 February 28, 2009 QuoteQuades discussion of semantics is interesting, but it's irrelevant. The USPA does not regulate jumping aircraft. The FAA does. It's the FAA that would punish a DZ for flying unairworthy aircraft, not the USPA. Other than that whole USPA Group Member pledge thing where they say they'll abide by the FARs. I can imagine the USPA kicking a drop zone out for violating it. Whether or not that's "proper" is what I suppose the poll is about, but to me it would need to be more than a simple violation; it would actually have to be willful negligence that was found to have been a major issue.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #12 February 28, 2009 QuoteOther than that whole USPA Group Member pledge thing where they say they'll abide by the FARs. Well yes, but - I don't think you can be in violation of the FAR's unless the FAA has found you to be in violation of the FARs. Without the FAA, there's no violation, there's no grounds for dismissal. A dismissal without an FAA ruling would be grounds for lawsuit, similar to the whole SkyRide mess. Thus - it's up to the FAA to enforce FAR's. After that, the USPA can jump on after the fact. I don't know if the USPA has done so in the past, or if they plan on in the future, but the IANAL in me says to do so would be to open themselves up to tremendous liability. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bdiver1 0 #13 February 28, 2009 I have lost friends in unairworthy planes.for no need. some was over a onus mistake some over poor maintenance.we say we our self regulating but i think we need to do more when it comes to DZand DZO who brake the FAR.We all donot want FAA in skydiving more than they our . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #14 February 28, 2009 I would think that's more an FAA issue than a USPA one. Has the USPA ever sanctioned a member DZ/DZO for aircraft related issues? Unfortunately aircraft issues are taboo to talk about, or you get blackballed... that's the sad nature of this sport. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #15 February 28, 2009 QuoteHas the USPA ever sanctioned a member DZ/DZO for aircraft related issues? Banned for life in the GM program, Yes, along with a pile other FAR's violations using AC.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #16 February 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteOther than that whole USPA Group Member pledge thing where they say they'll abide by the FARs. Well yes, but - I don't think you can be in violation of the FAR's unless the FAA has found you to be in violation of the FARs. Without the FAA, there's no violation, there's no grounds for dismissal. Disagree - flying a plane that's out of annual (or 100hr inspection for commercial use) is a violation whether or not the FAA knows about it. Flying a plane for which you are not rated is a violation.... etc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hue-janus 0 #17 February 28, 2009 Quote The USPA does not regulate jumping aircraft. The FAA does. It's the FAA that would punish a DZ for flying unairworthy aircraft, not the USPA No USPA don't! But! They claim to the FAA, the membership, and the world that we are self policeing???!!! When was the last time this happened??? Question! if there is no known punishment for violating a rule or law, than you actually believe that the law or rule has substance? or is valid? It becomes lip service, another meaningless standard, much like all of the other political promisses that are made! Quote Other than that whole USPA Group Member pledge thing where they say they'll abide by the FARs. When a DZ signs the Group Membership Pledge, They by their signature state to the FAA, USPA, jumpers and the public They will promote Safety, support and comply with all USPA BSRs (unless waivered) Maintain and operate their Aircraft in accordance to all current applicable FARs, and regulations, use Qualified and current Commercial Pilots, and maintain the Aircraft to the Engine and Airframe Manufactures standards. *** I can imagine the USPA kicking a drop zone out for violating it. Whether or not that's "proper" is what I suppose the poll is about, but to me it would need to be more than a simple violation; it would actually have to be willful negligence that was found to have been a major issue. *** In aviation a "Simple" violation can cause great loss and death! It has always humored me how when "Laws" or "Rules" are broken many whom would prefer to not recognize the problem run immedtiately, to the "GRAY AREA" and use statements like "Simple" or "Minor" or wish to argue that the infraction may or may not have had any bearing on the accident! This mentality to overlook or trivialize such actions, is human nature to some extent, But! when the shoe of loss is on the other foot and these same nay sayers, attend the funerals of their family or freinds they cry for justice, for the deceased and sever actions to be taken against the violators. The bottom line is this! wheather you support action against a DZO or not, if USPA doesn't step up tp the plate and take action (as they sell to the FAA of their control over the membership, and DZ organization) they will loss more credibility with the FAA, Public, and even some of the membership, and be viewed by many as the lack luster, and ineffective organization they have proven to be so many times in the past! If the FAA has determined by their investigation that a violation exists, and take action against a DZO, than it is "NOT" the responsibility of USPA to question the FAA findings, it "IS" USPAs responsibility to support the FAAs determination, and take action against the violator to prove that we are self governing and responsible, and confirm our statements and commitment. If we are to survive as a sport, there will be some casualities along the way, we need to view the big picture and lay our personal relationships, and feelings down, and honor the privilages underwhich we are allowed to exist, and operate. They (the FAA)don't "Need" to allow us to jump! It is a privilage we need to recognize and support!! ......................................................................... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bdiver1 0 #18 February 28, 2009 Unfortunately that is true at some DZ.I have found it more at the DZ that have a lot of maintenance issues.you can be a part of the family but when you stop taking every thing thay say as gods truth and start asking about the wrong thing aircraft related issues.thay blackball you.it may be best to find a different dz. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #19 March 1, 2009 Yes.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #20 March 1, 2009 QuoteIn aviation a "Simple" violation can cause great loss and death! Really? I'd like to know precisely how many aviation deaths have occurred due to the radio station license not being properly displayed there have been. If you can prove to me that the number is greater than zero, then I'll concede. Until you can do that, I think you're talking out of your hat.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #21 March 1, 2009 Oh get off it Paul. You're being rather obtuse here. The guy asked a simple question....what are you looking for? A shopping list that you can go through and agree with or naysay? Why don't you put together YOUR list of things that would have you vote yes or vote no and quit coming up with these off-the-wall things. Oh, BTW...I voted Yes.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #22 March 1, 2009 QuoteOh get off it Paul. You're being rather obtuse here. The guy asked a simple question....what are you looking for? A shopping list that you can go through and agree with or naysay? Why don't you put together YOUR list of things that would have you vote yes or vote no and quit coming up with these off-the-wall things. Oh, BTW...I voted Yes. It's not off the wall. Just like jumping a rig that is exactly one day out of date, there are things in flying that, while they technically should ground the aircraft, simply aren't all that important and don't cause flaming wreckage. It's very important to actually understand the difference between being legal and being safe. Not everything that is legal is safe and not everything thing that is illegal is unsafe. The fishing expedition being lead by the original poster is just that.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #23 March 1, 2009 I respectfully disagree. I may be wrong but I don't see bdiver1 as being on a fishing expedition. I see that he's asking a general, legitimate question. Nothing specific. Consider this: If you voted NO, then you are excluding any USPA consideration of ANY problem whereas if you voted YES, then they would at least have an option of taking action appropriate to the violation. The general question does not make the point of grounding any aircraft for any violation however minor. Personally, I think the question was generated in response to the fact that we have so many aircraft out here that would not pass close inspection. I think that regardless of who NOW has responsibility, the OP is simply asking if somebody else (USPA, for example) should get involved to help better ensure that we have safe aircraft in the industry. As an aside, I like the point made about the voluntary inspections. Funny how nobody wanted to actually take them up on it...I wonder why. Could it be because...nah, we can't think that could we?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #24 March 1, 2009 Any jump plane out there is usually in violation of at least 1 FAR at any time. Here is one for you to look at next time on the plane, does EVERY seatbelt have its TSO label sewn to it? If there are any with out then its technically illegal to use that belt and anyone found to be using it can be written up and have that berth grounded. Paul is right, there is a HUGE difference between being legal and being safe. Usually if you are legal by default you are safe but at the same point the FAA can find anything wrong if they look deep enough which makes that item a violation so the plane could be grounded. A few years back a FSDO tried to ground all Otters since they could not find paperwork that was set up for the -300 model for a sliding door modificaiton. As such they wanted to ground the entire fleet until the paperwork was produced on every plane, this was after the planes had been flying this way for 20 years in this configuration.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #25 March 1, 2009 QuoteI respectfully disagree. I may be wrong but I don't see bdiver1 as being on a fishing expedition. On an anonymous account? The only threads that it appears in is this one and another one about an incident? Really? No. The guy has some beef and has decided here to do a little fishing to see if his opinion on the situation can be used to whip up some sort of posse to take down the victim of his scorn. I'm well aware of what is going on. However, I have a huge distaste for people that hide behind anonymous screen names and are intentionally vague in their attempts to "get" somebody. I gave the guy at least three chances to be specific. Gimme some credit. I've been doing this for a very long time now and can smell this a mile away.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
