Frickin Tandem Factories....

[DanG 1]

Quote

The USPA membership is not required for tandem students, but these Tandem Mills use the lobbying power of the USPA, insurance for their staff, and other benefits that the USPA (and all of the fun jumper money that keeps the USPA alive) to support them, but they are free to ban all fun jumpers (who are indirectly helping them stay in business through the USPA).

So let me get this straight: the DZO's, the instructors, and the video guys are all dues paying USPA members, and the DZ is a dues paying USPA Group Member, but you don't think they deserve USPA benefits because of who they choose to jump with? Should a USPA Group Member DZ be required to allow all USPA members to jump there? At my DZ we have a list of people (short, but still there) in manifest that have been banned for life for unsafe acts. Under your philosophy, we would have to let them jump as long as they keept sending in their $49 to USPA.

And what about you? You say you are no longer a USPA member, so what do you care what USPA DZ's do or do not allow? If you're not part of the organization, why should you have a say in how it is run?

You can criticize tandem mills all you want, but complaining that they are taking advantage of USPA is bullshit.

- Dan G

[klingeme 1]

Quote

Quote

The USPA membership is not required for tandem students, but these Tandem Mills use the lobbying power of the USPA, insurance for their staff, and other benefits that the USPA (and all of the fun jumper money that keeps the USPA alive) to support them, but they are free to ban all fun jumpers (who are indirectly helping them stay in business through the USPA).

So let me get this straight: the DZO's, the instructors, and the video guys are all dues paying USPA members, and the DZ is a dues paying USPA Group Member, but you don't think they deserve USPA benefits because of who they choose to jump with? Should a USPA Group Member DZ be required to allow all USPA members to jump there? At my DZ we have a list of people (short, but still there) in manifest that have been banned for life for unsafe acts. Under your philosophy, we would have to let them jump as long as they keept sending in their $49 to USPA.

And what about you? You say you are no longer a USPA member, so what do you care what USPA DZ's do or do not allow? If you're not part of the organization, why should you have a say in how it is run?

You can criticize tandem mills all you want, but complaining that they are taking advantage of USPA is bullshit.

Being banned because of unsafe actions is completely different than being banned simply because........

If my dollars (before I canceled) are going to support a dropzone's ability to exist, I should have the "privilege" to jump there until I do something stupid to get banned. I have never been banned from a DZ, but there are several in the US that I am not welcome to jump at, and the USPA, and all of their member dues, are still supporting these DZs.

If the Group Membership program could support itself through Group Membership dues, not member dues, then my argument would not be valid, but as long as the members are paying for the program, they have a reason to complain that these DZ's have "banned" them.

I did what we tell people to do if they don't like how they are treated at a DZ. When your complaints are not being heard, speak with your wallet. That is why I canceled my membership with the USPA.

[mamajumps 0]

Quote

If my dollars (before I canceled) are going to support a dropzone's ability to exist, I should have the "privilege" to jump there until I do something stupid to get banned.

exactly my point.....
#1

[DanG 1]

Two points:

Quote

I have never been banned from a DZ, but there are several in the US that I am not welcome to jump at, and the USPA, and all of their member dues, are still supporting these DZs.

So you think that USPA Group Member drop zones should be required to allow all USPA members to jump, regardless of any other considerations? I think most private business owners want more control over how their business is run. Who decides when a GMDZ is allowed to turn someone away? Do we need an independent USPA rep at each GMDZ to make sure every USPA member gets their $49 worth? By the way, it's 49 fucking dollars a year people, that's two jumps. It's not breaking anyone's bank.

Quote

If the Group Membership program could support itself through Group Membership dues, not member dues, then my argument would not be valid, but as long as the members are paying for the program, they have a reason to complain that these DZ's have "banned" them.

Do you have any evidence that the Group Member program is not paid for by Group Member dues? I'm honestly asking, because as far as I know, the expense of the Group Member DZ program is half of one staff member's time at headquarters and, well, that's it. And what, exactly, do you see as the benefits to a GMDZ? Third party insurance is on each jumper, not the DZ. The lobbying efforts help all DZ's, not just GMDZ's. The free advertising in Parachutist? Oh goody. Please. There are not a lot of financial benefits to being a GMDZ. It is not some giant conspiracy to squash the fun jumper. I have yet to see any tangible evidence on how the GMDZ program has hurt anyone in the hundreds of pages on DZ.com bitching about USPA.

- Dan G

[gkc1436 3]

if the instructor was worth a shit, you would be trained not to depend on the instuctors, But no matter what, SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE!

AFF1 > if you find yourself alone in freefall PULL!
AFF2 > same
AFF3 > slightly different, due to being a release dive anyway.

instructors are there to assist if possible, you have your own life saving device, i would suggest being able to save your own life if need be.

g

[klingeme 1]

Here is is straight from the USPA Website.....

Quote

USPA's Group Member Progam and Benefits

USPA established the Group Member Program as a way for skydiving schools, clubs and centers to affiliate with USPA and pledge adherence to USPA’s Basic Safety Requirements.

Group Member DZs that have agreed to assist in helping first-time skydivers achieve a solo skydive—and even go beyond—are designated as “Training Centers.” Group Member Training Center DZs are indicated by the “TC” logo in Parachutist and designated in the DZ Locator on the USPA website; they are also authorized to use the Training Center logo with their own materials. Current Group Members who would like to become Training Centers should e-mail USPA.

Group Member Benefits
A certificate of membership for display that is meaningful to experienced and new jumpers alike.
Use of the USPA Group Member logo with the phrase “USPA Group Member” on your website and any of your own advertising.
A monthly DZ listing in Parachutist, still read by more skydivers and potential skydivers than any other skydiving publication.
Inclusion in USPA’s online DZ Locator.
Calendar listings in Parachutist’s monthly “Events” section as well as on the website.
Discounted display and classified advertising in Parachutist and online.
Eligibility to sell the 90 day USPA Introductory Membership ensuring coverage by USPA’s third-party liability insurance.
Receipt of the "DZO Streamline"—USPA’s e-newsletters for drop zone operators.
24-hour access to USPA’s credential database including membership, license and rating information.
Instant help with any obstacles imposed by local, state or federal authorities.
Eligibility to apply for legal assistance through the USPA’s Airport Access Defense Fund.

And from the SIM

Quote

BENEFITS OF MEMBERSHIP

Each Group Member is eligible for the following benefits either as part of the membership or on a user fee basis:

A. Credentials:

1. Authorization to use the phrase "Member of the United States Parachute Association."

2. An appropriate and attractive "Certificate of Membership."

B. Free Advertising:

1. A no-cost fax and phone listing in each issue of Parachutist magazine.

2. A no-cost listing in the USPA DZ Directory.

C. Subscription to the "Professional."

D. USPA-sponsored insurance.

E. USPA courtesy inspection and recognition of participation.

F. A copy of the USPA Skydiving Aircraft Operations Manual.

G. Access to USPA research and case files.

H. Support from the Airport, Access and Defense Fund in accordance with SOP 26.

I. Legal referrals and expert testimony on a case-by case basis.

J. Government relations support at the state and federal levels on issues affecting state and nationwide skydiving.

K. Timely notification of issues relating to DZ operations.

L. USPA sport promotional programs.

And you think all of these programs pay for themselves through Group Member dues?

Could someone from the USPA let us know what percentage of the Group Membership costs are covered by their "dues" and how much USPA members (not group) pay for.

It looks like the following would be pretty expensive.

C. Subscription to the "Professional." - Is this a separate publication put together for just Group members, Cost of staffing and production?

D. USPA-sponsored insurance.
I assume this is different than our insurance and it does not pay for itself.

E. USPA courtesy inspection and recognition of participation.

Surely is not free

H. Support from the Airport, Access and Defense Fund in accordance with SOP 26.

I. Legal referrals and expert testimony on a case-by case basis.

J. Government relations support at the state and federal levels on issues affecting state and nationwide skydiving.

L. USPA sport promotional programs.

[klingeme 1]

Quote

if the instructor was worth a shit, you would be trained not to depend on the instuctors, But no matter what, SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE!

AFF1 > if you find yourself alone in freefall PULL!
AFF2 > same
AFF3 > slightly different, due to being a release dive anyway.

instructors are there to assist if possible, you have your own life saving device, i would suggest being able to save your own life if need be.

g

I don't disagree with you a bit. In an AFF or an IAF (Tandem) it was my duty (not my istructors) to pull.

[PhreeZone 20]

Quote

C. Subscription to the "Professional." - Is this a separate publication put together for just Group members, Cost of staffing and production?

This is an email that gets sent out a few times a year to all DZ's and rated instructors. Its nothing that takes more then a full day or two to put together I'd guess. This was the topics in in the last one:

USPA License and Rating Applications
Instructor Examiner Replaces Course Director
Instructor Examiner Rating Course replaces the Advanced Instructor Course

Quote

E. USPA courtesy inspection and recognition of participation.

Surely is not free

No one has done the formal inspection in ages. I think Jan Meyer said only one DZ actually did the inspection years ago. Its currently a $0 cost program.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[klingeme 1]

Quote

No one has done the formal inspection in ages. I think Jan Meyer said only one DZ actually did the inspection years ago. Its currently a $0 cost program.

But every Group member in the country has the right to have this done for free, and if hey requested it, the members whould pay for it, unless someone can let us know what the group members pay per year, and it could cover it.

[DanG 1]

Quote

C. Subscription to the "Professional." - Is this a separate publication put together for just Group members, Cost of staffing and production?

D. USPA-sponsored insurance.
I assume this is different than our insurance and it does not pay for itself.

E. USPA courtesy inspection and recognition of participation.

Surely is not free

H. Support from the Airport, Access and Defense Fund in accordance with SOP 26.

I. Legal referrals and expert testimony on a case-by case basis.

J. Government relations support at the state and federal levels on issues affecting state and nationwide skydiving.

L. USPA sport promotional programs.

C. I believe the "Professional" is an e-mail newsletter, not a separate publication. If it is a separate publication, I've never seen one. Doubt it costs much.

D. I've not aware of any USPA sponsored DZ insurance outside of third-party liability, which only covers individual jumpers. If such insurance were available, I'm pretty sure I'd know about it. Please point to some specifics.

E. Doesn't exist (in the real world).

H. Access to the AAD fund is reserved for GMDZ's, but help from them is not guaranteed and the AAD gets at least some funing from separate contributions outside of member dues. I'm not sure of the breakdown.

I. Has this ever happened? Not sure, but I'd like to hear of cases where USPA paid for expert testimony in a case against a DZ. Also, a careful read will reveal that these benefits are "either as part of the membership or on a user fee basis." So they are not all necessarily free.

J. As I mentioned earlier, USPA lobbying efforts help everyone, not just GMDZ's.

L. Huh? What does that even mean, and where is the cost?

I think you need to base your argument that the GMDZ is expensive on some numbers, not just some fuzzy descriptions from the website. Again, outside of the AAD, which is not tied directly to the GMDZ program, I fail to see where all this money is supposedly going.

By omitting any other harm to the individual jumper outside of misdirecting part of their dues, are you saying that financial concerns are the only problem with the program? If so, then I again don't see what all the bitching is about.

- Dan G

[PhreeZone 20]

Group Members pay between $200 and $400?? depending on the size of their operation. Smaller clubs pay less then larger DZ's.

The largest benifit I know of to the GM program is that it allows DZ's to look up USPA member status to see if someone has a vaild membership or not if they do not have thier card with them. Lots of airports require individual coverage and this is one way to make that happen for those DZ's.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[klingeme 1]

Quote

Quote

C. Subscription to the "Professional." - Is this a separate publication put together for just Group members, Cost of staffing and production?

D. USPA-sponsored insurance.
I assume this is different than our insurance and it does not pay for itself.

E. USPA courtesy inspection and recognition of participation.

Surely is not free

H. Support from the Airport, Access and Defense Fund in accordance with SOP 26.

I. Legal referrals and expert testimony on a case-by case basis.

J. Government relations support at the state and federal levels on issues affecting state and nationwide skydiving.

L. USPA sport promotional programs.

C. I believe the "Professional" is an e-mail newsletter, not a separate publication. If it is a separate publication, I've never seen one. Doubt it costs much.

D. I've not aware of any USPA sponsored DZ insurance outside of third-party liability, which only covers individual jumpers. If such insurance were available, I'm pretty sure I'd know about it. Please point to some specifics.

E. Doesn't exist (in the real world).

H. Access to the AAD fund is reserved for GMDZ's, but help from them is not guaranteed and the AAD gets at least some funing from separate contributions outside of member dues. I'm not sure of the breakdown.

I. Has this ever happened? Not sure, but I'd like to hear of cases where USPA paid for expert testimony in a case against a DZ. Also, a careful read will reveal that these benefits are "either as part of the membership or on a user fee basis." So they are not all necessarily free.

J. As I mentioned earlier, USPA lobbying efforts help everyone, not just GMDZ's.

L. Huh? What does that even mean, and where is the cost?

I think you need to base your argument that the GMDZ is expensive on some numbers, not just some fuzzy descriptions from the website. Again, outside of the AAD, which is not tied directly to the GMDZ program, I fail to see where all this money is supposedly going.

By omitting any other harm to the individual jumper outside of misdirecting part of their dues, are you saying that financial concerns are the only problem with the program? If so, then I again don't see what all the bitching is about.

C. but it doesn't produce itself, so it takes someone some time (and therfore money to produce).

D. If they (USPA) is misrepresenting the insurance on thier website as a benifit that does not exist, I could believe that.

E. But is is offered and could be used by any DZ in the US. The USPA offered me insurance when I was a member, but because I didn't use it does that mean it did not exist?

H. Some funding surely come from dues.

I. I'd be willing to bet that the USPA attorneys have spent time in court for a Group member on several occations on our dime.

J. Got ya, but if a DZ gets shut down, it is far worse for the DZO than for the members, who might have to drive an exrta 30 minutes to another DZ that wasn't shut down.

L. The USPA develops student packages sent to all GMDZs and Safety Day packages and things like this (Which cost money to develop and ship)

[klingeme 1]

Does anyone believe that all of these programs, plus the DZO conference, all cost less than $99,600 (203 US Group Members and 46 International members listed in parachutist times the $400 assuming they are all "large")?

[billvon 2,997]

> Ahh but have you ever been told that you can't jump because of tandems.

I have, many times. Tandems get the same priority as anyone else. (A bit more, actually, since the school can just say "I need the whole otter in two loads" and they'll move people around to accommodate.)

However, on the plus side, there have been quite a few days where I made more jumps than I otherwise would have because there was a tandem there and that allowed them to send an airplane up.

> Perhaps there would be some more retention if they actually taught
>the "Student" something . ..

Perhaps, but I have zero interest in persuading a reluctant tandem student to make more jumps. We don't need people in this sport who skydive because of peer pressure.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I. Has this ever happened? Not sure, but I'd like to hear of cases where USPA paid for expert testimony in a case against a DZ. Also, a careful read will reveal that these benefits are "either as part of the membership or on a user fee basis." So they are not all necessarily free.

I'll go one better. Mikey Hawkes of Skydive Las Vegas shame. SLV is a GMDZ that does not allow fun-jumpers (i.e. a tandem factory). Mikey found himself on the opposite side of the aisle from USPA when he assisted in the writing of state legislation that was drafted in a manner that would put his competitors out of business (GMDZ's that do/did allow fun jumpers). Through quite a bit of USPA and volunteer effort, the legislation was diluted, but still became by far the largest regulatory intrusion into skydiving we've seen in the US. Among other things, the BSRs developed the force of law in Nevada as a result of that legislation. The drama following that waste of our dollars was arguably bigger than the current ASC fuss, as one BOD member provided some minor assistance to the survivors of a fatality at SLV who were suing the dropzone.

Quote

I think you need to base your argument that the GMDZ is expensive on some numbers, not just some fuzzy descriptions from the website. Again, outside of the AAD, which is not tied directly to the GMDZ program, I fail to see where all this money is supposedly going.

It is difficult to say exactly how much the GM program costs. For example, what percentage of Ed Scott's time/salary is spent on GM work versus individual member work? Nevertheless, USPA has repeatedly admitted that the GM program is not self-sufficient and is in fact partially funded by individual membership dues.

Quote

By omitting any other harm to the individual jumper outside of misdirecting part of their dues, are you saying that financial concerns are the only problem with the program? If so, then I again don't see what all the bitching is about.

Instructional rating courses used to be held wherever enough candidates could most efficiently organize them. The group members decided that instructional rating courses should NOT be considered a benefit for the members who want to improve themselves and assist in the growth of our sport, but should rather be considered a cash cow for GMDZs. They pursued this and eventually achieved today's state, in which instructional rating courses may only be held at GMDZs, thereby making them less accessible and more expensive without making them one iota better for the candidates or the students those candidates eventually train.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DanG 1]

Quote

C. but it doesn't produce itself, so it takes someone some time (and therfore money to produce).

D. If they (USPA) is misrepresenting the insurance on thier website as a benifit that does not exist, I could believe that.

E. But is is offered and could be used by any DZ in the US. The USPA offered me insurance when I was a member, but because I didn't use it does that mean it did not exist?

H. Some funding surely come from dues.

I. I'd be willing to bet that the USPA attorneys have spent time in court for a Group member on several occations on our dime.

J. Got ya, but if a DZ gets shut down, it is far worse for the DZO than for the members, who might have to drive an exrta 30 minutes to another DZ that wasn't shut down.

L. The USPA develops student packages sent to all GMDZs and Safety Day packages and things like this (Which cost money to develop and ship)

C. I admitted that there is a staffer assigned to GMDZ. She does other stuff as well, for instance right now she is in France helping to manage the US team for the World Meet.

D. It may have existed at one point, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't now.

E. No, I mean it doesn't exist. It isn't offered, and it will never be offered. Absolutely no money is spent on it.

H. Admitted.

I. "Willing to bet" is not the same as "fact".

J. Most of USPA's lobbying effort have nothing to do with DZ's getting shut down. They have to do with keeping skydiving alive for everyone, such as keeping Otters and Skyvan's exempt from Part 135. Airport access is different and covered above under H.

L. Sounds exectly like what USPA should be doing.

I'm going to look over the USPA website to see if I can find numbers. I'll let you know if I do.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

I'll go one better. Mikey Hawkes of Skydive Las Vegas shame. SLV is a GMDZ that does not allow fun-jumpers (i.e. a tandem factory). Mikey found himself on the opposite side of the aisle from USPA when he assisted in the writing of state legislation that was drafted in a manner that would put his competitors out of business (GMDZ's that do/did allow fun jumpers). Through quite a bit of USPA and volunteer effort, the legislation was diluted, but still became by far the largest regulatory intrusion into skydiving we've seen in the US. Among other things, the BSRs developed the force of law in Nevada as a result of that legislation. The drama following that waste of our dollars was arguably bigger than the current ASC fuss, as one BOD member provided some minor assistance to the survivors of a fatality at SLV who were suing the dropzone.

This example proves my point. USPA is not in bed with tandem factories and all GMDZ's. This type of litigation is what I expect USPA to be involved in. Keeping skydiving safe and available for everyone.

Quote

Instructional rating courses used to be held wherever enough candidates could most efficiently organize them. The group members decided that instructional rating courses should NOT be considered a benefit for the members who want to improve themselves and assist in the growth of our sport, but should rather be considered a cash cow for GMDZs. They pursued this and eventually achieved today's state, in which instructional rating courses may only be held at GMDZs, thereby making them less accessible and more expensive without making them one iota better for the candidates or the students those candidates eventually train.

I agree with you on this, but I fail to see how having a rating course at your DZ is a cash cow. I suppose other DZ's do it differently, but at Skydive Orange we host numerous rating courses every year. The CD pays the club $5 for each candidate trained. We're not making much money on the deal at all.

- Dan G

[rmarshall234 14]

I also, miss the way things used to be in the sport but am okay with the fact they are gone forever. However, unlike NickDG, I don't think the Tandems are to blame. I think it is more a result of the gear becoming so good and so safe. What attracted me to the sport many years ago was the sense of self-reliance required to participate. And, the rugged individualists like NickDG that personified the sport. As I remember, malfunction rates were 1 in 100 and you truly were a dead man when you left the plane unless you did everything right. I loved that. Except for the present Instructor corps (speaking very generally) I think those individuals are a small minority these days. There also, was an acute sense of family and exceptance that does not seem to exist now. Case in point; when Judy and I showed up at Cal City ~ 10 years ago to jump and they were blown out, we were welcomed by Nick and immediately given a beer. We then enjoyed a fun-filled poo poo platter dinner with him and his girlfriend in town. It was the only time before or since I've met him but will always remember. We didn't even jump and yet he showed us a good time. I don't begrudge any DZO's or Tandem Masters for catering to the tandem crowd, that's where the bread and butter is and it's become a lucrative business. Besides, the professionalism of this crowd (where I've worked anyway) has become something to behold. The old days are gone and that's fine. Time moves on. I'm just glad to hear they still exist in the Base community and people have a place to go to find it.
As for the original post, that DZO seemed to pull a bait and switch (wether intentionally or not) and those flaky folks can be found in any business.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

I'll go one better. Mikey Hawkes of Skydive Las Vegas shame. SLV is a GMDZ that does not allow fun-jumpers (i.e. a tandem factory). Mikey found himself on the opposite side of the aisle from USPA when he assisted in the writing of state legislation that was drafted in a manner that would put his competitors out of business (GMDZ's that do/did allow fun jumpers). Through quite a bit of USPA and volunteer effort, the legislation was diluted, but still became by far the largest regulatory intrusion into skydiving we've seen in the US. Among other things, the BSRs developed the force of law in Nevada as a result of that legislation. The drama following that waste of our dollars was arguably bigger than the current ASC fuss, as one BOD member provided some minor assistance to the survivors of a fatality at SLV who were suing the dropzone.

This example proves my point. USPA is not in bed with tandem factories and all GMDZ's. This type of litigation is what I expect USPA to be involved in. Keeping skydiving safe and available for everyone.

Your point seemed to me to be that GMDZs that do not allow fun-jumpers (i.e. tandem factories) do not cost us individual members any money, and your sub-point seemed to be that we don't spend money on court costs related to them. I provided an example in which just such a dropzone caused us to incur exactly such costs.

Quote

Quote

Instructional rating courses used to be held wherever enough candidates could most efficiently organize them. The group members decided that instructional rating courses should NOT be considered a benefit for the members who want to improve themselves and assist in the growth of our sport, but should rather be considered a cash cow for GMDZs. They pursued this and eventually achieved today's state, in which instructional rating courses may only be held at GMDZs, thereby making them less accessible and more expensive without making them one iota better for the candidates or the students those candidates eventually train.

I agree with you on this, but I fail to see how having a rating course at your DZ is a cash cow. I suppose other DZ's do it differently, but at Skydive Orange we host numerous rating courses every year. The CD pays the club $5 for each candidate trained. We're not making much money on the deal at all.

I'd venture a guess that each of your candidates buys at least a few jump tickets in the course, and I've seen plenty of examples of DZ's charging something like a $50 fee per candidate taking a course (they arrange for the CD, collect the cash from the candidates, and pay the CD, shaving their cut off the top along with any unpaid jump tickets). If it weren't for the cash generated, why would the GM-DZO's on the board have fought to limit all IRCs to their DZ's...to get first stab at new staff?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DanG 1]

Quote

Your point seemed to me to be that GMDZs that do not allow fun-jumpers (i.e. tandem factories) do not cost us individual members any money, and your sub-point seemed to be that we don't spend money on court costs related to them. I provided an example in which just such a dropzone caused us to incur exactly such costs.

My point was that tandem factories don't cost us any more money than non-tandem factories. Your example does go counter to what I was saying in that regard, but Mark seemed to imply that USPA would (and does) spend money on lawyers and witnesses to SUPPORT DZ's in court, not to fight them. Your example is a good one to show that the issue is more complex than "DZO's are bad" and "USPA sucks." I don't know anything about that case except what you posted, but it seems that USPA was doing what most people would want them to do, which is try to maintain access to skydiving for everyone. The fact that is was a GMDZ and tandem factory on the other side does muddy the waters, but I don't see how spending money in such a way could be considered being in the pockets of the DZO's.

- Dan G

[fireballgrl 0]

I have spent 6 years in the sport and learned to skydive through static line and AFP. My real sense of accomplishment in the sport did not occur until my first solo skydive, and I remember every heart pounding second. I could not tell you any details regarding my first skydive doing a tandem. If that was the only available method for me to skydive, I never would have pursued the sport.

After talking to many who were in the industry before tandems were the norm and "preferred" first jump method, I would have to agree with what you saying here. Gone are the days when students took on the mental challenge of learning how a parachute works, about malfunctions, and took the full responsibility and added addrenaline/excitement and sense of accomplishment for all aspects of the skydive. The attitude of "I could never do that on my own" is pervasive amongst the few tandems my dz does. IMHO the "been there done that" attitude does not feed the sport, just the dzo's. I felt that my tandem only afforded me about 30% of the experience, but that is all we as an industry can offer when someone gives us two hours of their time. The student however feels they have experienced a full skydive (complete with the EVER IMPORTANT freefall time) Nevermind you have a guy on your back in a drogue freefall and are simply burning a hole in the sky only on your belly.

I work manifest on the weekend and I like that my dz informs the customer of their options and that they don't have to go strapped to another person (as the media and hollywood seem to suggest) The difference is most evident once a person lands from their skydive, and you cannot take that sense of accomplishment and solitary facing of one's fears away

[dnhump 1]

In reply to... " two hours of their time. "

I don't know what DZ you work at, but where I come from the tandem 'instructors' spend a whopping 20 minutes at most with the 'rider'. And that includes the f*#@$%g plane ride up!

[jumpoutnow 0]

Ok. So, here is the way a business should operate.....

Today a customer shows up and only wants to a minimal about of $$$. Say, 23.00 for a lift ticket.

DZO becomes an azz for reasons that he has 10 tandems that they spend more $$$. Say, total of 1850.00.

DZO loses the fun jumper's money.

And his/hers (fun jumpers) abilities to advertise by word of mouth for the DZ.

Maybe the particular fun jumper has a group of 50 tandems. {9250.00} of revenue.

DZ azz you can probably forget about that group.

And oh by the way DZO azz, most fun jumpers have spent way more money at DZs than your single tandem student.

100 jumps at most DZs = 2300.00

Ask the one time tandem student will he/she spend that kind of $$$ with you.

The best thing to do is welcome everyone at your DZ regardless of their financial dynamics.

Everyone is important at your dz!!!

Accommodate and welcome everyone!!!

People are crazy. Cuz there's more of 'em.

[dnhump 1]

Now you're just talking non-sense!

The only people who should be at a DZ are hot chicks with a pocket full of money and the desire to be 'felt-up' on the way out the door by their "tandem instructor".

I don't know where you jump, or IF you jump, but get with the program... FUN JUMPERS just clog the process and talk too much!

[livendive 8]

Quote

In reply to... " two hours of their time. "

I don't know what DZ you work at, but where I come from the tandem 'instructors' spend a whopping 20 minutes at most with the 'rider'. And that includes the f*#@$%g plane ride up!

I think she was talking about the students only giving us 2 hours of their time.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)