DeNReN 0 #26 February 16, 2008 Just to clarify that the donation page following signing the online petition can be ignored...it is for the website not the fight against NPA 99-148. Also Tim Grech had drafted a form letter for us Canadians to send to their respective MP's http://www.skydiveyork.com/NPAFormletter.doc All Canadian skydivers really need to get on this and do what we can to stop NPA 99-148. And any of our international friends signing the petition certainly wouldn't hurt http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NPA99148/index.html Thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armour666 0 #27 February 16, 2008 QuoteI'm torn. It's been painfully obvious that skydiving governance in Canada has been in a very poor state for years. Political infighting and commercial interests have set competing organizations against each other. I'm really not surprised that the fed's are stepping in, it's predictable when you don't have a strong national organization like the USPA in charge. Skydiving governance in Canada has proven to be a joke. I'm not surprised the government wants it regulated. I'm torn because I know that skydiving under the watchful eye of the DOT will suck greatly, but at the same time the track record has shown the national organizations have been incapable of doing it properly themselves. It's such a shame that the industry hasn't gotten itself in shape long before this happened. _Am (former member, CSPA) What track record are you speaking of? The one where CSPA has a lower the average incident rate then most other FIA countries per number of jumps? The track records where Transport Canada allowed other organizations to conduct student training and that the majority of incidents and coroners reports that are driving this are form non CSPA member drop zones. Transport Canada allowed the situation to develop where it is today out of their lack of understanding of the sport and oversight now they are scrambling to cover their own ass and now the CSPA gets tossed in with it. The CSPA didn’t cause this and they governed as they seen fit. Not everybody may agree with some of the decisions and changes but they are continuing to evolve. The CSPA has made many changes to the student and coaching program that others are copying I think that a great thing considering that this is a Volunteer organization. An you CAN NOT compare the USPA with 31,000 members X $49.00 Gives them $1,519,000 of funds to work with, to CSPA’s 2,200 members X $80.00 $176,000 of working funds.SO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #28 February 16, 2008 Quotehttp://www.skydiveyork.com/NPAFormletter.doc I just faxed or emailed copies of this letter to all candidates, including Bob Rae, running in the March 17 byelection in my last Canadian riding, as well as to Lawrence Cannon. Now I just need to work out in my own mind whether as an expat Canadian intending to become a US citizen, I can ethically vote in a Canadian election."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #29 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuotehttp://www.skydiveyork.com/NPAFormletter.doc I just faxed or emailed copies of this letter to all candidates, including Bob Rae, running in the March 17 byelection in my last Canadian riding, as well as to Lawrence Cannon. Now I just need to work out in my own mind whether as an expat Canadian intending to become a US citizen, I can ethically vote in a Canadian election. Fact: The constitution guarantees your right to vote. It does not mention anything about some letter the bureaucrats have thought up for you to sign. Fact: They let penitentiary inmates vote because they might get parole during the tenure of the next government. If the probability of you coming back to Canada is greater than zero (ie you're wanted for war crimes) you should vote. JMHO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
novacaine 0 #30 February 17, 2008 Could some of you help this newbie at? I am trying to understand the full issue here. From my understanding TC has not released the draft to the Public, therefore how is it that CSPA is advising its members to act act against this NPA? Will this NPA truly change the sport for the worst? If I understand it correctly, in the US, the FAA regulates the AC used in the sport. So why is this a bad thing that TC is regulating our AC here? Secondly, how is it that the USPA can be a self regulated and CSPA can not be? (Is this strictly due to the membership enrollment?) I am not arguing about the possible change in regulation, but how can I learn more of the issues. I just want to make my own informed decision before trying to take action myself! Thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #31 February 18, 2008 All aircraft are regulated. The difference between Canadian and American jumpships is that Canadian ones need a commercial operating certificate. This probably contributes more to the cost differential for jump tickets than taxes. However this issue has nothing to do with aircraft; it has to do with the rest of the industry. At least TC knows something about aircraft, they know nothing about skydiving or skydiving training. If TC becomes the legal authority on skydiving that means breaking a BSR is breaking the law. When we want to change a BSR the first step will be to call the government and find out when we can get it on the agenda. A good example is the 180 day reserve packing cycle. The decision to change from 120 days to 180 was made by the technical and safety committee in consultation with the board of directors as well as rigging committees from FAI member groups all over the world. People like TSC chair Barry McCauley who have spent virtually their entire adult life devoted to skydiving and skydiving safety were task with this. The rules for demos however were under Transport, and they remained at 120 days. CSPA requested that Transport change this rule to synchronize with CSPA and CAPS standards. Transport took over five years to make the change. What was the hold up, you ask? Nothing. They considered it and made the change in a timely fashion; for them five years is not an innappropriate amount of time. Not coincidentally the US, who has their packing cycle for all jumpers controlled by the FAA, is just now considering making a rule change, years after the issue has been dealt with around the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #32 February 18, 2008 Quote Could some of you help this newbie at? I am trying to understand the full issue here. From my understanding TC has not released the draft to the Public, therefore how is it that CSPA is advising its members to act act against this NPA? According to the Facebook group, the proposed regulation will be published in Gazette 1 by the end of February. I believe the purpose in the meantime is to let MPs and government officials know there is general and widespread opposition to government regulation in skydiving. Presumably by educating them now it will be easier to elicit their formal support once there is something to formally oppose--which is expected to be soon."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 279 #33 February 18, 2008 Quote Could some of you help this newbie at? I am trying to understand the full issue here. From my Big complex issue but I'll give it a quickly written but lengthy try. We've seen the original NPA and have issues with that. We have no idea what the final version will be. It could have no changes, or major changes. We just don't know, although I'd bet that given the lack of further consultation with the skydiving industry, they'll just try to put it into place almost as is. It has been tougher to mount an opposition against it because Transport Canada never said, "here's our proposal, let's discuss it". It's always, "you'll see it when we're ready to show you", which will likely be when it is in the Gazette phase. Transport Canada already regulates skydiving aircraft in Canada. A DZ has to set up an operations manual, a maintenance control manual, agree on maintenance intervals, maintain a weight & balance program for loading the aircraft, do annual self reviews of operational issues, ensure there is annual retraining of pilots and staff, ensure there is human factors training, submit to the occasional audit every few years, and so on and on. In the US things are not as self regulated as they appear to be. The FAA has a lot more acutal parachuting rules than Transport Canada has. On the other hand, the FAA rules for aircraft maintenance and procedures are slacker than in Canada. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, depending on perspective. Largely volunteer organizations have issues with effectiveness and discipline. It is very hard to enforce rules, and as soon as the mudslinging starts, then there's plenty to go around and a lot of ill will occurs. The US has had some pretty serious infighting lately when it comes to DZ's that were being considered to be using unethical business practices. In Canada there was enough infighting in the '90s that some DZ's split and formed a sort of rival organization, that is now fairly moribund. The NPA (as it seems to be planned) basically makes all CSPA Basic Safety Rules and all Recommendations the law, where they pertain to student jumps. Theoretically that's nice, but when a rule is broken, now you are breaking Canadian law, not just the rules of the voluntary association. That increases the seriousness of it. If you're thinking about some other DZ, that you think is doing things poorly, maybe you'll applaud. But there are plenty of ways for even "good" DZ's to fall afoul of the rules. BSRs limit solo student jumps to 15 mph winds or less. Does every DZ always follow that rule? To what degree? Is it a problem if the wind goes over the limit for 1 second, 15 seconds, a minute? Is it always followed out on prairie DZ's with flat terrain and less turbulence? Has the DZ ever let advanced students jump even when they don't let the first timers go? Can an inspector walk in with a wind meter, and shut the DZ down while they investigate? It might not actually happen, but people would rather not have to worry about it. As much as DZO's might like a level playing field (by making "the other guys shape up"), I think they're afraid of being caught on some rule themselves. As a comparison, even if one didn't speed much on the roads, and wished the cops would get the really crazy drivers out there, one might not be happy to see a lot more traffic cops out there -- because they'll find you too, some place, some time, where you're thinking, "Come on, I'm hardly speeding, there's nobody around to hit, and the limit here is way too low anyway". Some BSR's get regularly broken. Consider the one about tandem jumps having to follow manufacturer's recommendations. Sure, in general that's a nice idea. But if you look at every little thing they recommend, you'll find almost any DZ in violation of something. With the NPA, they'll be breaking the law. (That could include not having an altimeter for first time tandem students, or not packing the way it is written in an outdated but not updated manual, or not following a manufacturer's very strict rules on who may video a tandem -- some rules that may work at Perris or Deland, but be really tough on a small Canadian DZ.) Some of the opposition to the NPA is just because people don't want more rules. Some is because they're afraid of the "thin end of the wedge". It sets a precedent to actually regulate the skydiving side of things. Some is unreasonable fear of TC swooping in and finding fault. And some is reasonable fear that there will always be some rule, somewhere, that one is breaking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
novacaine 0 #34 February 20, 2008 Hey thanks for al those that answered my question! It is nice to be able to get help understanding that in which I do not know. Though, the new question that comes into my mind is what else can we as a skydiving group do? I signed the petition from the link that was post above. Yet, is there anything else that I (we) can do, other then letting CSPA deal with this? As I really don't think that my MP would a) have the slightest idea what in the world I was talking about. And b) really care about protecting the sport, as there has been a lot of bad press in past years where I live, about skydiving. Does anyone else out there feel the same as I do? Or is there an other option that I am missing? Thanks!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #35 February 20, 2008 It is your MPs job to know what you're talking about. With a possible election call as early as next week he might actually be paying attention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #36 February 21, 2008 QuoteIt is your MPs job to know what you're talking about. With a possible election call as early as next week he might actually be paying attention. You must have a higher opinion of politicians than I do.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
