USPA Group Membership

[Hooknswoop 19]

Member USPA
We are proud to be a United States Parachute Association (USPA) enhanced group member and have highly qualified, nationally licensed instructors.

If that's not enough, we are also a United States Parachute Association Group Member Dropzone and have pledged to uphold the Basic Safety Requirements of that organization.

What is a USPA Group Member Dropzone?
The United States Parachute Association (USPA) is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the promotion and safety of skydiving. USPA represents more than 34,000 people who enjoy the sport of skydiving. USPA also represents nearly 300 skydiving clubs and businesses nationwide that offer skydiving and skydiving instruction. USPA's sole business is the sport skydiving. Since its inception in 1946, USPA has worked to promote, grow, and develop the sport, with skydiving safety as one of its most critical missions.
As a USPA group member dropzone we have taken a pledge to provide service and conduct business within accepted ethical guidelines. We have made a committment to comply with the USPA Basic Safety Requirements (BSRs) in connection with all skydiving activities and ensure that all of our employees and staff are appropriately qualified and trained in accordance with USPA Recommendations and (where applicable) hold USPA ratings and/or FAA licenses and certification commensurate with their duties.

Why SkyDance SkyDiving ?

We use the newest and safest tandem equipment in Northern California.
Our jump plane, the PAC 750XL, is the only aircraft made specifically for skydiving. SkyDance is a USPA group member drop zone and all of our instructors are USPA rated instructors. We have been in operation since 1987.

Bay Area Skydiving is a member of the United States Parachute Association.

General Services


We are a USPA Full Service Dropzone.We offer Tandem IAF and AFF (Accelerated Freefall) training, Freefall video and photography, gear sales and repair .We also have a full range of options and souvenirs (T-shirts, hats, etc.).

Skydive Palatka is a United States Parachute Association™ Group Member drop zone so we do require that all experienced skydivers jumping with us be current USPA members (or members of their own national aeroclub).

Skydive Tampa Bay, Inc. is proud to be a certified group member of the United States Parachute Association. Our membership in USPA is your assurance of our commitment to safety.

We have been in operation longer than any skydiving center in North Florida and have been approved as a Group Member of the United States Parachute Association (USPA) for over 12 years!

Sin City Skydiving is a
United States Parachute Association Group Member

OUR CERTIFICATION
SLV is a Certified Group Member of The United States Parachute Association. USPA is your symbol of professionalism, and licensure.

Pacific Skydiving is the only skydiving center on the island of Oahu that is recognized by the United States Parachute Association. This ensures the consumer that Pacific Skydiving conforms to the highest safety standards and regulations as set fourth by the USPA.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

Here's a direct quote from a DZ's website (doesn't matter which DZ... nowhere i've ever been, it was just the 3rd DZ i checked):

"SAFETY
XXXXX is a United States Parachute Association (USPA) Group Member Parachute Center. This means that only properly rated instructors, approved methods of training, and modern, square parachutes will be used."

Using group membership as if it proves something over a non-GM DZ. Seal of approval.

Dave

[JerryBaumchen 1,360]

Well, Ted Mayfield's Sheridan Sky Sports was a USPA GM, if that defines anything.

JerryBaumchen

[Krip 2]

Quote

Here's a direct quote from a DZ's website (doesn't matter which DZ... nowhere i've ever been, it was just the 3rd DZ i checked):

"SAFETY
XXXXX is a United States Parachute Association (USPA) Group Member Parachute Center. This means that only properly rated instructors, approved methods of training, and modern, square parachutes will be used."

Using group membership as if it proves something over a non-GM DZ. Seal of approval.

Dave

How do I change my vote on the poll to keep the GMDZ program as part of USPA

One Jump Wonder

[airtwardo 7]

yep. my big beef with USPA was the change in the AFF program. They lowered the standards because not enough instructors were making it through.

At least to me that seems like another USPA/DZO conflict of interest.

Quote

Why did they lower the standards?

Because there weren't enough instructors making it through..that's true enough.

But lets look at it another way.

There IS a nationwide shortage of instructors, the burn out factor along with the aging membership is draining the pool.

SOMETHING had to be done to keep the wheel rolling, the USPA can't 'make' anyone be an instructor...and if the requirements are too high, and discourage those trying, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

I can understand the 'need' to lower the requirements somewhat, and since they did there hasn't been a discernable increase in overall student fatalities... maybe the requirements were to high to begin with?

Just a thought.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[Krip 2]

Quote

Actually most dzo's I've talked to would love to quite the GM program but if they do, then the other dz down the road tells customers "Oh they're not a member of USPA so they don't follow rules and are dangerous."

That's the reason more of em don't quit.

Hi W

Congrats on the new world record

I don't think its realistic to expect the DZO's to give back USPA to the jumpers on their own. Why should they

USPA can help level the field for all the DZO's by "allowing the DZO's to start their own trade group" and cancelling the USPA GMDZ program due to a majority vote of its individal members.

From this sample poll it looks like 84.552% of USPA individual members want to drop the program.
The DZ down the road won't be a GM either, problem solved.

USPA can still insure the safety standards in the sport by continueing to liscense the rateing holders that work at the DZ's.

IMO USPA will not allow the continuation of th GMDZ program be decided by the individual members.Why would they this poll speaks for itself.

[faulknerwn 38]

The funny part is that I bet a really high percentage of dzos would love to drop the program as well. They just view it as a wasted hunk of cash they have to send to USPA every year.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why did they lower the standards?

Because there weren't enough instructors making it through..that's true enough.

Not because there wasn't enough passing, but because the turnover in AFFI's had outpaced the new AFFIs passing the course.

Quote

There IS a nationwide shortage of instructors, the burn out factor along with the aging membership is draining the pool.

SOMETHING had to be done to keep the wheel rolling, the USPA can't 'make' anyone be an instructor...and if the requirements are too high, and discourage those trying, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

If AFFI's are quitting faster than you replace them, the problem is retention, not the course. When a TI makes as much per jump as an AFFI, but can make twice as many or more jumps in a day, and a highly experienced AFFI makes the same as a brand new AFFI and they both can only afford to live in a trailer on the DZ, the job is not going to retain people.

Quote

I can understand the 'need' to lower the requirements somewhat, and since they did there hasn't been a discernable increase in overall student fatalities... maybe the requirements were to high to begin with?

The difference is the rate of AFF student Cypres fires, the rate of pass/fail of levels by students, the injury rate, etc. Of course there isn't any tracking of these numbers, so it is impossible to look at statistics.

I passed the course in 1999 with Don Yarling. It was not excessively difficult. You needed to be able to fly relative tot he student, quickly re-close any distance that opened up between you and the student, keep track of altitude, roll a student back onto their belly, and get the student under a parachute by the hard deck. I don't see anything in there where the standard can be lowered.

Derek

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Quote

Why did they lower the standards?

Because there weren't enough instructors making it through..that's true enough.

Not because there wasn't enough passing, but because the turnover in AFFI's had outpaced the new AFFIs passing the course.

Quote

There IS a nationwide shortage of instructors, the burn out factor along with the aging membership is draining the pool.

SOMETHING had to be done to keep the wheel rolling, the USPA can't 'make' anyone be an instructor...and if the requirements are too high, and discourage those trying, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

If AFFI's are quitting faster than you replace them, the problem is retention, not the course. When a TI makes as much per jump as an AFFI, but can make twice as many or more jumps in a day, and a highly experienced AFFI makes the same as a brand new AFFI and they both can only afford to live in a trailer on the DZ, the job is not going to retain people.

Quote

I can understand the 'need' to lower the requirements somewhat, and since they did there hasn't been a discernable increase in overall student fatalities... maybe the requirements were to high to begin with?

The difference is the rate of AFF student Cypres fires, the rate of pass/fail of levels by students, the injury rate, etc. Of course there isn't any tracking of these numbers, so it is impossible to look at statistics.

I passed the course in 1999 with Don Yarling. It was not excessively difficult. You needed to be able to fly relative tot he student, quickly re-close any distance that opened up between you and the student, keep track of altitude, roll a student back onto their belly, and get the student under a parachute by the hard deck. I don't see anything in there where the standard can be lowered.

Derek

I'm not an AFFI so I don't know what the standards are or were, 'Jumper03' said the standards were lowered I figure he knows.

Now to address a point in your post Hook...

You're right there should be some equity in the pay, but is that the responsibility of the USPA?

They lowered the requirements to try to fill the gap....that's really the only approach they COULD take.

It's up to the 'industry' to address the pay / retention situation, not the governing organizations, they can't dictate payroll standards...maybe Nick's idea about a union isn't so far off in left field.



On another rant~

A lot of complaining about the USPA going on, but to what end?

Several posters talk about running for office and revamping the the 'system'...cool, I vote and I see the need for 'positive' change, tell what ya wanna do and ya got my vote....but tear down the whole thing because of a lawsuit?

Wasn't that long ago the suit was started and people were saying 'about time', now it's gone sideways and some of those same people are saying 'never should have'...ya can't have it both ways.

Dump the Group membership program?
Okay... show logical reasons why, other than it's just a revenue generator and a good ole boy network.

Come up with real changes, an implementation process, cost benefit analysis with real figures and ya got my vote.

Restructuring is fine, it's needed, but lets be smart and objective about it.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[billvon 2,990]

>Ted Mayfield's Sheridan Sky Sports was a USPA GM . . .

Yep. And I swear, there are people here who would jump there (and support that guy) just because he didn't take Skyride. (Well, if he wasn't in jail, that was.)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You're right there should be some equity in the pay, but is that the responsibility of the USPA?

They lowered the requirements to try to fill the gap....that's really the only approach they COULD take.

USPA did not have to lower the standards. USPA could have done nothing and allowed DZ's to fix the issue themselves. Instead USPA bowed to DZO's, lowering the course standards to keep a large pool of AFFI's so that they wouldn't have to work on retention. How does that serve the members?

Quote

A lot of complaining about the USPA going on, but to what end?

In the end, nothing will change. Things are too well entrenched and jumpers too apathetic to ever create change.

USPA does not serve it's members, it serves DZ's. It is a toothless tiger, which is how most people want it.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Yep. And I swear, there are people here who would jump there (and support that guy) just because he didn't take Skyride. (Well, if he wasn't in jail, that was.)

Nah, they would jump there and support him, regardless. How many jumpers that agree skyride isn't good, but continue to jump at Skyride DZ's?

Derek

[airtwardo 7]

In the end, nothing will change. Things are too well entrenched and jumpers too apathetic to ever create change.

USPA does not serve it's members, it serves DZ's. It is a toothless tiger, which is how most people want it.

Quote

I think is does both to the degree that it 'practically' can.

With limited capital and manpower they need to rely on the next level down to 'oversee' the day to day operation of the company.



When part of that next level down is also part of the governing body sure there is a conflict, but it's also a 'shortcut' to getting things done.


They (USPA) are walking a thin line trying to keep things balanced and moving forward.

A BOD / DZO person may be viewed as a conflict, but then again who better to know out in the 'real world' what is needed to keep the wheels rolling.

Could it be done better, probably.... but like you say there isn't that much grass roots disdain to genuinely address it.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I think is does both to the degree that it 'practically' can.

USPA should serve it's members first and foremost.

Whenever USPA must choose between it's members and DZ's, the members lose.

Again, how does lowering the AFFI course standards serve the membership?

Derek

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Quote

I think is does both to the degree that it 'practically' can.

USPA should serve it's members first and foremost.

Whenever USPA must choose between it's members and DZ's, the members lose.

Again, how does lowering the AFFI course standards serve the membership?

Derek

Gotta have instructors to get new members to replace the old members as well as build the overall membership numbers, to promote the sport.

Again...come up with a better way to keep the AFFI numbers workable 'other' than lower the requirements and let's look at that.

This is a situation where unfortunately the end does justify the means...until those 'means' are shown too costly, which they haven't been, they will continue.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Again...come up with a better way to keep the AFFI numbers workable 'other' than lower the requirements and let's look at that.

I already listed several. Better pay. Benefits (health, discounted jumps, continued training, etc), and better treatment.

Quote

Gotta have instructors to get new members to replace the old members as well as build the overall membership numbers, to promote the sport.

Which is DZO's should treat their staff well enough that they don't come up short.

Derek

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

I think is does both to the degree that it 'practically' can.

USPA should serve it's members first and foremost.

Whenever USPA must choose between it's members and DZ's, the members lose.

Again, how does lowering the AFFI course standards serve the membership?

Derek

Can you give an example of the change in standards, so those of us who are not AFFIs can know of what you write?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Can you give an example of the change in standards, so those of us who are not AFFIs can know of what you write?

For example, the pass rate for the course went from 50% to 85% overnight. USPA simply lowered the standards to pass the course.

For the old course, you needed to earn 12 points within 6 eval dives with a 0 to 4 possible on each jump.

The new course you must pass 3 out of 4 with each jump a pass/fail.
An example of how it is an easier format:

Old course: First dive score a 2.
New course: First dive score a sat.

Old course: Second dive, score a 0.
New course: Second dive, score an un-sat.

Old course: Third dive score a 2.
New course: Third dive score a sat and earn your rating. You are done.

With the old course at this point, you have 3 dives to score 8 more points. You must demonstrate higher than average abilities to recover from the failed Second dive.

Old course: Fourth dive score a 2

Old course: Fifth dive score a 2.

You must now score a 4 on the last dive to earn your rating, no pressure.

Old course: Sixth dive, score a 2 or 3, fail the course.

Ask some people that have seen both the old and new course. I had a CD tell me the standards were lower, but that he follows USPA's guidelines and that's it. Candidates that failed the old course would pass the new one easily. I passed the old course in 5 dives with 13 points. I was not ready to be turned loose on real AFF students alone. I needed mentoring and a lot more experience before I should have been a full fledged AFFI.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1135751;search_string=old%20course%20new%20course;#1135751

Derek

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think is does both to the degree that it 'practically' can.

USPA should serve it's members first and foremost.

Whenever USPA must choose between it's members and DZ's, the members lose.

Again, how does lowering the AFFI course standards serve the membership?

Derek

Can you give an example of the change in standards, so those of us who are not AFFIs can know of what you write?

Prior to the change, candidate AFFIs were evalutated on a point scale. There were points awarded on the exit, signals and the bottom end. So if you couldn't exit with a student you didn't pass.

After the change, each phase is either a go/no go. You need two go's to pass the dive. So theoretically a candidate can never exit with the student (a no go)- but get there, give a signal (go) andbe there at the bottom end (go) and pass the jump.
Or worse case, make the exit, give a signal and never be there at the bottom end and pass the dive.

I'm training up to go through the course and have been asking around and this is what I understand the biggest change to be. If that is wrong, someone please correct me.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Quote

Again...come up with a better way to keep the AFFI numbers workable 'other' than lower the requirements and let's look at that.

I already listed several. Better pay. Benefits (health, discounted jumps, continued training, etc), and better treatment.

Quote

Gotta have instructors to get new members to replace the old members as well as build the overall membership numbers, to promote the sport.

Which is DZO's should treat their staff well enough that they don't come up short.

Derek

Better pay. Benefits (health, discounted jumps, continued training, etc), and better treatment.

~What does the USPA have to do with those issues?

That is ultimately something between the DZO and the employee. There are almost overwhelming overhead costs running a dz these days.

I know a lotta DZO's and none of them are making the return on investment of both capital and time, that they could in 'other' entrepreneurial endeavors.

They pay what the 'supply & demand' requires, up to a point.
Should AFFI's be making more...probably, but where on the sliding scale of payroll 'vs' closing down does that figure lay?

If as a governing body, the dzo comes to me and says I need more instructors & students to show a profit or to break even...do I tell them to treat their existing instructors better and let's see what happens?

No...I try to figure a reasonably painless way overall, to get them more instructors. Not my place to tell them how to treat their employees.

Pay, benefits, heath etc. that's what a union would address not a governing body.


Should the USPA have seen this coming and addressed it in another way?
Possibly, but hey they're not any 'smarter' than the rest of us, they are just trying to keep the boat afloat and give it some direction...with VERY limited funds and manpower.

I not trying to carry water for the USPA...it has problems just like any other organization of it's type.

What I'm saying is, let's take these bitches and gripes and expose the actual underlying issues, then address them logically and objectively.

Someone says they don't like it because the USPA lowered the standards.

Okay, why did they do it, did what they do affect the reason of why they did it, is what they did hurting the sport more than helping it, is there a better way to achieve the end they were addressing, what is it and how do we implement it...what impact and cost will it have?

It's a matter of picking your battles...

IMHO people shit hammering dents the planet under open canopies is hurting the sport more than Screw-ride.com, and I HATE SCREW-RIDE.com, but what can the USPA 'effectively' do to curb the denting, other than make recommendations? ......not much.

They thought there was a positive course of action that could be taken to help the sport by addressing the other....they were wrong, it happens.




As a side note:
I was an I and a TM for years...I of course would have liked to make more money, but I wasn't doing it FOR the money.
I was doing it to give something back to the sport...that sentiment is pretty much gone these days regarding the pool of instructors overall.

Personally, I wouldn't go back to doing tandems for double what I was making...that's not the USPA's fault OR the DZO's.
Burned out and went on with life....that's the type of attrition factor lowering the standards addresses...a replacement is needed because I'm never going back.

The requirements for wartime recruits goes down to meet the needs, this is nothing different.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Better pay. Benefits (health, discounted jumps, continued training, etc), and better treatment.

~What does the USPA have to do with those issues?

Nothing.

Quote

That is ultimately something between the DZO and the employee.

I agree.

Quote

They pay what the 'supply & demand' requires, up to a point.

Yep

Quote

Should AFFI's be making more...probably, but where on the sliding scale of payroll 'vs' closing down does that figure lay?

Somewhere above where you can attract and retain enough AFFI's to stay in business.

Quote

If as a governing body, the dzo comes to me and says I need more instructors & students to show a profit or to break even...do I tell them to treat their existing instructors better and let's see what happens?

Yep, because just like you pointed out, that is between the AFFI and the DZO. USPA has nothing to do with it.

Quote

No...I try to figure a reasonably painless way overall, to get them more instructors. Not my place to tell them how to treat their employees.

Then you are overstepping your bounds, that is between the DZO and the AFFI. USPA's job is to set the standard, not lower the standards at the request of DZO's.

Quote

Should the USPA have seen this coming and addressed it in another way?

Yep, they should have told the DZO's, the AFFI standards are what they are for a reason. If you can't seem to keep staff, you need to look at why. Instructors are treated like crap.

Quote

What I'm saying is, let's take these bitches and gripes and expose the actual underlying issues, then address them logically and objectively.

We did, that is where the example of USPA lowering the standards came from, the underlying issue of USPA serving DZO"s and not it's members.

Quote

The requirements for wartime recruits goes down to meet the needs, this is nothing different.

The military catches a lot of heat if they try that. Instead they offer enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses and other incentives. They are improving housing for the military, etc. Lowering the standards is not the answer, for the military or USPA.

You can't have it both ways. Either it isn't USPA's job to keep enough AFFI's rated by lowering the standards so that pay, etc. doesn't have to increase or it is. I think we agree that it isn't, but that is exactly what USPA did. Why? Because that served the needs of the DZO's, not the members.

Again, how does lowering the AFFI standards in the interest of the members?

Derek

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Again, how does lowering the AFFI standards in the interest of the members?

Have we proven that it hurts the members? I'm just curious. I know the question wasn't originally posed to you, but since you hold the same opinion as jumper03, perhaps you have a response to kallend's question in post #10 (quoted here for reference):

Quote

Have there been many (or any) incidents that could be attributed to the change in AFF certification?

Genuine curiosity - I haven't been in the sport long enough to know.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[airtwardo 7]

Then you are overstepping your bounds, that is between the DZO and the AFFI. USPA's job is to set the standard, not lower the standards at the request of DZO's.



~Right, the USPA sets the standards, if anyone for any reason can show that the standards should be changed and the impact will have a more positive than negative effect then that's what the USPA should do...a positive.

And, what is the 'evidence' that the USPA lowered the standards at DZO's request?
Has anyone from USPA actually said that was the reason or are we just 'guessing' ?









Yep, they should have told the DZO's, the AFFI standards are what they are for a reason. If you can't seem to keep staff, you need to look at why. Instructors are treated like crap.


~Again, is that fact or conjecture?
IS that the only reason the AFFI pool is going down?
DID the group of DZO's request lower standards?
Do we have numbers or testimonials to back up the opinion that it's the lousy treatment and not just 'burn out'?

HOW are they treated like crap, and what EXACTLY can the DZO do to improve that situation without going broke?

I mean we're big boys, as an "I" and "TM", I knew what I would be doing, for who and how much I would be getting paid.
I made the commitment to be there and do the job for the agreed upon compensation and when it wasn't 'worth' my time and trouble anymore I stopped, just like many other Instructors.

Again, health insurance, more money, cheap gear or blowjob & a big box of chocolates wouldn't have made any difference.







The military catches a lot of heat if they try that.

What do you mean "IF"...look at the requirements (Draft) in 1965 as opposed to 1968.
At the height of the war makin' steam on a mirror was the only real requirement!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Have we proven that it hurts the members? I'm just curious. I know the question wasn't originally posed to you, but since you hold the same opinion as jumper03, perhaps you have a response to kallend's question in post #10 (quoted here for reference):

No, I haven't. I don't think it can be proven either way since no records are kept that someone could use to prove it either way.

The difference is jumper retention, the number of AFF student Cypres fires, the number of repeat AFF levels caused by the AFFI, etc.

I do know that I wasn't fully prepared after passing the original course. I have seen people pass the new course that should not be doing AFF.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

~Right, the USPA sets the standards, if anyone for any reason can show that the standards should be changed

That was not done.

Quote

And, what is the 'evidence' that the USPA lowered the standards at DZO's request?

Instructor shortage immediately followed by the AFF standards being lowered. I don't think it was a coincidence.

Quote

Has anyone from USPA actually said that was the reason or are we just 'guessing' ?

Of course not and they won't either.

Quote

Again, is that fact or conjecture?

Fact. How much does a full time AFFI make? Why are Instructor housing areas called ghettos?

Quote

I made the commitment to be there and do the job for the agreed upon compensation and when it wasn't 'worth' my time and trouble anymore I stopped, just like many other Instructors.

Exactly, wasn't worth your time anymore. I didn't burn out. I got tired of how I was treated and the compensation I received for the work I did. Otherwise I would still be doing AFF. I think after all my tunnel time, some AFF would be an absolute blast.

The whole point of the AFF issue was an example of how USPA does not serve it's members, it serves the DZO's.

Derek