USPA GM Program

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I guess the one thing that I would ask is what the motivation would be for a DZ to participate in any changes in the GM program?

1. Levels the playing field. Safety costs money. It would ensure that the competition wasn't cutting corners on safety, allowing them to charge a lower price and win away business, forcing the safer DZ to accept the loss of business, accept a lower profit margin and charge the same, or lower their safety standards and charge the same and have the same profit margin.

2. Prevent the FAA from mucking up skydiving by keeping safety at a level that will keep the FAA out of skydiving.

Quote

By far, the majority of the new students come to a DZ by either word of mouth or from DZ advertising. The number of new students that come to a DZ by recommendation of the USPA DZ listing is very small.

Then why be an USPA GM Member DZ?

Quote

If an inspection program was instituted for GM DZ's, there would be a risk of not passing, and that could drive some jumpers away.

That is the goal of the inspections, to educate jumpers and students so they can make educated decisions about the safety of DZ's.

Quote

Since the current GM program is really just a rubber stamp of what the larger DZ's want, it would be difficult to put any teeth into a program that would not be beneficial to the DZ's in the first place.

I agree, USPA is controlled by DZO's. Unfortunately not all DZO's run safe DZ's and even less run safe DZ's all the time. If this doesn't change, we run the risk of the FAA stepping in and making skydiving much more cost prohibitive than an inspection program for GM.

If the FAA ever realizes that the USPA doesn't actually regulate skydiving and it is left up to each DZO to decide the level of safety being influenced by profit and bills, they will step in.

Quote

Why do the DZ's participate now? Mostly because the USPA keeps the FAA off their backs. We are a self regulating industry. Better to have a friendly regulating organization (the USPA) than to have the FAA try to regulate our daily skydiving operations directly. Sure, we have certain requirements that the FAA mandates. Our aircraft and pilots have to be properly certified, along with our TSO'd gear. Our flight operations have to follow FAA guidelines. But it pretty much stops there.

And what happens if the FAA clues into this? What happens when the FAA realizes that the USPA isn't doing the job they have been led to believe it is? We have been lucky. If there is a rash of accidents affecting the public, they will be forced to take notice. If a King Air crashes into a Congressman's house, it will be national news and the FAA will be forced to take action. We are betting on the safety of the least safe DZ.

Quote

The USPA is a handy organization that keeps the FAA off the backs of the DZ's, allowing them to operate pretty much as they want. If the GM program changes, and DZ's fail inspections, it could force the FAA to look closer at skydiving in general, and that would be a bad thing for all concerned.

If the USPA really kept the FAA off DZ's backs, then why isn't the FAA crawling all over non-USPA DZ's?

Wouldn't the USPA showing the FAA a mandatory inspection required for GM membership keep the FAA off DZ"s backs? Give them a warm fuzzy that USPA is actually inspecting DZ's and keeping a standard of safety?

If DZ's fail inspections and the FAA is forced to look into skydiving, then it is the DZO's own fault. They can prevent their DZ from failing an inspection. And if they fail and are put out of business, isn't that good for skydivers? They may not want to see their favorite DZ shut down, but isn't that a better alternate to allowing an unsafe DZ to continue operations?

If an aircraft operator fails to have required maintenance performed on their aircraft and are ramp checked and grounded, isn't that their own fault and a good thing that they were caught?

Quote

Also, if the FAA were suddenly called upon to really get involved in skydiving accidents, we could expect some MAJOR changes to the way we skydive. Do you think that the FAA would allow 20+ fatalities and hundreds of serious accidents from low turns each year? Not a chance. And trust me, you would NOT like the way the FAA would try to solve THAT problem!

I agree having the FAA step in would be bad, but what is preventing that from happening in the future? What is going to prevent the accidents that would bring skydiving to the FAA's attention?

Quote

The plain fact is that there isn’t enough of a motivation for changes in the GM program. Trust me, if the larger DZ’s don’t want something to change, it won’t change. It isn’t because they are directly controlling the USPA, but they are a HUGE lobbying group. The bigger DZ’s have a very large and loyal following. If a large DZ puts out the idea that a new change to the GM program would affect their skydivers, their skydivers will write letters, sign petitions and call their USPA representatives until the change is squashed. I have seen it in action, and it is amazing to watch.

I understand that the DZ's do not want inspections, they don't want voluntary inspections that don't have any repercussions, much less inspections that carry some weight. Why don't they want it? Why would they be against a national standard of safety that all GM DZ's be held to?

Quote

For there to be any significant changes to the GM program, the DZ’s, large and small, have to see a direct benefit to them, or they will resist it. If they resist it, it will not happen.

I don't believe that this is the way it should be. What if amusement parks were allowed to operate this way? The government (FAA) will ensure that there is a certain standard of safety for the public, just as the government does for amusement parks, at DZ's if it comes to their attention that this level of safety does not exist. If there were a series of accidents at theme parks, the government would be forced to step in, investigate, require any improvements they see fit, and monitor the parks. This could also happen to DZ's. If we voluntarily set and enforce a standard of safety, it will be cheaper and easier than having the FAA do it for us.

Quote

Right now we have VERY successful DZ’s that are not members of the USPA, and they have no problem finding new students and experienced jumpers to fill their planes. Increase the GM’s dues, slap a bunch of inspection requirements on member DZ’s and they will simply say goodbye and drop their USPA membership.

Then who would keep the FAA off their backs, they would cutting their own throats. It would be cheaper to have the inspections and maintain a level of safety than ditching the USPA and going it alone and losing the perception of self-regulation. The FAA would step in for sure if the USPA was not there providing the perception of self-regulation.

Quote

Think they would lose jumpers because of this?

I think they would, especially if they could tall any prospective student or jumper, either over the phone or on their web page, that they had passed the inspection and their competition hadn't and if you don't believe us, go check out www.USPA.org. If the USPA submits a list of DZ's that either repeatedly failed or refused to take the inspection to the FAA, then the FAA would come down on them. That would give the USPA GM program the teeth it needs to be effective.

Quote

Probably not. Oh sure, some skydivers would make noises about leaving to go to a “safer” USPA DZ, but after a few $10 per jump boogies and a $150 all you can jump weekend, all is forgotten. Let’s face it, jumpers go to a DZ not because it is a USPA dropzone or the safest one around. They go there because their friends are there, because they like the way they are treated and because it is convenient.

Isn't that the truth, so we cannot rely on jumpers "voting with their feet" to force a DZ to keep a minimum level of safety. It has to be another way.

Quote

So, the USPA continues to try to please all of the jumpers and try to keep dropzones involved in their GM program. And in doing so they end up with programs with no real teeth in them. Do I like all of this? No, but it is reality. And I am not so sure that the way things are is all bad.

The USPA GM program is a paper tiger and it would take much for the curtain to drop, revealing the guy working the controls to the big talking head. I don't think that the situation is horrible and I am not amazed when a jump ship takes off and doesn't crash, but there is no standard of safety and to temptation to skimp on safety to increase profit margins is huge and happens frequently. For the most part they get away with it, but not always. There is nothing stopping the situation from getting worse. People assume that because the DZ has a million-dollar aircraft that "of course, they are doing the maintenance." When the DZO has $8,000 in the bank and a $5,000 payment on the airplane due and $5,000 in maintenance due, where does he money go? If he does the maintenance but doesn't make the payment, he loses the aircraft. If he makes the payment and delays the maintenance, gambling that nothing happens before next month when he can get the maintenance done, chances are he will get away with it and keep the airplane. What other choice does he have? And who is going to stop him from not doing the required maintenance? No one. And as long as there isn't a ramp check or incident, he gets away with it.

Quote

Skydivers as a whole are generally independent thinkers and risk takers. We don’t WANT regulations that limit what we can and can’t do. DZ owners are the same way. So, we want regulations that help us, but don’t limit us.

Inspections that ensure aircraft maintenance is getting done properly, gear maintenance and standards are where they should be, etc do not limit what a jumper or DZO can do, it sets a minimum standard and ensures that standard is met. I also do not want to be too limited in what I can and can't do, but I also would like to be able to look at a list of DZ's that meet a minimum level of safety.

Quote

The USPA has provided us with regulations that allow us to pretty much do what we want, and to decide what is safe and what isn’t, provided we don’t go TOO far in ignoring safety issues.

And what happens if a DZ goes too far? Nothing. Unless there is an incident, nothing happens, and even then it can be very minor and not discourage the same behavior in the future.

Quote

It provides us with enough of a regulating industry so that the government stays out of our lives.

If DZ's followed it, but not all do to different degrees.

Quote

It provides a basic set of standards that is tight enough to protect those that don’t have enough experience to know what is and isn’t safe, and loose enough so that our independent spirit is not squashed once we DO have the knowledge and experience to make safety decisions for ourselves.

If these safety standards were enforced and met, then this would be a moot discussion, but they aren't being met, again, to different degrees. Is the person that stands to loose the money if it is spent on safety, with no repercussions if they don't (as long as there isn't an incident) spend the money the right person to be making those decisions? What if the airlines were allowed to decide for themselves what maintenance needed to be done and how much they spend on it and training for pilots, etc? Would the airlines maintain the current level of maintenance and training they do today if they were required to and inspected and faced penalties for non-compliance? I don't think they would.

Derek

[betzilla 56]

Quote

A lot of small dzs are barely able to operate as it is. I agree that inspections are a great Idea but puting the cost on the dz would just be another nail in the coffin of alot of small dzs. Not having a dz for a couple hundred miles wouldn't do anyone any good.

Small DZ's who dislike USPA (surely there are a ton of them) could still not be members. I learned to jump at a great, safe small DZ which is not a group member [shameless plug: Great Lakes Skydivers near Kalamazoo, Mich.], and would not likely become one until the organization had proven to no longer suck.

I mean, membership is only mandatory to those who wish to be members, right?

[crutch 0]

I am going to jump in here quickly and then leave. Being in the sport for over two decades, I have seen many changes, both good and bad. Good, turbine planes are very abundant, we don't drive all day to a DZ out in the middle of no where to jump a DC3. Bad, the smaller DZs in the country are having a tough time competing and are slowly going out of business. What has the USPA done in either case, not much. The industry itself has changed more to the entry of several good "minds" who have made the gear safer and much more reliable. Did the USPA have a hand in this, a little, but the industry has been the driving factor not the USPA.

I am an S&TA, I represent the USPA, but other than two or three people at headquarters, getting someone to do something for you is like pulling teeth. I have had more problems dealing with the USPA and doing demo jumps than the FAA has ever given us. We were cleared by our FSDO to do demos (after 9/11) long before USPA got involved. The when they did, they just muddied the waters of the whole process. Politics ends up being the driving factor in if you are helped or a roadblock put up in front of you.

That being said, as far as your proposal for inspecting drop zones...who is going to pay for this. The dues now don't really represent the amount of service we are getting. With the number of drop zones in this country (many only open on the weekend) you would need five or six people doing it full time to do the quarterly inspections. And what do you do about drop zones that are closed in the winter, do they get a passing grade in the winter months (no jumping, can't be doing anything unsafe). Lastly, who is setting the safety margins or the scale as to what a "safe" drop zone is. If the "inspector" feels tandem masters should wear helmets, everyone should have a AAD (requirements at some DZs) is he biased towards one that doesn't. All of these things and questions abound when you want to add another level of beuacracy to an organization that has to many levels already.

In closing I want to add something for thought, Roger Nelson was a very safe skydiver, who ran a very safe operation, state of the art and many DZs look to the operation as a model. Yet if you read the papers in Chicago, it is very unsafe there, so where would this whole inspection thing benefit that DZ?

blue skies,

art

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

That being said, as far as your proposal for inspecting drop zones...who is going to pay for this. The dues now don't really represent the amount of service we are getting. [

The Drop Zones. There is enough surplus to pay for a museum off I-95, we can cancel that idea and use that money.

Quote

With the number of drop zones in this country (many only open on the weekend) you would need five or six people doing it full time to do the quarterly inspections.

I was thinking more along the lines of annual inspections.

Quote

And what do you do about drop zones that are closed in the winter, do they get a passing grade in the winter months (no jumping, can't be doing anything unsafe).

Inspect them during the summer. Inspect the year round DZ's in the winter

Quote

Lastly, who is setting the safety margins or the scale as to what a "safe" drop zone is.

USPA already does that, but without actually either checking if a GM DZ adhere to those safety standards or doing anything if a GM DZ isn't adhering to those standards.

Quote

If the "inspector" feels tandem masters should wear helmets, everyone should have a AAD (requirements at some DZs) is he biased towards one that doesn't.

It wouldn't be up to what an inspector feels, they would have a checklist that they would follow and leave no room for interpretation. A rig either has a serviceable AAD or it doesn't. If a helmet is required, then it wouldn't be cause for failure of the inspection.

Quote

All of these things and questions abound when you want to add another level of beuacracy to an organization that has to many levels already.

The level of bureaucracy is already there, the GM program. But what it is and what it is perceived to be by jumpers and the FAA are two different things.

Quote

In closing I want to add something for thought, Roger Nelson was a very safe skydiver, who ran a very safe operation, state of the art and many DZs look to the operation as a model. Yet if you read the papers in Chicago, it is very unsafe there, so where would this whole inspection thing benefit that DZ?

The paper calling a DZ unsafe doesn't mean anything to me. They are uneducated as to what really is safe. What if any DZ that is called unsafe by the media could show the media that they have successfully passed a safety inspection x number of years in a row by a national organization? That would be a good defense against their claim.

Derek