Phlip 0 #51 August 1, 2003 We should discuss that in another thead. I'll just add that it is always easier to criticize than to act (Don't take it personally, I don't know you, what you do, what you've done etc... just saying). They are working on constantly improving their programs and like always, some people like it and some people don't. It doesn't mean they are worthless. Flip Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #52 August 1, 2003 Beats having the FAA regulate the sport.... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #53 August 1, 2003 QuoteI'll just add that it is always easier to criticize than to act I have gone to the USPA 3 times...and 3 times I have been mostly ignored. I have emailed them for info, and never recieved a response.... But god forbid I didn't sign the check once...that warrented a phone call from HQ. QuoteThey are working on constantly improving their programs and like always Name ONE that the USPA started an implemented that was not already being done?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #54 August 1, 2003 QuoteBeats having the FAA regulate the sport.... They do read 105. For the most part the FAA does not care about us as long as we have in date reserves and don't kill anyone else."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #55 August 1, 2003 QuoteFor the most part the FAA does not care about us as long as we have in date reserves and don't kill anyone else. Yeah, they don't care about us because the USPA is doing the "caring" for them. But, they could be regulating canopy size, canopy flight, gear sizing, AAD use, etc....and they would be if the USPA wasn't there as a buffer. I don't want to get into a USPA debate, but if you've ever gone through a TSO certification process, you'll get the idea that you don't want the FAA any more involved than they absolutely need to be. If we apply the ideas of GA to skydiving, you'd have to get a check dive and sign off for each different canopy you wanted to fly...which would, of course, cost money. Let's see, then there's flight plans, minimum instrumentation, the list goes on... USPA certainly has their own issues, but I stand by my claim that having the FAA in charge, without USPA as a buffer, would truly suck. Skydiving is out of their realm, so the FAA just does their best to cover their asses in the event of a law suit and leaves us alone...because USPA is supposed to be giving us some safety regulations so they don't have to! USPA is the lesser of two evils, if you want to look at it that way. I tend not to agree, but that doesn't matter. The FAA is NOT who we want imposing rules on us... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #56 August 1, 2003 QuoteYeah, they don't care about us because the USPA is doing the "caring" for them. But, they could be regulating canopy size, canopy flight, gear sizing, AAD use, etc....and they would be if the USPA wasn't there as a buffer. I don't agree. The FAA is short staffed. They are not going to hire a bunch of inspectors to cruse DZ's. If the fatality rates jump...Then they *might* get involved, if we start bouncing on little johnnys head they *will* get involved. QuoteI don't want to get into a USPA debate, but if you've ever gone through a TSO certification process, you'll get the idea that you don't want the FAA any more involved than they absolutely need to be. No I have not done a TSO...But I do have a pilots license...which is closer to the type of regulations the JUMPERS would go through than a TSO...A TSO would be more like certification of a new A/C...I personally like the idea of it not being easy to certify a rig or an A/C...I would hate to have comercial POS's out there. QuoteIf we apply the ideas of GA to skydiving, you'd have to get a check dive and sign off for each different canopy you wanted to fly.. Not a bad idea when you look at the fatality reports. QuoteLet's see, then there's flight plans You mean like several DZ's make students do already? Or like our dirt dives??? Again a great idea. Quoteminimum instrumentation, Like an altimeter? Again not a bad idea!"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #57 August 1, 2003 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we apply the ideas of GA to skydiving, you'd have to get a check dive and sign off for each different canopy you wanted to fly.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not a bad idea when you look at the fatality reports. And how many jumpers might you lose to the costs associated here? Skydiving is already expensive...adding costs aren't going to help that. I'm all in favor of seeing some sort of controls put into effect to prevent canopy fatalities, but they need to be put in place by skydivers who understand canopy flight and wing loading, not airplane people who understand wings but still think of parachutes as round things made of silk. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's see, then there's flight plans -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You mean like several DZ's make students do already? Or like our dirt dives??? Again a great idea. No, I meant like opening and closing a flight plan via phone for each jump so that the FAA can track where you're at...just like pilots do. Having students work out flight plans as a learning exercise is fine. But forcing your casual jumper (or hard core weekender) to do it would be prohibitive...and a waste of time, IMO. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- minimum instrumentation, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like an altimeter? Again not a bad idea! Ok, so how about when the FAA insists you wear two visual altimeters plus two audible altimeters, plus an ELT? You know how the FAA likes redundancy...which really does make sense. But soon you'll have to be making over $150,000 a year to skydive! Again, the sport won't absorb these costs. It'll just get too expensive to skydive. Skydiving is still about choice, I don't want someone who has no idea about what skydivers actually need telling me how many Alti's I need to wear to be safe. And like you said, the FAA is short staffed, so I don't think they're going to commit to training their people about skydiving when they already have a simple model (General Aviation) there to take their sets of rules from...even if the sets don't fit our sport well. Again, I don't know that the USPA is always the best,..but, IMO, it beats the FAA. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #58 August 1, 2003 QuoteAnd how many jumpers might you lose to the costs associated here? What kind of costs?...For me to get my HP all I had to do was prove to an Instructor I could handle it....In my case it was about an hr of time in an airplane. Oh no! I had to prove I could handle the airplane before I could fly it...And I had to pay a guy to check me out...All told it was the same as one jump and a coaching fee..which is about 33.00. And this is just to sownsize...Not everyone would have to do that. I do have to get a checkout with an instructor every two years...Not a bad idea there either! QuoteI'm all in favor of seeing some sort of controls put into effect to prevent canopy fatalities, but they need to be put in place by skydivers who understand canopy flight and wing loading, not airplane people who understand wings but still think of parachutes as round things made of silk. What you think the FAA will just make decisions without any research???? I don't think so. Hell it takes the FAA longer to make a change than the USPA does. QuoteNo, I meant like opening and closing a flight plan via phone for each jump so that the FAA can track where you're at...just like pilots do. VFR pilots don't need to open a flight plan. We are VFR. QuoteBut forcing your casual jumper (or hard core weekender) to do it would be prohibitive...and a waste of time, IMO. So dirt diving is a waste of time? PLAN your dive, dive your PLAN. QuoteOk, so how about when the FAA insists you wear two visual altimeters plus two audible altimeters, plus an ELT? You know how the FAA likes redundancy...which really does make sense. Where the hell do you get this? VFR you have to have: 1. Altimeter 2. Compass 3. Airspeed Thats it,not even an ELT is needed, much less TWO of anything...And this is for pilots, in AIRPLANES. Skydivers don't need a compass (well maybe a wingsuit) and they dont need an airspeed indicator. An Altimeter is a GREAT idea...I would not care if they were made manditory. You should do homework before you start with the examples. QuoteSkydiving is still about choice, I don't want someone who has no idea about what skydivers actually need telling me how many Alti's I need to wear to be safe. And you think they would just start making rules without any research??? I don't think so."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #59 August 1, 2003 QuoteBeats having the FAA regulate the sport.... I think it is unlikely that the FAA will step in, but agree that it would be 'bad' if they did. I don't favor disbanning the USPA and letting the FAA handle it, I favor the USPA doing what they are supposed to be doing. If the FAA believes that USPA is regulatiing skydiving then they are in error. USPA isn't all bad, they do some good too, but they have a long ways to go before I would consider them effective. The APF puts the USPA to shame. See how long a DZ in Australia could get away with using non rated AFF Instructors. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #60 August 1, 2003 QuoteAn Altimeter is a GREAT idea...I would not care if they were made manditory. Yeah, but the point is, some people would...and you don't have the right to tell them they must jump with one. As for my examples, they were all, of course, hypothetical, and they were worst case. But they illustrate the point that it is very possible to get caught in a cycle of having to buy more and more gear just to stay legal. That's not positive for the sport. As for the FAA doing research before they commit to something, when we went through our TSO cert, we had to send a complete drawing package and documentation package in to the MIDO before they would even consider doing an inspection for certification. Keep in mind that TSO is the second highest rating the FAA issues, so you think they'd pay attention to it, right? When the inspectors showed up (from one of the largest MIDO offices in the country), we had to explain every facet of the operation to them...not because they wanted us to prove anything to them, but because they didn't have a clue what was going on. Not only that, but about 2 hours into the inspection, they asked "and so where do you build the parachutes at?" Well, we're building containers here, which was obvious if they had even read the title of the 200 page documents package we sent them. When we commented that we were only building Harness & Container systems, they looked at us confused and said that they were under the impression that they were here TO INSPECT A PARACHUTE PRODUCTION FACILITY! Did they do their research? Obviously not. Did they even open the documents package to skim it before coming to do a Federally Mandated inspection? Obviously not. And these inspections are something that they do on a regular basis! The FAA is, by their own admission at our inspection, only worried about covering their ass in the event something goes to court. They could care less about what we're doing, as long as they have a loophole to get out of. They could care less about parachuting in general, again, by their own admission at our inspection. They "deal with Airplanes, not folks that fall out of them"...their words, not mine. So, for anyone who is under the misguided impression that the FAA would "do their homework" before stepping into skydiving...perhaps you should do some research before you make your posts. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #61 August 2, 2003 QuoteI don't agree. The FAA is short staffed. They are not going to hire a bunch of inspectors to cruse DZ's. I remember the inspector at our dz not too long ago. Then again, may be they'll let the smaller ones slide. That's what you run into when you are part of a SRO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #62 August 2, 2003 QuoteIf they have never attended an AFF Instructor Certification Course. legally they cannot call themselves "AFF Instructors." Doesn't USPA have some sort of copy write on "AFF?" People, what don't you understand? They can call themselves anything they want and it is legal. No one is going to do anything about it. Least of all USPA SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #63 August 2, 2003 QuoteSo, for anyone who is under the misguided impression that the FAA would "do their homework" before stepping into skydiving...perhaps you should do some research before you make your posts. Well, I DO my research.....I ahve talked with several FAA inspectors. They all have told me that they would have to study some before they go to a DZ to look at an operation... Oh BTW I am on an AOD audit team with FedEx, and I deal with the FAA almost EVERYDAY."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #64 August 2, 2003 >I remember the inspector at our dz not too long ago. And you could trot out your 'chief AFF instructor' who has 13 jumps and jumps a Para-Commander with a chest-mount reserve and the FAA inspector would just say "yeah, fine, now can I see the engine logs?" The FAA simply does not regulate skydiving instruction; they don't even have any FAR's that say what a skydiving instructional rating _is_. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #65 August 3, 2003 The key point here is that only current skydivers should be regulating skydiving. The only FAA employees I would give the time of day to are Designated Parachute Rigger Examiners. Most DPREs own lofts or parachute factories and are in tune with the sport. Asking a non-jumping bureaucrat to regulate skydiving is worse than a waste of time. For starters, they will discuss a new regulation for so many years, that it will be obsolete before it is published. As long as we keep the fatality rate low, the FAA does not want to be bothered with regulating skydivers. In comparison, Transport Canada inspects our facilities every year to ensure conformance with our operating manual. Since we run a tight ship, but TC inspectors are required to find some flaw every year, their recommendations come down to silly things like amending our operations manual to read "Cessna 210-5" instead of "Cessna 205" or deleting an obscure reference to night flying - which we only do while ferrying jump planes, to labelling door handles - when only our pilots are allowed to touch door handles. The bottom line is that non-jumping bureaucrats are terrible at regulating skydiving and they do not want to be bothered. USPA, CSPA, BPA, etc. may not be perfect, but they are the lesser of two evils. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #66 August 4, 2003 Quote>I remember the inspector at our dz not too long ago. And you could trot out your 'chief AFF instructor' who has 13 jumps and jumps a Para-Commander with a chest-mount reserve and the FAA inspector would just say "yeah, fine, now can I see the engine logs?" The FAA simply does not regulate skydiving instruction; they don't even have any FAR's that say what a skydiving instructional rating _is_. Sure, I should have stuck to the original topic. I was merely pointing out that the "inspectors" make dz visits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apoil 0 #67 August 4, 2003 QuoteUnder the new coach program coaches are able to fill in for some of the duties of AFF JM's in certian skill evaluations. Cat G and H parts to be exact. Cat G and H do not comprise AFF. "AFF" as it is commonly taught maps onto Cat A through E. AFF dropzones (the good ones at least) still teach something akin to Cat F, G, and H but they call it something else. All the requirements on the A license proficiency card are still covered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apoil 0 #68 August 5, 2003 QuoteTheres another one out that way that a friend of mine visited and they had to pull for her on AFF I...They passed her. That's not crazy at all. There are plenty of circumstances where a no pull on level 1 may still result in advancement to level 2. In fact that ISP allows for it, because CAT A (Level I) only has a requirement (TLO) of "assisted pull" - this allows it to be mapped with the first few static line or IAD jumps where you don't pull for yourself or even tandem progression where the TM might initiate the pull sequence. Since Level II is not significantly more taxing than level I sometimes it actually hinders student learning to FAIL them on their first jump, when they might progress better if they are advanced. Now that said, any one I pass on level I is fully informed that they are being given a nod and that pulling on level II is absolutely essential. They are also watched extra closely on II during the practice pulls, for overall altitude awareness and at the moment of truth. No one gets released ever ever ever without having done a solo pull. So it's not crazy.. experienced instructors do it all the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #69 August 5, 2003 I don't automatically fail an AFF L1 for not pulling. they are tasked with the pull at 5500ft. My hard deck is 4000 to ensure the pull. A bunch of stuff can happen between those 2 points to compromise someone on their 1st ever dive. Sure - I'd make more money by failing them... tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
