S&TA Reports

[skyboyblue 0]

with all the activity in the incidents, both non-fatal and fatal, are all the S&TA's out there doing their part and filing the paperwork for the accidents? just wondering...

[AggieDave 6]

I think the reporting of incidents is getting better, but there are problem quite a few that aren't getting reported.

Generally speaking, I'd like to see reports filed for any accident that requires an immediate trip to the hospital. i.e. broken bone, etc.

Then again, I'm just a jumper, not a S&TA.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

with all the activity in the incidents, both non-fatal and fatal, are all the S&TA's out there doing their part and filing the paperwork for the accidents? just wondering...

From what I have seen, the USPA injury report system is broken. There are fears of confindentiality, other DZ's using reports against them in marketing, etc. USPA is trying to fix the system, but it also take a willingness on the part of S & TA's to fill them out. Seems there isn't any motivation among a lot of S & TA's to fill them out. How often have you read of a 'reportable' incident here, but didn't see it appear in parachutist?

Hook

[skyboyblue 0]

Quote

From what I have seen, the USPA injury report system is broken.

Quote

There are fears of confindentiality...

well that blows. where did I read recently that reports are recorded and then names and/or locations were deleted and paperwork filed away? S&TA newsletter stuff or parachutist, can't remember.

[PhreeZone 20]

Thats the way its designed to work... but recently some paperwork was turned over to a lawyer for use in a civil trial that was filed under the assumption that reporting can't hurt the people filing it.

If I was an STA I'd be leary of doing anything that could get my name involved in a lawsuit in the future. I've assisted on paperwork after a fatality... it sucks. Then bring in the whole politics of becoming an STA, you can't make the BOD mad or they can pull your rating...

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[sarge 0]

Quote

How often have you read of a 'reportable' incident here, but didn't see it appear in parachutist?

What I have found startling is how many incidents have been found here [and there] by the USPA that they never would have otherwise known about....

.

--
I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

[rigging65 0]

The intent of the USPA system is great, and I don't think many people would refute that, but in practice it's been marred and failing. Currently, our (USPA) DZ does not actively send in reports, although we always have in the past. This is specifically because of the incident already mentioned with lawyers and the such. If we do send it a report, it has been so thoroughly sanitized that it really isn't worth reading anyway.

IMO, it's up to USPA to either step up and mend the broken fence (including heavy sanctions against anyone breaching the trust) or totally change their reporting system to control for this sort of problem. I don't think you can set up a system that is anonymous and expect to get accurate data, so I guess that means UPSA needs to drop the hammer, publicly, if they hope to get a reporting system back in place...something I think this sport desperately needs.

"...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..."

[skymedic 0]

Quote

From what I have seen, the USPA injury report system is broken. There are fears of confindentiality, other DZ's using reports against them in marketing, etc. USPA is trying to fix the system, but it also take a willingness on the part of S & TA's to fill them out. Seems there isn't any motivation among a lot of S & TA's to fill them out. How often have you read of a 'reportable' incident here, but didn't see it appear in parachutist?

Often...I was one of them, on my second AFF jump I had a rather hard landing that I ended up going to the ER for...nothing in the incidents at all.

one other problem I see is that S&TA's tend to be employee's of the DZ. hence I think there is some sort of a conflict of interest when it comes to saftey in some regards.

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[skycat 0]

Quote

one other problem I see is that S&TA's tend to be employee's of the DZ.

Several S&TAs are also the DZO...talk about conflict of intrest.

Fly it like you stole it!

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Several S&TAs are also the DZO...talk about conflict of intrest.

I have seen people who are DZOs and S&TAs do it correctly though. But then again, the person I'm thinking of has a great deal of integrety.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[rigging65 0]

Quote

Several S&TAs are also the DZO...talk about conflict of intrest.

Maybe yes, and maybe no. If the protocals are actually followed at USPA and the reports are sanitized, it shouldn't matter if a DZO is sending in a report about their own DZ. The reports are supposed to be used to find trends in the sport and educate the masses.

A quality DZO would want to send in reports, as the information can be used to make their DZ (and all DZs) a better, safer place to be. I know this is a bit touchy-feely, but most DZOs (at least the ones I know) want their jumpers to see the quarterly reports. It reminds them that they're not bullet-proof.

"...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..."

[kwarthen 0]

Please excuse this long post. I don't recall seeing it discussed in depth before.

As I see it, in summary:
-S&TA's are not filing reports for all incidents, fatal or non-fatal.
-USPA does not use the information effectively.
-USPA has failed to uphold its stated standard of confidentiality.
-DZO's may feel threatened by potential negative advertising and/or lawsuits as a result of filing reports.
-S&TA's may feel threatened by lawsuits if their name is attached to a report.
-A conflict of interest may arise when an S&TA is a DZ employee or DZO.
-An anonymous reporting system may not provide accurate data.

Some added personal observations:
-To my knowledge USPA has shown no method (maybe even effort?) to guarantee confidentiality in the future. Is this correct?
-The USPA annual analysis as published in Parachutist is a failure. As my knowledge grows, the annual summary increasingly seems poorly researched, analyzed and written. As has already been mentioned in this thread, the reports are so sanitized they are not really worth reading. I have never seen a quarterly report at a dropzone so I can't comment any further on that.
-Analyzing fatalities separately from non-fatal incidents needs further evaluation. At times the difference may be simply dependent on medical care availability rather than a function of the accident. Perhaps more useful would be a categoric breakdown such as fatality, survivor but fatal without medical intervention (very serious injuries), survivor requiring medical intervention (uncomplicated sprains, fractures, head injuries, etc. that wouldn't result in death without further complication). No medical intervention required (minor first aide included here) could be an aside if pursued that far.
-I wonder if the low number of incidents compared to the total number of skydives annually is possibly statistically insignificant. Including all but minor incidents may make this a more viable report. I'm not a statistician but would like to see this evaluated. My guess is there are comparatively many more injuries requiring medical intervention that are unreported.
-Is there a danger, for instance increased insurance problems for commercial operations or jumpers if more detailed information is available? Maybe we don't really want it.
-Can USPA develop the resolve and absorb the cost of reliable information gathering and analysis?
-Well hell, maybe we should just forget this and just go out and jump.

Ken

[Hooknswoop 19]

http://www.apf.asn.au/apf_services/publications.asp

Check out the APF's newsletters, they report EVERYTHING over there. Maybe we can learn from how they handle accident/incident reports? I think we can learn from them in other ways too.

Hook

[riggerrob 643]

kwarthen,
Thank you for volunteering to write USPA's 2003 fatality report.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

with all the activity in the incidents, both non-fatal and fatal, are all the S&TA's out there doing their part and filing the paperwork for the accidents? just wondering...

What is needed is a system like the NTSB uses for aviation accidents: all reports to the NTSB and by the NTSB are privileged and may not be used in civil lawsuits. This was instituted because it was felt that the public interest was better served by getting accurate information to improve aviation safety in the future. OF course, only the government can enable such a system.

...

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

[rigging65 0]

Quote

What is needed is a system like the NTSB uses for aviation accidents: all reports to the NTSB and by the NTSB are privileged and may not be used in civil lawsuits. This was instituted because it was felt that the public interest was better served by getting accurate information to improve aviation safety in the future. OF course, only the government can enable such a system.

This is how the USPA reporting system was supposed to be set up...and for years it functioned that way...but when someone violated the rules on using the information, very little was done to the individual who did it. As a result, many DZOs and S&TAs won't write reports now for fear of getting caught in a lawsuit using what was supposed to be "anonymous" information.

If you have rules in place, you must enforce them with penalties, or they're useless. When you don't, stuff like this happens...you loose a vital, voluntary resource because you're too chickenshit to take someone to the mat when they violate the rules.

"...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..."

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

This is how the USPA reporting system was supposed to be set up...and for years it functioned that way...but when someone violated the rules on using the information, very little was done to the individual who did it. As a result, many DZOs and S&TAs won't write reports now for fear of getting caught in a lawsuit using what was supposed to be "anonymous" information.

In Skydiving magazine, there is an article about the incident. It says "John is covered by USPA's directors-in-office liability insurance". So no only did USPA not do anything, they are defending him.

Quote

If you have rules in place, you must enforce them with penalties, or they're useless. When you don't, stuff like this happens...you loose a vital, voluntary resource because you're too chickenshit to take someone to the mat when they violate the rules.

I have seen it over and over. USPA does not enforce the rules. I once showed a RD video of illegal AFF. Their response was "what do you want me to do? Take away a rating he doesn't have?". Nothing was done.

Who is going to enforce the BSR's? The S & TA? All the DZO has to do is ban the S & TA from the DZ. Each DZ is a mini-kingdom, and the DZO is the king. If they don't follow the BSR's, no one can or does stop them. I am not saying all DZO's violate the BSR's. There are some very conscientious DZO's out there. But the system is broken.

I was told by a former RD that skydiving was almost stopped in the U.S a while back, and USPA saved the day by presenting the SIM's and GM program to the FAA and telling them we would be 'self-regulating'. Then, later in the discussion, he said we aren't self-regulating. That when he went to DZ's he didn't 'play policeman'.

DZO's are bound by a 'pledge' to observe and follow the BSR's. Hmmm, so when the pledge gets in the way of profit, which one wins? What happens to GM DZ's that don't follow the BSR's?

Who enforces the BSR's? Are the BSR's being enforced?

Hook

[rigging65 0]

All good points. The problem here, as I see it, is that we're dealing with the less of two evils. Certainly no one wants the FAA to get involved. They're not familiar with the sport, and they don't want to be. USPA is supposed to be a nice buffer between the FAA and chaos. I certainly think there are issues that USPA has fallen down on, but they're still a better alternative than the FAA.

What kills me are non-USPA drop zones. They operate with very few restrictions at all. As long as they aren't befouling FAA rules (which aren't all that extensive) they're in the clear because they don't have to answer to USPA.

It's places like these that teeter on the edge of giving skydiving a bad name. If they want to be a good DZ they can, but they can also do pretty much whatever "bandito" stuff they want and get away with it because the FAA is looking at USPA and USPA is looking the other way because the DZ hasn't paid them any dues.

It's a frustrating situation, especially when you're a good, USPA DZ that's business is suffering because a non-USPA DZ can cut corners on cost and get away with it. The moral high ground...it's not a very profitable place to be.

"...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..."

[Hooknswoop 19]

I don't think a DZ being a GM makes a difference in the safety of it's operation.

There are very safe non-USPA GM DZ's out there (safer than some USPA GM DZ's) and some not-so safe USPA GM DZ's. It seems to me that the DZO determines the level of safety at a DZ, not if it is a USPA GM or not.

A GM DZ will use non-GM status of a competitor DZ against it. To a whuffo that doesn't know any better, "There are not a GM of USPA and therefore don't have to follow all the safety requirements that we do" sounds very convincing. I think this is the biggest reason that DZ's are members. Otherwise they could follow the BSR's and save the due's money.

Even a GM DZ can do whatever "bandito" stuff they want, who's gonna call them on it? The line "USPA GM DZ's are safer that non-GM DZ's" simply isn't true. It depends on the DZ and how it is run.

So skydiving operates under the illusion that USPA keeps the FAA off our backs by regulating skydiving. Skydivers and the FAA subscribe to this illusion.

I don't think it would be a good thing for the FAA to step in and regulate everything. I do think it would be a good thing for the USPA to actually regulate skydiving. Unfortunately it will never happen. Follow the money. DZ's require USPA membership from it's jumpers and pay a yearly fee for Group Membership. If the USPA steps in and begins to enforce the BSR's and steps on the DZO's profit. The DZO's will no longer require individual membership and will drop their Group Membership. There goes the funds that pays for USPA. USPA won't step in and enforce the BSR's because it won't bite the hand that feeds it. Hence, skydiving in the U.S is not self-regulated by the USPA.

Hook

[rigging65 0]

I'd agree with most of that. there are certainly GM DZs that don't follow all the rules, but at least there is the "idea" that they're supposed to follow the rules.

I can think of a few non-USPA DZs that follow the rules they want to follow, but not one (in our area) GM DZ that routinely plays outside the rules.

Of course there are always exception, but I agree with you, it'd be great if USPA actually had a hammer to drop...but it'll never happen.

The long and the short of it is, IMO, GM DZs tend to have a reason to stay in line where non-USPA DZs simply don't...and they prove that as they see fit. To that end, I think more GM DZs play by the rules...

"...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..."

[gale 0]

May I just ask:

Why isn't membership in the USPA mandatory for drop zones?

The answer to this might be obvious, I don't know. If membership was mandatory then the USPA would have power over the drop zones and it would still prevent the FAA from regulating.

Just a thought. (Don't know much about the system thought...)

Gale

I'm drowning...so come inside
Welcome to my...dirty mind

[sducoach 0]

So skydiving operates under the illusion that USPA keeps the FAA off our backs by regulating skydiving. Skydivers and the FAA subscribe to this illusion.
__________________________________________________
As an Airline Transport Pilot, CFIMEI, and CGI for over 30 years I can tell you this. If it were not for the USPA the FAA would be regulating skydiving operations. Don't fool yourself. The USPA is a voluntary organization that the FAA recognizes as the "governing authority". Change that and get in line for real regulations with real teeth. Even the USPA recognizes that some DZ's choose not to be a member, some only during "on years" for competition, and some just when they need it for marketing. However any licensed skydiver or instructor per the USPA SIM will comply with BSR's at any DZ or chance the suspension or revocation of their membership and/or ratings.
Who determines the "safety" of a DZ? First the skydivers who jump there, then the DZO. GM does provide a level of implied safety and protection for the DZO.

"Educate or Regulate".
Blues,
J.E.

James 4:8

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If it were not for the USPA the FAA would be regulating skydiving operations. Don't fool yourself. The USPA is a voluntary organization that the FAA recognizes as the "governing authority".

The FAA is content to leave skydiving alone, again under the illusion that USPA is taking care of it. The fAA has it's hands full, even before 9/11. as long as we aren't causing a big enough problem for the FAA, they have bigger fish to fry.

Quote

Change that and get in line for real regulations with real teeth.

I agree that it would be bad for skydiving if the FAA was forced to step in. 2 things will prevent that from happening, 1. Nothing happens that the FAA feels compelled to step in, or 2. The USPA steps up and actually enforces the BSR's.

Quote

However any licensed skydiver or instructor per the USPA SIM will comply with BSR's at any DZ or chance the suspension or revocation of their membership and/or ratings.

They 'chance' the revocation of the membership and/or ratings. A very small chance. Again, I can show you video of illegal AFF, and the RD didn't care. Compare the level of USPA's BSR enforcement to the APF's level of enforcement. No comparison.

Quote

Who determines the "safety" of a DZ? First the skydivers who jump there, then the DZO. GM does provide a level of implied safety and protection for the DZO.

I disagree, the DZO makes and enforces the rules for their DZ. Some follow the BSR's some don't, most are a middle ground of mostly following the BSR's, most of the time.

Quote

GM does provide a level of implied safety and protection for the DZO.

Right, implied safety. Any DZ can be a group member, sign the pledge and the check, and bing your a USPA GM DZ.

For the GM program to mean anything, USPA would have to actually inspect DZ's at least annually to determine if they are following the BSR's and will be allowed to maintain their GM status. RD's are supposed to do this, but don't. Why? Simple, they can be banned from a DZ and don't want to be the bad guys. In my experience (and this has been only a small part of the country) RD's don't make sure all the DZ's in their region are following the BSR's and S & TA's go along with the DZO. At the DZ I learned at the RD never showed up once, in the 4 years I jumped out there.

The system is broken.

Hook

[sducoach 0]

The real illusion is that the FAA has it's hands full. Go by your local FISDO (you need an appointment now) and visit with the local feds.
You cannot enforce BSR's if you do not have the teeth to do so. Give USPA authority to fine DZ's and see what happens.
I'd love to see the video of the illegal AFF jump and, who is the RD that knows but does not care. What is the name?
As far as safety is concerned and who controls it. You, the skydiver have control. Unsafe, go some where else and see how long the DZ lasts.
The USPA started a DZ Inspection Program "VCIP" in 2001/2002 that has died on the vine. Why? The DZO's did not support it.

James 4:8

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The real illusion is that the FAA has it's hands full. Go by your local FISDO (you need an appointment now) and visit with the local feds.

Exactly, they don't have time to mess w/ skydiving. Last two times I went to the local FSDO I didn't need an appointment, but I did have to wait.

Quote

You cannot enforce BSR's if you do not have the teeth to do so. Give USPA authority to fine DZ's and see what happens.

DZ's will drop their GM and not erequire individual membership, and not allow any USPA rep's that can fine them on their DZ. USPA would go broke.

Quote

I'd love to see the video of the illegal AFF jump

I would show it to you.

Quote

who is the RD that knows but does not care. What is the name?

PM'd

Quote

As far as safety is concerned and who controls it. You, the skydiver have control. Unsafe, go some where else and see how long the DZ lasts.

A long time. One person doesn't make a difference.

Quote

The USPA started a DZ Inspection Program "VCIP" in 2001/2002 that has died on the vine. Why? The DZO's did not support it.

Exactly my point. You are a DZ inspector, right. How many DZ's have you inspected?

Why would a DZO want their DZ inspected? They KNOW what is happening at their DZ and they sure aren't going to pay for a USPA rep to come in and tell them how to run their business. Of course it died. DZO's do not want to be regulated, and they aren't.

Hook