S&TA Reports

[sducoach 0]

FISDO's were locked down after 9/11. Without an appointment you will have to wait for an inspector to "get off the phone". I work closely with the fed's and they do have the time, just not the interest.

One person plus one person plus one person plus one person....................
It it's a DZ with safety concerns experienced skydivers will not stay. If it's one persons "opinion" and not fact, business goes on. That is your deference.

One DZ was inspected, why only one? Ask the DZO's why they did not support the program and you'll hear, "I don't want to be regulated or inspected". It is not the USPA who failed with the program.

Looks like your PM is in. I will respond. Thanks.

Blues,
J.E.

James 4:8

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

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.

Well, NTSB can enforce its rules 'cos it is a government agency. It's reports are privileged and may not be used in court - period. The situation with USPA is different - it can only prevent use of its documents by sanitizing them to the point of being useless to a plaintiff's attorney, it can't prevent them from being subpoenaed. Thus if the sanitization is not properly done, we get situations like the deSantis incident.

This would appear to be a downside of being self-regulating.

In the NPRM for the recent FAR Part 105 revisions, incident reporting was going to be required. There was so much negative comment from the skydiving community that this proposal never made it to the final version.

...

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

[rigging65 0]

Quote

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

Who/How would make it mandatory?? Remember, we're trying not to get the government involved here. The problem, as has been noted in this thread, it that USPA really has no teeth. They can't do anything but pull your membership and maybe tattle on you to the Feds.

This is where the rubber meets the road, guys: If you want some sort of real regulation, a regulatory body with a hammer needs to be involved. That means the Feds.

"...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]

Quote

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 - Thanks for the link. Interesting reading, hadn’t been over there in a long time. I’ll try to visit more often.

[kwarthen 0]

Quote

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

Can't get rid of me that easy. I didn’t exactly volunteer. Was just trying to throw out some ideas and questions for further discussion. Meanwhile, having read a lot of your posts, I’ll take it as a compliment, but if it wasn’t, I’ll just let it blow right over my head. I simply would like to see more depth to incident reporting and have been curious as to whether others feel the same.

[kwarthen 0]

Seems the thread wandered a little from the original question and got focused on the question of whether USPA should be more of a regulatory organization than it is.

If I were a DZO I’d say no. Why would I want interference in an operation I’ve poured my heart and soul into? If I saw it purely as a money maker or as a realization of my passion, I don’t think it would make a difference. On the other hand, if I thought there were other operations out there doing a poor job, I might welcome it. If I were particularily greedy I might want to manipulate it to narrow the competitive field.

If I were considering or brand new to skydiving I'd say why not? Guarantee the safety of skydiving. If a DZO is ligitimate (s)he has nothing to worry about and would benefit from the recognition of legitimacy. It would make me feel more secure to know there is structure to the system and someone independent of the business operator is insuring safe operations.

As a relatively recent current jumper I’d say I’m not sure. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. From a pragmatic standpoint I don’t feel like there are major problems. If I did, I wouldn’t jump at the places where I do. USPA keeps the government out of my face and I like that. If I had concerns about my home DZ I’d want more USPA involvement. If I were the outlaw mentality I’d want USPA to keep the government, DZO and S&TA off my back. I’m responsible for myself and that damned DZO can kiss my ass. I’m paying for the ride damnit. Make me a tree hugging liberal democrat and I’d probably want some authority to protect us from the rogue operators and make sure the others remain in line too.

As a longer term involved skydiver I’m sure I’d have a wide variety of experienced and knowledge based opinions. That’s what I’m looking for here.

Blah, blah,.....I’ll try to be forever done with the useless hypothetical impersonations and get on to my questions -

It’s been mentioned here that the S&TA incident reporting system is broken. Is it broken or did it ever function the way is should? Has the release of information to an attorney been the sole problem? Any opinions on how that can be corrected at this point? Is there specifically anything else USPA can do to strengthen the reporting process?

It seems that some BSR’s and possibly some FAR’s may occassionally be violated. Some jumpers simply don’t see it as a problem and would like the rules changed anyway. What, if anything, should USPA (or some other entity) do about these situations. Enforcement / ignore / change regs?

If USPA should be more of an enforcer, how could / should that be structured?

Ken


Industrial haze ?............. excuse me, while I kiss the sky.....................