Do we really need a manufacturer's rating?

[steveorino 7]

Now that every Tandem Master must be a USPA TI, what purpose does the manufacturer's rating hold? I realize there are some subtle differences between the rigs, but really, is it that necessary? We don't have to have a manufacturer's rating to jump their sport rigs as an AFFI or IADI. It appears to be a way for the manufacturer's to make a few bucks more ...or is all about legal liability?

Your "opinion" will be appreciated

steveOrino

[indyz 1]

I'm ok with manufacturer's ratings for tandems. Tandem rigs are much more complicated than sport gear, and I don't believe that the difference between rigs is "subtle". I think it's fair to require specific training and demonstrated proficiency on the equipment being used, i.e., a manufacturer's rating.

[diablopilot 2]

I'd say it depends on the manufacturer. Now I speak only my opinion here, you'd have to go to the manufacturers and the USPA for their actual views, but:

RWS/UPT would love to be completely out of the rating business. It's a point of liability they just don't want.

USPA doesn't want to go it alone on the rating, taking on the manufacturer aspect of the liability.

Strong seems to still want control of who gets rated to use their products.

I seriously doubt any manufacturer is making a serious profit on the rating portion of things.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[D_22359 0]

Personaly I'd rather give my money to Booth than the USPA. Every gear manufacturer is different. The EP's are not exactly the same unlike sport gear. I'm Vector rated that dosnt make it safe for me to go jump a Strong rig or vice versa. So a manufacturer's rating is needed.

Just my take on it.

Bill

[jurgencamps 0]

Quote

Personaly I'd rather give my money to Booth than the USPA. Every gear manufacturer is different. The EP's are not exactly the same unlike sport gear. I'm Vector rated that dosnt make it safe for me to go jump a Strong rig or vice versa. So a manufacturer's rating is needed.

Just my take on it.

Bill

For ex when you have to exit the plane above 2000 ft but below 4000 ft.
With a vector 2 tandem, if you release the drogue before you toss it, you will get a very slow opening the moment you toss the drogue. So it's better to toss it and then release it.
I was told (not experience with strong) that with a strong system, you can release the drogue, exit, toss the drogue and have a normal opening.

[cpoxon 0]

Quote

I'm Vector rated that dosnt make it safe for me to go jump a Strong rig or vice versa. So a manufacturer's rating is needed.

No, what's need is a type rating. Don't necessarily need a manufacturer to issue that.

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[slotperfect 7]

Quote

I'd say it depends on the manufacturer. Now I speak only my opinion here, you'd have to go to the manufacturers and the USPA for their actual views, but:

RWS/UPT would love to be completely out of the rating business. It's a point of liability they just don't want.

USPA doesn't want to go it alone on the rating, taking on the manufacturer aspect of the liability.

Strong seems to still want control of who gets rated to use their products.

I seriously doubt any manufacturer is making a serious profit on the rating portion of things.

***Having had related discussions with both UPT and Strong I would say those statements are exactly accurate.

Arrive Safely

John

[NSEMN8R 0]

I think Manufacturer ratings are important. They designed and built the gear so I think it's important we understand how they intended it to be operated. There are some major differences between the different rigs. The bullshit rating is USPA and if anyone is in it to "make a few bucks more" it's those fuckers.

[davepend 0]

Quote

It appears to be a way for the manufacturer's to make a few bucks more...

I agree with nsemn8r's post above.
The manufacturer's rating was first and is still necessary to help ensure safety with DZ's tandem jump programs.
The USPA rating is the add-on intended (in my opinion) just to generate revenue for USPA.

(I wish I could arbitrarily require some group of people to pay
me $40 to continue doing something they were already doing for years.)

***Disclaimer***
I am not a tandem instructor, just someone who's tired of USPA "fixing" things that aren't broken.
As a camera flyer, I work regularly with the tandem instructors and their students.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I think Manufacturer ratings are important. They designed and built the gear so I think it's important we understand how they intended it to be operated. There are some major differences between the different rigs. The bullshit rating is USPA and if anyone is in it to "make a few bucks more" it's those fuckers.

+1


But then OTOH, we may need USPA involvement to do what little they can to help promote and/or ensure safety.

Just because Manufacturer A endorses my use of their equipment doesn't have anything to do with HOW I'm going to use it. I like the idea of both requirements,I guess.

What I really have a problem with is making a TI, or any rating-holder, pay every year for a rubber stamp.
Kinda like renewing your driver's license....yeah you get a new license but that has nothing to do with you being able to drive and drive safely.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[riggerrob 643]

If USPA took instructor ratings seriously, they would require refresher training - every year - before re-newing ratings.

[diablopilot 2]

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[feuergnom 28]

+1 !

as every system has differences manufacturer ratings make very much sense

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

I think Manufacturer ratings are important. They designed and built the gear so I think it's important we understand how they intended it to be operated. There are some major differences between the different rigs. The bullshit rating is USPA and if anyone is in it to "make a few bucks more" it's those fuckers.

As I remember the manufacturers wanted USPA to issue a TI rating. I could be wrong, but I do know that here was a lot of discussion between USPA and the manufacturers.

For me, the USPA "makes" no money by the TI requirement, I also hold SL and IAD Instructional ratings, it's one $40 regardless of the number of ratings.

I went exclusively to a USPA Tandem I rating about the time USPA started issuing the TI rating. I own Eclipse gear, and the timing of Eclipse folding up their tend, and USPAs TI rating were at about the same point in time. I sent my money to Jes Rodregize (sp?), didn't receive any paper back, and have been jumping with no manufacturer rating since.

I know, I know, there's now some guy (Terry Goode) in Texas or Oklahoma collecting money, and keeping a spreadsheet on Eclipse TIs. I for one don't see a need to send him $40 to put my name on his list.

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ