USPA Update 4-16-2015

[3331 137]

Two New Basic Safety Requirements Involve Tandem Skydiving
At the recent USPA Board meeting March 27-29 in Daytona Beach, Florida, the Safety and Training Committee discussed several issues related to tandem skydiving safety and brought two motions to the full board for a vote. Both motions passed, creating two new Basic Safety Requirements, which are effective immediately:
• Any person making a tandem jump acting as pilot in command is required to conduct system handles checks immediately after deployment of the drogue.
• Any person making a tandem jump is not permitted to make turns greater than 90 degrees below 500 feet above the ground.
The handle check applies to all of the operation handles of any tandem system, including the reserve ripcord handle, regardless of whether or not the instructor is wearing a handcam.

Another tandem-related change from the board meeting involves the Tandem Instructor Rating Course. The Category D solo evaluation jump will be eliminated from the course. This change takes effect with the next revision of the Instructional Rating Manual, due for release in the fall.

A full report on the board meeting will be included in the June issue of Parachutist.

'edited and posted without permission'

I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving.

[stayhigh 2]

So the dz is non USPA, and there is no video of tandem landing, continue business as usual?

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[ufk22 33]

stayhigh

So the dz is non USPA, and there is no video of tandem landing, continue business as usual?

nope, six board members camo their faces, put on black clothes and under cover of darkness take em out!

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[fcajump 164]

stayhigh

So the dz is non USPA, and there is no video of tandem landing, continue business as usual?

First, in this day and age, one simply can not assume that there will be 'no video' of ANY (every?) jump/landing.

Second, the BSRs also apply to USPA members & instructors when jumping at ANY dropzone, whether that DZ is USPA affiliated or not.

Finally, as you (currently) must also be signed off by the manufacturer, if USPA doesn't get you for such infraction, the manufacturer can.

Or am I missing something (always a possibility).
JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[normiss 843]

Something wrong with the thread already going about the new BSR's?

[achikin 0]

Quote

Second, the BSRs also apply to USPA members & instructors when jumping at ANY dropzone, whether that DZ is USPA affiliated or not.

Obviously this is not true. Local rules will have priority on non-USPA dropzone regardless to your membership.

[fcajump 164]

achikin

Quote

Second, the BSRs also apply to USPA members & instructors when jumping at ANY dropzone, whether that DZ is USPA affiliated or not.

Obviously this is not true. Local rules will have priority on non-USPA dropzone regardless to your membership.

USPA thinks it is true for its membership.

Obviously local (more restrictive) rules would take precedence.

But if local rules allowed students to jump in 25mph winds with round mains and unsteerable reserves, a USPA instructor teaching there could loose his USPA-I and/or membership if he follows that local guidance.

JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[psf 1]

Common sense idea's that should be done as far as handles, but I reaLly find these rules ridiculous. Even with video it would be hard to prove that a TI didn't check handles- so why pass BSR's that can't be enforced? And if I need to turn more the. 90degrees for some reason under 500' I think I will take safety over listening to the politically correct USPA.

ignorance is not bliss

[fcajump 164]

psf

Common sense idea's that should be done as far as handles, but I reaLly find these rules ridiculous. Even with video it would be hard to prove that a TI didn't check handles- so why pass BSR's that can't be enforced? And if I need to turn more the. 90degrees for some reason under 500' I think I will take safety over listening to the politically correct USPA.

I would _think_ that this policy (and enforcement thereof) would be directed at those who are turning for the performance landing rather than object avoidance. In years past I've seen TI's that routinely perform 180-270's to final. While I would hesitate to estimate their initial altitude, they certainly were turning much greater than 90 in the final 500' of altitude.

Need a flat 120 because you had to extend for traffic and then avoid an obstacle... I'm guessing if you don't dive it and use your student for an airbag, that's not going to get you talked to.

Just my $.02

JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[riggerrob 643]

Mr. psf,

I disagree.
A decade ago, Perris Valley told all their TIs, "you have two options: you can show your handles check to the outside videographer, or you can look for a new job."
So TIs either waited until they faced the videographer -to demonstrate they handles check - or they patted all their handles a second time facing the videographer.
With hand-cam, it is even easier to confirm that they patted all their handles.

[TomNoonan 1]

I'm going to lock this thread and leave it up as we have a couple of informative posts in here, but lets keep the discussion going in the original thread posted about the new BSRs.

Tom

Namaste,
Tom Noonan

www.everest-skydive.com