topdocker

Don't most of the "sick kid" waivers get approved by some subset of the BOD and then get "approved" by the full BOD retroactively? Somehow I suspect the other "under 18" waivers won't be able to slide through that easily. Yes, the Executive Committee makes a decision on the waiver and then lets the Full Board know about it at the next meeting. Then it is voted on by the Full Board. Not sure what would happen if it was voted down? Maybe the tandem instructor would lose his/her rating! But I seriously doubt the Executive Committee is going to let some random 16-year old make a jump after the bitch fit the manufacturers have been pitching for years. The manufacturers would probably sue! top Jump more, post less!

Actually if you have been a member for twenty-five years, you get it at half price.... unless they changed that too. top Jump more, post less!

If that is all you have, you use it.... top Jump more, post less!

I wonder how the PIA feels about this! top Jump more, post less!

"Hey, Mr. DZO, my boy, PackerBob, wants to make a jump Saturday for his 16th birthday!" "That's great! Write USPA, request they hear his case, find out when the next BOD meeting is, take a couple days off work, fly both of you to some overpriced hotel, get five minutes with the Board to plea your case, listen to the PIA attorney wail about his tales of woe and how every gear manufacturer is going to go out of business at any second because of PackerBob, then hope that some of the BOD members have some spine left to stand up to the PIA. Let me know how it works for you." "Eff that, we will go to Mexico instead." Great plan. top Jump more, post less!

As one board member is now calling it, it's the USPIA. The other part of this is that Group Member DZ's must now include gear manufacturers in their waiver, and incur the cost of changing that waiver. Unheard of any other industry.... So DZo's, call your attorneys and get out your checkbooks. And for the average Joe Jumper.... we know where that cost will eventually end up. top Jump more, post less!

My understanding was this amendment came the day after the vote was done. So the BOD says its a well thought-out and easy to implement plan, but they have already had to change it! Also, USPA did not consult their attorney, just the PIA attorney. Yay, listening to other people's attorneys! While this will not effect most members, it shows how far down the "we will do anything to keep the gear manufacturers happy" trail the BOD has gone. It's been a slow march to this point, but they finally got a Board that will cave! And many of these people would be considered "leaders!" top Jump more, post less!

No, the truly sad part was skydiving for years insulated itself from that BS, but the gear manufacturers (through PIA) have brought it to us. The reality is that USPA has given the US manufacturers the ability to keep foreign gear from infiltrating the market. If a company in say South America started making tandem rigs with no age restriction on them, the US makers would be at a huge disadvantage. DZ's would look to buy gear with less restrictions on it, less hassle and the potential for more profit. But the USPA BOD has ensured that can't happen by making a SAFETY rule! OMG! It's about SAFETY, not liability! Not about protecting the market There is nothing in the USPA constitution about protecting the interests or assets of anybody involved in this sport. Education, promotion, competition, but nothing about asset protection. The BOD can say all they want that this is the right move to protect skydiving, but the reality is that it is merely a demonstration of the effects of influence and power by the manufacturers. Wonder what the manufacturers will bring us next? top Jump more, post less!

To make a BSR (S meaning Safety!) which has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with litigation is just ridiculous! The BOD is just showing how much they are willing to give into the manufacturers. Every time they have asked the BOD to do something, the BOD has eventually caved and its total BS. The BOD passed this once before and it was repealed because many BOD members became uncomfortable with the ramifications after the vote. What has changed? USPA is no more responsible for keeping manufacturers or DZ's from getting sued than they are preventing heart attacks at soccer games. Members should start emailing their Regional Directors that this vote is totally screwed, too many of the BOD members have direct links to the requesting manufacturers for there to not be a conflict of interest. Since electronic voting is working so well for USPA, maybe we should just put in a rule that all BSR's must be approved by a quorum of members. This will let the BOD go back to the business of running operations and allow the membership to dictate safety, not the manufacturers. top Jump more, post less!

Really? I have four National ratings, and next year will pursue FAI. My profile info is all correct. I was also a very experienced DZSO before I even had my A license (I bring that up because someone made a comment about it once). Might be surprised who's judging competitions, certifying records, or "pulling dirt!" And this explains a lot about some of the judging I have seen at some of the competitions over the years.... lots of credentials, but not much experience. top Jump more, post less!

All the above do require use permits. The also require changes to the land itself. A landing area does not if it is already an open field. Cattle and crops can continue to be raised there. Once a skydiver is on the ground, he/she is a pedestrian. Are you saying the county can limit the pedestrian use of your land? Especially when we are talking small group numbers here, not concert numbers. And the county has created this mess by denying the DZ use of land on the airport. It's gonna look bad for them when the part 16 comes in with, " We tried to accommodate the county request that we not use the airport property, but then they wouldn't let us use private property either!" top Jump more, post less!

I have received a few emails and calls from BOD members saying a couple of things. First, they are aware of the situation and have been taking action on it. Second, there is more to this situation than is present on this thread. Understandably, they cannot share details with me due to confidentiality. I was told this is on the agenda for the upcoming BOD meeting in Vegas in a couple of committees. Hopefully, we can see some more action on USPA's part to help out. But keep emailing! it's good for them to know how many members care! top Jump more, post less!

Okay.... After reviewing this thread, and talking with a few more people, some actions are really necessary! Take a few minutes of your time here on DZ.com and go to USPA.org and emaill Board members. Be nice! Invite them to read the thread, invite USPA to help in this issue as an organization whose charter is "the promotion of safe skydiving," and invite them to evaluate this as an airport access issue. If cities/counties/boards can deny use permits for land for skydiving, then they trump the FAA stating that only the FAA governs aeronautical activities. Once word gets out, every Part 16 complaint will switch to a zoning issue, airport boards will just ask the city/county to require a special use permit for skydiving businesses, and those will simply be denied. The Federal DOT has ruled that a "head tax" for skydiving is illegal for states, counties, etc to impose, as only the Feds have the authority to regulate and tax skydiving. USPA needs to be shown that these issues are not unrelated and we need to fight this early before it gets out of hand. Call, write, email, whatever. Let the Board know that this should be addressed at the upcoming meeting, and action taken. (As a former BOD member, be nice! It was hard to read things where I was being called names or put down for being on the BOD, I just tended to stop reading. Be brief, be informative, be inviting.) Thanks, top Jump more, post less!

It wasn't as bad when two PC's collided! top No that was actually kinda FUN! And it took a few minutes.... Jump more, post less!

It wasn't as bad when two PC's collided! top Jump more, post less!

Most jumpers are more than happy to sign a logbook, so don't be afraid to ask. I find A and B license jumpers get the biggest kick out of doing it! Also, try and ask people that were on the load with you or saw you actually jump. I hate having to take someone's word for it! It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't believe anyone! top Jump more, post less!

Um, according to that wind arrow and wind flag, he's landing downwind with a tandem passenger, and too low to hook it 180 degrees... Or it is no wind or low wind and that is the standard landing direction for those conditions. top Jump more, post less!

The FAA makes no distinction in airport access for tandems or fun jumpers. Airport access is "all aviation activities" not the ones some county board or airport authority choose. Once they accept federal funds, they are on the hook to support all compatible aeronautical activities. Yes, "skydiving" is on of them, not "tandem jumping" or "sport jumping," but skydiving. Maybe the FAA needs to send a more strongly worded directive to local airports in light of these continued problems. top Jump more, post less!

Again this is why I said if this is allowed to stand, and is not challenged then kiss 105.25 good bye. And every dz in the country that is using an off airport landing area should be taking notice and and doing something about this case to help. IMHO this is a national case and issue! Then quite frankly he needs to man up and file suit. Quote "Off-Airport Jumps. A skydiver may make parachute jumps away from the usual on-airport parachute school, club, or center location, as long as landowner permission is obtained for the off-airport location." And tell them they (the city/county) dont have the authority to shut him down. File for an injunction. The end. Edited to add: ^ This. Heck I have friends in Boulder. Im not a local. I would volunteer to fly out there, jump, allow them to try and arrest me as the test case. Ive got nothing better to do. As long as the USPA will provide probono attorney. Also, maybe invite the local FAA FSDO to inspect the landing area and watch the jumpers land in it. Then it could be quite the argument with the local police if they try and arrest someone. top PS. Yes, if at all possible, I would come out and jump Jump more, post less!

Your last line is confusing. Are you saying the DZ was initially offered an airport landing area, but that was rescinded? The DZ then found an off site, and that was refused? This is an access issue, disguised as zoning issue. It does an operator no good to be granted access to conduct business at an airport and to fly from that airport if they are not granted permission to land. Something which the FAA says it is only necessary to have the landowner's permission, not the local council. The easy solution would be to file a NOTAM or 7711.2, land on the property, and if the police are dumb enough to arrest anyone, start the civil rights and wrongful prosecution lawsuits. The business is engaged in a lawful activity with a business license. By definition, they are on a property with landowners permission with a letter from the landowner. The FAA holds the only authority on airspace and aviation activities, not the council. They cannot deny a business use permit because the business is conducted at the airport (reference cases of river rafting, hiking, etc. the "business" is the physical building where transactions take place, not where the activity may take place.) Jumpers landing in other areas must be given the opportunity to leave and refuse before they can be arrested for trespassing, that is clearly defined by local statute and the FAA already. The council is trying to avoid making this an access issue by saying it is a permitting issue, but in reality it is about access, plain and simple. Start the part 16 complaints, get AAD funds going, but most importantly, show the council that the law is on our side (which means getting letters from the FAA stating this). Don't get caught up in their game of meetings and permitting. They have said not to land on the airport, and the legally operating business has bent to their requests and found an alternative property which adds to the overhead of the business unnecessarily. Now the council is denying the land use stating they have authority to determine where parachutes can land, which they absolutely do not. So, bring in the outsiders to educate the council on the errors in their thinking before the legally operating DZ gets the FAA to force the county to let them land on the airport. BTW, you cannot be arrested for landing off (even the guys that landed in the active nuclear submarine base!) if you can show you landed there unintentionally and are working to exit the premise (or are physically unable). top Jump more, post less!

There is nothing like being sound asleep in the "hole" of the Otter, only to wake up as your teammates exit! Slap on gloves and helmet, quick gear check, and bomb out the door!!! Only to realize you have no f@@ckin' clue what the first point is or where you should go...... Just that vacant stare at your teammates who can hardly fly straight because they are laughing so hard and pointing! I still doze off a bit in the plane, but not like I used to. top Jump more, post less!

All of the statutes for Colorado for trespass state that one must enter unlawfully. Since skydiving is a legal activity (and no local jurisdiction may make it illegal, the FAA has already weighed in on that), unintentionally landing on someone's property is not trespassing. http://abclegaldocs.com/Downloads_small/CRS_18-4-502_Colorado_Trespassing_Laws.pdf So, the county cannot threaten jumpers with prosecution for landing on someone's property unintentionally and cannot use it as a reason for not allowing a legal activity to occur which is not regulated by them. I am not an attorney, but my brother is..... top Your brother may be an attorney but you must first understand the mentality of local politicians, council members, board members, commissioners etc. They can and will do anything they want and will continue to do so unless you drag their ass into court and get a judge to tell them not to. Therein lies the rub. Any legal action you take will cost you money and can take years to settle. They can out wait you and outspend you. Sparky Not necessarily. If you can get the FAA to come to a meeting and explain in very blunt terms that they are in violation of their airport funding agreement (in which there are plenty of precedents of airports losing the fight), then the county attorney will need to weigh in on the costs the county will incur and the threat of losing monies in a situation that is a no-win. All of the people making the decision are elected and, therefore, subject to what their actions appear. Show that they are going to cost the county lots of money fighting, lose, and cost the county more money- they might rethink their positions. Right now those politicians think this is one small group of county residents against a small business with very little political ramifications. It's another thing for them to see a national organization (USPA and the AAD Fund), the FAA with lots of precedents and rules, and a business backed by other businesses in the area. (get local businesses that have a financial stake to write letters) You cannot fight the small minds, but you can make the small minds aware of the ramifications of their actions in simple ways. How involved has USPA been in this so far? A call from them along with an email of cases where airports/counties have been forced to comply with the law to the county attorney can make the him/her nervous. That makes the board nervous. And they can't fall back on the defense that they had no idea what they were getting into. Also, I would suggest a call to Pat Garcia at Skydive Sacramento. He has been fighting an even nastier group and winning. He also has written out the steps, precedents, and how he has won. (Lots of props to him!) We are winning these battles, but it is a long, slow, frustrating campaign. top Jump more, post less!

All of the statutes for Colorado for trespass state that one must enter unlawfully. Since skydiving is a legal activity (and no local jurisdiction may make it illegal, the FAA has already weighed in on that), unintentionally landing on someone's property is not trespassing. http://abclegaldocs.com/Downloads_small/CRS_18-4-502_Colorado_Trespassing_Laws.pdf So, the county cannot threaten jumpers with prosecution for landing on someone's property unintentionally and cannot use it as a reason for not allowing a legal activity to occur which is not regulated by them. I am not an attorney, but my brother is..... top Jump more, post less!

Excellent!! Chuck And she gets my name right. top Jump more, post less!

Nobody will ever say you're easily discouraged! That is not always a positive.... top Jump more, post less!