USPA group member safer or what?

[peckerhead 0]

Do you feel safer just because a DZ is a group member?
After reading recent uspa articles I feel like the smaller totally SAFE dz's are not getting the credit they deserve.

For a small club trying to keep a cessna in the air the last thing they need is an incident so most of these folks have an incredible safety record.

I know this may ruffle some feathers but the non-USPA members also have fun.




.

[quade 4]

Quote

After reading recent uspa articles I feel like the smaller totally SAFE dz's are not getting the credit they deserve.

What "credit" should the USPA give non-member drop zones?

In fact, why should the USPA mention them at all?

USPA Group Membership, in and of itself means nothing except the drop zone pledges to follow a set of rules and has paid their dues.

A drop zone can follow all the rules of the USPA, but unless they pay their dues and become an actual USPA Group Member, why should the USPA care?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

After reading recent uspa articles I feel like the smaller totally SAFE dz's are not getting the credit they deserve.

What "credit" should the USPA give non-member drop zones?

In fact, why should the USPA mention them at all?

USPA Group Membership, in and of itself means nothing except the drop zone pledges to follow a set of rules and has paid their dues.

A drop zone can follow all the rules of the USPA, but unless they pay their dues and become an actual USPA Group Member, why should the USPA care?

Since "we" are USPA, I think we should care quite a bit. If a non-group member DZ starts having aircraft crashes, skydivers going in etc. the FAA and the wuffos aren't going to care that the DZ involved wasn't a group member. The preception will be "those crazy skydivers need more regulation by the govt."

[quade 4]

So, what I'm hearing is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the non-member drop zones should for some reason be given "credit" (and we haven't really established what that means) even though they haven't paid dues, taken the pledge and create a larger problem for the USPA if an accident happens?

Is that what I'm hearing you suggest?

That's rediculous.

The USPA should -ONLY- be involved with promoting USPA Group Member drop zones. To do otherwise would be unfair to the drop zones that -are- members.

Or perhaps you're suggesting the USPA do random inspections on non-member drop zones and then report their findings to the skydiving public at large?

What do you suggest the USPA actually do to or for non-member drop zones?

I have an idea -- nothing.

If a DZ doesn't want to be part of the USPA Group Member system, then the USPA should have nothing to do with them -- Pro or Con.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[slug 1]

I think this subject has been discussed many times do a search on this websight for background info also check the profiles of the folks making the comments and you may find some hidden agenda's.

IMO Do some independent research and then come back and ask for clarifications on issues you don't understand.

R.I.P.

Troll! R.I.P. troll probability meter 95%+ based on profile of person who started the poll

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

So, what I'm hearing is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the non-member drop zones should for some reason be given "credit" (and we haven't really established what that means) even though they haven't paid dues, taken the pledge and create a larger problem for the USPA if an accident happens?

Is that what I'm hearing you suggest?

That's rediculous.

The USPA should -ONLY- be involved with promoting USPA Group Member drop zones. To do otherwise would be unfair to the drop zones that -are- members.

Or perhaps you're suggesting the USPA do random inspections on non-member drop zones and then report their findings to the skydiving public at large?

What do you suggest the USPA actually do to or for non-member drop zones?

I have an idea -- nothing.

If a DZ doesn't want to be part of the USPA Group Member system, then the USPA should have nothing to do with them -- Pro or Con.

So you believe non USPA DZs should be denied the right to host any type of instructor certification courses?

[quade 4]

Quote

So you believe non USPA DZs should be denied the right to host any type of instructor certification courses?

If the non-member DZ wants to hire an instructor for the course, I think that's appropriate. That's simply the free enterprise of the course instructor. There's nothing in the USPA rules that says USPA members can't jump or instruct anywhere they want.

If the non-member host DZ -also- wants the USPA to promote the course, then no. That's simply not appropriate.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[pilotdave 0]

I mostly agree with you. But I think the point that the original poster was trying to make is that the USPA isnt a DZ advertising agency (edit: well that may not have been the original point but whatever). They are supposed to promote skydiving. Since many USPA members jump at non-USPA-group-member DZs, those DZs shouldn't be ignored by the USPA. But I guess the "problem" with that type of argument is that the USPA is not a regulatory authority and has no responsibility over non group members. I think the fact that the non group member DZs don't pay dues (advertising fees as far as I can tell) is not a good reason to totally ignore those DZs. The fact that the USPA has no authority is a better reason.

It comes down to the fact that USPA is for DZs and not skydivers, at least in some ways. I know there have been attempts to start organizations for skydivers and not businesses, but I don't think any have gone anywhere.

By the way, the one non-group-member DZ that I've jumped at is great. All instructors are USPA rated, and I THINK they required USPA membership. They run a safe operation without being tied down by every BSR. An S&TA oversees what's going on at all times. So just because they aren't a group member doesn't make them any less safe. Maybe just more flexible.

Dave

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

A drop zone can follow all the rules of the USPA, but unless they pay their dues and become an actual USPA Group Member, why should the USPA care?

They should care because the majority of the jumpers that jump at "those" dz's are USPA MEMBERS and are flipping the bill to cover the cost of all those worthless GM programs that don't pay for themselves.

That's why the USPA should care.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

That's rediculous.

The USPA should -ONLY- be involved with promoting USPA Group Member drop zones. To do otherwise would be unfair to the drop zones that -are- members.
.

Now that is rediculous.

So the USPA shouldn't care at all about ALL the USPA MEMBERS that jump at "those" dz's. WOW.

I thought USPA was a membership service organization. I am a DUE PAYING member of this organization. The GM progam is a joke and doesn't even cover the cost of advertising.

The Rating Courses are advertised for the MEMBERS not the DZ. If you are looking to get a rating, don't you want to know ALL your options?

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

If the non-member host DZ -also- wants the USPA to promote the course, then no. That's simply not appropriate.

Since certification courses are to the benefit of USPA individual members, how is USPA best serving their members by "not" promoting a course which has a USPA sanction and allows the individual member to obtain a USPA Instructor rating?

Why should a dues paying USPA individual member and USPA AFFCC directors be denied promotion of their course just because they choose to have it hosted at a non-group member DZ? How does that best serve the individual member?

[quade 4]

Quote

So just because they aren't a group member doesn't make them any less safe.

Again, go back to my first responce in this thread. Here's what I said:

Quote

USPA Group Membership, in and of itself means nothing except the drop zone pledges to follow a set of rules and has paid their dues.

If there is perhaps one very minor point it would be that the FAA accepts the USPA SIM as the standard operating procedures for skydiving. Doesn't mean it's any more or less safe than procedures used at non member drop zones, only that they are accepted as standard.

All of that said, (and you're a pilot so I'm certain you realize this), it is nearly impossible for any drop zone to not occasionally bust an FAA FAR or USPA BSR. Does that make them unsafe? Not necessarily. I think we both know that there is safe and there is legal. The two are not always completely inclusive. You can be legal but not safe and safe but not legal.

As for the comment about the USPA being for DZs and not skydivers . . . that's the skydiver's fault. I can't for the life of me figure out why we elect so many DZOs and Gear Manufacturers to the BoD other than it's mostly apathy on the part of the skydivers. Hell, we even had a BoD member that was a DZO of a non member drop zone! Figure THAT one out.

There's an old saying, "You get the government you deserve."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

So just because they aren't a group member doesn't make them any less safe.

Again, go back to my first responce in this thread. Here's what I said:

Quote

USPA Group Membership, in and of itself means nothing except the drop zone pledges to follow a set of rules and has paid their dues.

If there is perhaps one very minor point it would be that the FAA accepts the USPA SIM as the standard operating procedures for skydiving. Doesn't mean it's any more or less safe than procedures used at non member drop zones, only that they are accepted as standard.

All of that said, (and you're a pilot so I'm certain you realize this), it is nearly impossible for any drop zone to not occasionally bust an FAA FAR or USPA BSR. Does that make them unsafe? Not necessarily. I think we both know that there is safe and there is legal. The two are not always completely inclusive. You can be legal but not safe and safe but not legal.

As for the comment about the USPA being for DZs and not skydivers . . . that's the skydiver's fault. I can't for the life of me figure out why we elect so many DZOs and Gear Manufacturers to the BoD other than it's mostly apathy on the part of the skydivers. Hell, we even had a BoD member that was a DZO of a non member drop zone! Figure THAT one out.

There's an old saying, "You get the government you deserve."

You make a good point about getting what we deserve. The problem with the USPA system is the choice of candidates available is limited because few jumpers will dedicate the time to perform the functions of a BOD. I have to admit I just don't have the time or desire to serve. Most jumpers just want to jump and not get involved in the politics. Just look at the reasons we have the Bonfire and Speakers Corner seperated.

[PhreeZone 20]

Quote

I can't for the life of me figure out why we elect so many DZOs and Gear Manufacturers to the BoD other than it's mostly apathy on the part of the skydivers. Hell, we even had a BoD member that was a DZO of a non member drop zone! Figure THAT one out.

One reason is look at who is running. For the most part fun jumpers are only intersted in getting to the DZ once or twice a month for a day and doing 10-15 jumps a month and they are happy as a clam. The DZO is worried about their livelyhood and is trying to make efforts to make sure they will be able to make more money in the future. The last time I saw true fun jumpers run for BOD positions they ranked near the bottom of the votes. You have to remember that a lot of people that vote are new jumpers that only read the persons bio info in Parachutist once and then vote. Its more of a popularity contest then it is about running on an issues platform.

Someone's bio that has 5000 jumps, 10 years in the sport, 3 ratings, and their own DZ looks like a better person then the fun jumper that has 500 jumps over 6-7 years and no ratings to the uninformed.

I've been to GM's that are down right scary with a 6 pack being drank on the ride to altitude among the people on the load, another that overloaded their planes by a full person usually. Yet another DZ ignored wind limits and had a student be pushed back over half a mile under canopy.

I jump at a Non-GM turbine DZ that averages about 2 broken bones a year, maintains a drugfree DZ and has created 2 Golden Knights and a national accuracy medalist in the last few years.

A DZ is as safe as the jumpers that jump there. If the jumpers disreguard safety... then the DZ becomes unsafe.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[quade 4]

Quote

I've been to GM's that are down right scary with a 6 pack being drank on the ride to altitude among the people on the load, another that overloaded their planes by a full person usually. Yet another DZ ignored wind limits and had a student be pushed back over half a mile under canopy.

Lemme ask you this, as a skydiver concerned about safety, what did -you personally- do about it?

Did you keep skydiving there on that day?

Did you speak with the DZO, Chief Pilot, Instructors, S&TA or call or write the USPA Headquarters?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why should a dues paying USPA individual member and USPA AFFCC directors be denied promotion of their course just because they choose to have it hosted at a non-group member DZ? How does that best serve the individual member?

No issue, members get free advertising on the website and in Parachutist, non-members can buy an add just like anyone else.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

So you believe non USPA DZs should be denied the right to host any type of USPA instructor certification courses?

Yes.

If you don't like the game and it's rules, make up your own game.

Didn't someone try that a couple of years ago? THE PSoA or something?

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

[CrazyRock 0]

Quote

Hell, we even had a BoD member that was a DZO of a non member drop zone! Figure THAT one out.

THANK YOU!!! I'm glad that i wasn't the only person thinking this!!!! except that it is NOT "had".. He *IS* on the executive BoD, plus, hes a National Director- and his drop zone is not a member dropzone...

So, for you guys saying the USPA should basically have nothing to do with non member dz's, what is your response to that?? Seriously!!

-Seth :)

[quade 4]

Quote

So, for you guys saying the USPA should basically have nothing to do with non member dz's, what is your response to that?? Seriously!!

I think it's total BS that he's on the BoD -- period.

He wants the benefits, wants to have a say in how the USPA does it's business, but isn't willing to pony up the GM dues money.

Oh, and I was trying to be at least a little discreet and not point out exactly who it was. Reason? I sort of wanted to see if people actually do pay attention to stuff like that -- which, I maintain, they don't. Present company excepted.

I'm guessing that the -vast- majority of USPA member have no idea who you and I are talking about. Sadly, I bet they also don't care.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[CrazyRock 0]

[reply
I think it's total BS that he's on the BoD -- period.

He wants the benefits but isn't willing to pony up the money.

[CrazyRock 0]

Quote

Oh, and I was trying to be at least a little discreet and not point out exactly who it was. Reason? I sort of wanted to see if people actually do pay attention to stuff like that -- which, I maintain, they don't. Present company excepted.

I'm guessing that the -vast- majority of USPA member have no idea who you and I are talking about. Sadly, I bet they also don't care.

incredible. sad and funny at the same time.

-Seth :)

[crwmike 0]

Quote

Quote

So, for you guys saying the USPA should basically have nothing to do with non member dz's, what is your response to that?? Seriously!!

I think it's total BS that he's on the BoD -- period.

He wants the benefits, wants to have a say in how the USPA does it's business, but isn't willing to pony up the GM dues money.

Oh, and I was trying to be at least a little discreet and not point out exactly who it was. Reason? I sort of wanted to see if people actually do pay attention to stuff like that -- which, I maintain, they don't. Present company excepted.

I'm guessing that the -vast- majority of USPA member have no idea who you and I are talking about. Sadly, I bet they also don't care.

We don't care? We don't pay attention? Oh my! Perhaps the things we care about differ from your view. As to paying attention ...uh, what were we talking about?

Michael

[DeNReN 0]

Speakers Corner!!

Edited to add....here works fine as well...good call.

[slug 1]

Hi Quade

IMO The GM dues is chump change and doesn't even pay for the services the GM DZ's recieve.

The DZO was voted to the BOD by the USPA membership. IMO that speaks for itself.

BTW I'm not s USPA member but did belong for approx 20 yr's. Do I agree with what USPA is doing? I voted with my feet. Will it change anything it will for me but not for USPA. As long as they have a monoply on jumping in the USA suck it up and jump.

Over and out
R.I.P.

[quade 4]

Perhaps you're right -- this thread has drifted significantly from its original topic.

However, it -is- still about skydiving. In fact, I can't really think of too many threads that are more relevant to all of the (US) members of dropzone.com than this. Perhaps a better place would be General Skydiving Discussions.

That's where I'm moving it to now.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver