Idea for liscenses

[Malfunction 0]

I have had a thought (strange, my brain doesn't hurt too much). That is, if USPA passes a BSR regarding wing-loading, and after rereading the thread from Holly's tragedy in Arizona, do you think that USPA should alter their liscensing process? Think about it. Our drivers liscence says what type of vehicle we are allowed to drive, what kind of medical issues we may have, and if we have any requirements for driving (such as glasses). Do you think USPA should model their liscenses after this? It would allow them and investigators access to fast info, such as if the jumper was cleared to wing loand a canopy 1.5:1, if the jumper required glasses, or if the jumper had a history of health related problems. It could give investigators a starting point, and allow for manifestors to know about the people jumping at their DZ, rather than a waiver and a reserve card.

Any thoughts?

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire

[Blahr 0]

Gentlemen, start your engines!

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Our drivers liscence says what type of vehicle we are allowed to drive,

Sort of.

I could still go buy a McLaren F1 and go 200mph into a wall, though. And I could still buy a F-650 and plow through a family sedan. Even with out a CDL (commercial license, in Texas, for driving semi's).

My thought is that a situation like that could lead to too much regulation of our sport. Investigators can find that information out very quickly, just by talking to the S&TA of his/her DZ and the jumpers who normally jumped with the jumper.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Malfunction 0]

Quote

My thought is that a situation like that could lead to too much regulation of our sport. Investigators can find that information out very quickly, just by talking to the S&TA of his/her DZ and the jumpers who normally jumped with the jumper

But our sport is already regulated, but we choose not to see it. USPA is our governing body, they also are the ones that issue the lisence. USPA isn't necessarily governed by FAA, but FAA does have jurisdiction if an incident occurs; so it leads to believe that FAA regulates our sport too. If we were truly self-governed and self-policed, we would answer to noone but other skydivers.

Yes, investigators can get info by talking to the jumpers S/TA or talking to other jumpers from the home DZ. But if I am in Z-Hills for a weekend, have an accident, how long do you think it will take the investigators to get ahold of my home DZ in Iowa, not to mention the S/TA who isn't there every weekend?

It seems to me that every incident thread that involves a jumper, the inevitable questions are "what was the canopy? wing loadig? container? reserve? aad? jumps? years in sport?" Not all waivers, current USPA cards, log books, reserve cards or other jumpers can tell you the unasked questions, "experience, history, evolution, eye-sight, medical history" etc.

It would be a good debate.

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire

[Phlip 0]

Quote

Our drivers liscence says what type of vehicle we are allowed to drive...

I can buy any type of car, but I will still be limited to the speed limits...
I think we should do the same with canopies: you can buy the canopy you want, but you cannot swoop faster than 30mph.

[Malfunction 0]

True, a liscense does not limit the type of vehicle you can buy or fly. I am not saying that USPA should instigate that type of limitations. However, as I said in my first post, "if the BSR for wing-loading is passed" then we will need to find some way to provide other DZ's and possibly (God-forbid) incident investigators that information.

If someone fraps under a canopy that is too highly wing-loaded than the BSR would allow, we would at least have our first answer to wing-loading as well as experience and abilities (considering the BSR would require a canopy course to prove piloting ability).

Let me be clear about one thing. I am not supporting or opposing the BSR possibility. I would (and voted) to wait and see what it entails. I am providing a thread to discuss possible aftermaths and policy enforcements.

Edited because I failed English...all 12 years.

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire

[pilotdave 0]

How about medic-alert style bracelets for skydivers. Forget blood type and allergies... have number of jumps, gear type, and wingloading.

Dave

[jeremyneas 0]

Bravo to anyone who knows of the McLaren F1. Not the most popular car in the world, but when i get that spare $960,000 it's all mine!!!

J.Neas

[tictoc 0]

[reply
But our sport is already regulated, but we choose not to see it. USPA is our governing body, they also are the ones that issue the lisence. USPA isn't necessarily governed by FAA, but FAA does have jurisdiction if an incident occurs; so it leads to believe that FAA regulates our sport too.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

[reply
But our sport is already regulated, but we choose not to see it. USPA is our governing body, they also are the ones that issue the lisence. USPA isn't necessarily governed by FAA, but FAA does have jurisdiction if an incident occurs; so it leads to believe that FAA regulates our sport too.

Sorry to tell you but are sport is not governd buy the uspa in any way. A "skydiver" is not requierd to belong to nore get a licens from the uspa in order to legely jump . And that is any kind or size of jump.
The closest thing that we get to regulations is the BSR. Thies are inforced by the FAA. They are a very loose type of regulation. In my opinion I like it this way. Befor you know it we will all be wering bands around are arm and some one telling us were we can and can't go. Oh wate I think some one has alredy done that before. Didn't work out to well for the ppl with the bands.

[tictoc 0]

"Some of the FAA advisory circulars"
FAA

--------------------------------------------------------
Some one must go to the edge for others to be able to find it. But if you go be sure you can make it back.

[Malfunction 0]

dude, i understand what you are saying. society is headed to the computer inplant right after birth. or maybe the barcode on the back of the head or something. who knows.
but that is a bit more extreme than i am thinking. i am thinking short term.

you are right, USPA does not govern our sport; you don't have to be a member to jump, but to jump at certain DZ's you do. 2 summers ago I went to a week-long boogie and would not be allowed to jump unless i joined USPA again, before i could register. Other boogies make sure you have a B liscense to jump. if you are not uspa member, how can you have a B lisense?

But i digress.
Let me use the argument "IF." If you are a member, and IF the BSR for wingloading is passed, IF we decide that we want to obey the new BSR, and IF we want to have readily accessable info, then USPA simply altering the layout of the lisense card to include canopy control rating as well as jump rating [example]

(Jumer name : X
(lisense : A
(jumps : 49
(max wingload : 1.3:1
(Medical history : no history
(Restrictions : contact / glasses)

could go a long way when an unknown jumper shows up at my DZ, wants to rent equipment and burns in. The investigators now know IMMEDIATELY that the jumper was approved for 1.3:1 wingload (so the DZ would not give the jumper something unsafe), the jumper had no prior medical issues, but had to wear glasses. OK, now the investigator can rule out the possibility of jumping blind, having a seizure mid-jump, the DZ is accountable if the jumper has rented a canopy that is more than 1.3:1; and we can all now start concentrating on the actual issue, rather than speculation (as in Holly's thread).

I know that is long-winded for a simple explaination, but I want to make it clear that this COULD have the potential to help, should an investigation have to take place.

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire

[pilotdave 0]

I dont really care if it would speed up an investigation. That doesnt help safety in any way. It would probably cost a fortune to get the USPA to keep all that extra info. Anyway it would only be accurate once a year. How many people do 200 jumps their first year in the sport? All of them would have a card that says they have 25 jumps and jump a manta 288.

Accident investigations happen fast enough. Once the guy is dead, who cares how long it takes to find out how many jumps he had?

Dave

[Malfunction 0]

Out of those that jump 200 times in a year, how many are lifetime members of USPA? Everytime they would renew their membership, USPA sends out an updated card. Updated issue solved.

USPA keeps most of that info anyway. When you fill out a membership card or take a lisense test, it asks how many jumps you have. I would think that if the BSR for wing-loanding is passed, the card shouldnt say what kind of canopy you fly, rather the wing-loading that you are qualified for.

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire

[pilotdave 0]

But what is the reason for putting that info on the license? I mean my jump number and license type is on all the waivers I've ever signed. They get updated once a year too (where I jump, maybe not everywhere). My logbook is in my bag right with my license. I mean they might be able to figure out if I'm jumping an appropriate canopy really quickly if I tatoo my wingloading on my ass. If they have to figure out which bag is mine in the packing area, go through my wallet to find my USPA card, and check my allowable wingloading, what advantage did they get? Ok, maybe some jumpers carry their licenses right on them when they jump. So great, they save 10 minutes by going through the pockets of a corpse to figure out if he was jumping the wrong canopy.

I understand your thinking but I just dont see any good coming from it. The focus should be on preventing people from jumping canopies they cant handle, not figuring that out after they're dead.

Dave

[Malfunction 0]

Quote

The focus should be on preventing people from jumping canopies they cant handle, not figuring that out after they're dead.

Yes, you are right, of course. I concede that.

Hypothetically, lets say you are a DZO or are in charge of renting the equipment at the DZ. I walk in with my logbook showing I have been jumping a 1.5:1 for the last year or so, but I tell you that my gear is still in Iowa and I have jumped a 1.9:1 (Jedei 107 with exit weight of 200) a couple times, but never logged it. No other documentation confirms that. You rent me a Jedei 107 and I frap on the landing.

Now, could the USPA card with the approved wing loading have prevented this from happening (assuming you asked to see my lisense)? Then you realize that when I frapped, I wasn't wearing glasses or contacts although the card said I had that restriction. I still signed the waiver stating that I was up to date with no major health issues, you checked my reserve card and logbook.

I am going to assume your next argument. No, the card probably would serve no general purpose on a daily basis at a known DZ with your own gear. But at a different DZ, while signing the waiver and checking the reserve card and logbook, the DZO (or whomever else may be in charge of registration) could check this card and know that if you ask someone to demo a Icarus Xtreme 88, but have only been jumping a Stilleto 135 (again, 1.5:1), they would know that you probably shouldn't do it and stop it BEFORE you frap. Maybe at that point, the DZO could tell you that if you plan to demo a canopy, maybe the Samurai 135 is all the extreme you should go.

*bear in mind that my calculations of wing-loading is exit weight / square footage*

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire

[tictoc 0]

Hypothetically, lets say you are a DZO or are in charge of renting the equipment at the DZ. I walk in with my logbook showing I have been jumping a 1.5:1 for the last year or so, but I tell you that my gear is still in Iowa and I have jumped a 1.9:1 (Jedei 107 with exit weight of 200) a couple times, but never logged it. No other documentation confirms that. You rent me a Jedei 107 and I frap on the landing.

I don't see how having a licens could change any of this.
Hypothetically, lets say you are a DZO or are in charge of renting the equipment at the DZ. I walk in with my licens showing I have been jumping a 1.5:1 for the last year or so, but I tell you that my gear is still in Iowa and I have jumped a 1.9:1 (Jedei 107 with exit weight of 200) a couple times, but never logged it. No other documentation confirms that. You rent me a Jedei 107 and I frap on the landing.

If you read all that I changed was the word logbook to licens. I for one am a life time member but see no reason to force my views on others. The problem is not with the peace of paper that is used (and I would think a logbook would be more acurate than a membership card) but with the person that rented them the gear. And let us not forget the biggest problem of all. The dumb ass who jumped the gear when they should not have. We can "what if" all day long. But how about insted of blaming the problem on some one else we start having ppl be responsible for their actions insted of sewing some pore sap just because you can. All I have to say is thank you Darwin for making the world a safer place for responsible people. If your going to go to the edge you had better make sure you have what it takes to make it back. I'm out

--------------------------------------------------------
Some one must go to the edge for others to be able to find it. But if you go be sure you can make it back.

[Malfunction 0]

I agree with your reasoning. I think, though, that we as jumpers are the only ones that blame the jumper when he/she makes a mistake that costs them their lives. But there are times when circumstances dictate the invervention of another person to keep the jumper from making that mistake.

Unfortunately, we live in a "pass the buck" society. Everyone wants documentation for this, documentation for that or else you are going to get sued (remember McDonalds was sued for a couple mil after some shmuk spilled hot coffee on himself. MickeyD's did not have DOCUMENTATION that the coffee was hot).

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire