Tandem rating question

[skypuppy 1]

I wrote a satirical look on the future of skydiving: Fast Forward to the Year 2050 a year or so ago. That is one way to see the future. Another way is to see the FAA make all jumpers and rating holders Airmen. This is an entirely different view - one that has more disadvantages than advantages. If parents of injured or deceased jumpers or jumpers clamor for more teeth in the FARs or state laws - just so there is a LAW on the books, we may see a severe reduction in the participation of skydiving. We may see a geometric expansion of lawsuits. There is a perceived advantage that one could fine or throw someone in jail for a violation, but would that really make the day-to-day operations safer?? I echo what Mike said (not because I'm a 23 year plus Racer jumper, but because what we have in place works).
__________________________________________________

Just look at the new law being imposed in Ontario, Canada as a result of a recent inquiry held there.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Can you show me which FAR specifies Parachutist in Command currency requirements?

I've already answered this.

quoting myself from previous posts to this thread:

USPA does have requirements for renewing a rating - and has for as long as I can remember. Today, renewal requirements for each rating are detailed in the IRM under a section called 'Keeping such-n-such rating Current'. Reference to these sections is on the renewal form.

Each year a USPA TM has to renew a rating with their membership. If the rating or USPA membership is not renewed then the rating lapses. IOW the jumper does not fall into 'has been certified' category.

We disagree about what 'has been certified' means.
I believe that in a court of law most jury members would take 'has been certified' to mean that the certification would need to be valid on the date of an incident, not one, five or ten years previously. There are existing renewal requirements.

Quote

As for the USPA, it would best serve skydivers by working to enforce it's own BSR's to prevent an incident that the FAA won;t be able to ignore and take action and regulate skydiving. Too many bad demos, aircraft crashes w/ engines past TBO or lack of maint, etc and the FAA will be forced to step in. They don't want to and skydivers don't want them to. If no one regulates skydiving then enough incidents will cause the FAA to regulate skydiving.

All the aircraft crashes already fall under the FAA.

You may or may not recall the Perris Otter crash. At the time, seatbelts were not generally used by jumpers. This was a historical situation that was born when many jump planes (primarily Cessnas) were used without in-flight doors and jumpers had belly warts. PCA/USPA convinced the FAA that wearing a seatbelt was more dangerous than not wearing one. There is more to this situation that is altitude dependant, but the end result was that the FAA did not strictly impose wearing seatbelts during taxi, TO and landing for jumpers. After the Perris crash, USPA and the FAA worked together on this issue. USPA came out in support of wearing a seatbelt during taxi, TO and landing - even if there was no in-flight door. [By this time most jump planes did have in flight doors.]
USPA even put a seatbelt question in on every license exam.

The point is that the FAA recognizes that USPA can strongly influence the behavior of DZOs and jumpers without adding in some official FAA regulation.

There are very few incidents or accidents that involve a BSR violation. Of those, the violations are not always a contributing factor. [eg - if a jumper has an out of date reserve and hooks in, killing himself, the out of date reserve was not a contributing factor to the fatality.]

In the cases where a BSR violation may have been a contributing factor, USPA does proceed with disciplinary actions that result in rating or membership revocation. Ted Mayfield's situation is a good example of this.

Quote

Why did the volunteer DZ inspection program inspect only one DZ, which failed, then flop? A mandatory DZ inspection program with a list of DZ's that pass an annual inspection and any surprise inspection would make the USPA GM program actually worth something.

The VIP was ill conceived and poorly implemented from the get go. You can look up my comments on this on r.s. An independent agency has to be the organization that implements any type of inspection program. eg AAA, UL, Consumer Reports, etc.

The FAA does not have the resources to do this for skydiving. They are trying to farm out a lot of their work now because of budget constraints.

Quote

If the USPA doesn't do it, the FAA will.

Not necessarily. State governments are more likely to implement laws. NV already has. Read 'Jumping Through Clouds' to see another case that could have seen another state with the BSRs as state law.

Do you think there is a cop in NV that issues a citation to a C or D license holder jumping in NV that deliberately pulls under 2k?
I think not. But I'll bet the DZO grounds that jumper.

The only reason to postulate laws, either as state or FARs, is to say to the public 'If these operations follow these laws, then they are safe [meaning or implying that an injury or death is highly unlikely].

This is false logic and the FAA knows that too. Skydiving is not safe. You can do everything right and still die. You can follow all the BSRs exactly and still die.
Skydiving is not like the airlines, convincing everyone that air travel via commercial airlines is safe.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[tombuch 0]

Quote

We disagree about what 'has been certified' means.
I believe that in a court of law most jury members would take 'has been certified' to mean that the certification would need to be valid on the date of an incident, not one, five or ten years previously. There are existing renewal requirements.

The FAA doesn't take FAR violations to a conventional court of law. They are handled by an administrative law judge who will look at the specific wording of the regulation and the history of the regulation. I maintain that jumping with an out of date tandem rating is legal as per the FAR's.

If the FAA brings a violation against the jumper for an out of date tandem rating it should be dismissed by the ALJ. If there is an injury accident, the lack of a current rating might present a financial liability in a jury trial, but it is not a crime or violation.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Can you show me which FAR specifies Parachutist in Command currency requirements?

Quote

I've already answered this.

No, you didn't. If I had asked, "What are USPA's currency requirments for a Parachutist in Command?", then yes, you would have answered my question. But that is not what I asked.

I asked, "Can you show me which FAR specifies Parachutist in Command currency requirements?"

I don't think you can. I still contend that under the FAR's, I am can still act as a Parachutist in Command. The FAR says, "has been certified". Are you saying I haven't been certified? I even have a TI card from Stunts w/ no expiriation date on it.

I'm not saying it is right, only legal.

Quote

The point is that the FAA recognizes that USPA can strongly influence the behavior of DZOs and jumpers without adding in some official FAA regulation.

I think the USPA tells DZO"s, "OK, the FAA is serious, you have to start doing xxxx, or they will step in." So the DZO's start doing xxxx.

Why didn't the USPA figure out that seat belts are a good idea before the crash?

Why did it take fatalities for the USPA to act?

Day late and a dollar short.

Quote

In the cases where a BSR violation may have been a contributing factor, USPA does proceed with disciplinary actions that result in rating or membership revocation.

I had proof of a serious BSR violation and the RD, now a ND did nothing. I wasn't impressed w/ USPA's abilty to 'self-regulate'.

Quote

The VIP was ill conceived and poorly implemented from the get go. You can look up my comments on this on r.s. An independent agency has to be the organization that implements any type of inspection program. eg AAA, UL, Consumer Reports, etc.

The FAA does not have the resources to do this for skydiving. They are trying to farm out a lot of their work now because of budget constraints.

Exactly why the GM program is a conflict of interest and should be a seperate entiity. If USPA can't inspect a DZ because of a conflict of interest, how can they enforce the BSR's, represent skydivers AND represent DZO's? The fox is guarding the henhouse.

Quote

Not necessarily. State governments are more likely to implement laws. NV already has. Read 'Jumping Through Clouds' to see another case that could have seen another state with the BSRs as state law.

Do you think there is a cop in NV that issues a citation to a C or D license holder jumping in NV that deliberately pulls under 2k?
I think not. But I'll bet the DZO grounds that jumper.

The only reason to postulate laws, either as state or FARs, is to say to the public 'If these operations follow these laws, then they are safe [meaning or implying that an injury or death is highly unlikely].

This is false logic and the FAA knows that too. Skydiving is not safe. You can do everything right and still die. You can follow all the BSRs exactly and still die.
Skydiving is not like the airlines, convincing everyone that air travel via commercial airlines is safe.

You don't have to say it is safe, only that XYZ DZ has been inspected, passed and meets the minimum standards as set forth by the USPA. Currently for $600.00 and a signature a DZ gets that. The problem is they don't actually meet the standards USPA has set. And when they don't, nothing happens. It's a joke.

And I have seen a DZO tell a jumper that wa just grounded by the S & TA for pulling very low to get on the next load. Wouldn't want to miss out on the $.

So what we have is an organization that appears to the general public to be giving DZ's a stamp of approval, "USPA GM DZ" and listing them on their web page. DZ's use this as a marketing tool against non-GM DZ's. In reality GM status means absolutely nothing.

Derek

[Shark 0]

Quote

In reality GM status means absolutely nothing.

Who's reality? Yours? As a DZO, how would you market your business?

What exacty do you propose as a solution?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Who's reality? Yours?

The general, generic, reality.

Quote

As a DZO, how would you market your business?

I would put on my web site a statement that explains that GM DZ status means nothing more than the DZO sent USPA a check. It does not mean the DZ has been inspected and approved, is regulated any more or less than any other DZ. I would explain that it is nothing more than a marketin gimmic. I would explain that 'my' DZ follows USPA's recommendations for safety as well as or better than competing DZ's. I would explain that I spent the money to be listed as a GM DZ on repairs to student equipment, where it has an impact on safety. I would explain that a DZ that doesn't follow the BSR's does not have it's GM status revoked.

Quote

What exacty do you propose as a solution?

Spin off the GM program as a seperate entity to eliminate the conflict of interest and require an inspection of the DZ before awarding GM status. Also conduct random inspections. If a DZ fails an inspection, give it 30 days to correct the deficiencies or revoce GM status. Also revoke GM status if a GM DZ blantently fails to adhere to the BSR's. Then the program would have merit.

This is how the GM program appears to the un-educated. But that isn't the truth. The truth is a DZ can send in a check, continue to disregard the BSR's without penalty. USPA GM status does not mean the DZ is any safer than a non-GM DZ.

Derek

[tspillers 0]

I can't believe this has gone to the tangent of -without the USPA rating (only manufacturer rating), you can't train your student....uh, I guess that would be passenger.

Todd

I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example.

[Pablito 0]

Derek with always all the acurate info!!
Thanks

"If you don't overcome your fears they will overcome you first"
Shady Monkey/6Segundos Rodriguez/AKA Pablito

[riggerrob 643]

You folks all forgot the "... in accordance with manufacturers' instructions ..." clause in the Federal Air Regulations.
Tandem equipment manufacturers specify pre-levels, medical, currency requirements, maintenance schedules, etc. to operate their equipment.
Any time you jump in defiance of a manufacturers' instruction, you are also operating in defiance of an FAR.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You folks all forgot the "... in accordance with manufacturers' instructions ..." clause in the Federal Air Regulations.
Tandem equipment manufacturers specify pre-levels, medical, currency requirements, maintenance schedules, etc. to operate their equipment.
Any time you jump in defiance of a manufacturers' instruction, you are also operating in defiance of an FAR.

Manufacturer's instruction for packing the reserve. No FAR says you must follow the manufacturer's instructions for operating the rig.

Derek

[livendive 8]

Quote

[*] In Derek's case, if he did a tandem today he would be breaking the FARs of

(iii) Holds a master parachute license issued by an organization recognized by the FAA, and

because his USPA membership has expired. Licenses are only valid when USPA membership is current.

Well, reading the letter of the regulations, I'm wondering whether all TM's are currently in violation of this regulation. Does USPA still issue something called a "master parachute (sic) license"?

In any case, I agree that "holds" means currently, but "has been certified" means in the past. That said, my USPA, Vector, and Eclipse "certifications" are all current.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

What exacty do you propose as a solution?

So, what do you think?

Derek

[tspillers 0]

I have to disagree the the GM means nothing. I had to show it to the insurance company. I don't know if it would have just been more expensive or if they wouldn't have insured us if I didn't have it.

On the other hand, USPA enforcement would make it mean more. I understand what is being said about it doesn't mean the DZ follows anything, but at least to DZ's trying to insure their planes, it means something.

I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example.

[matthewcline 0]

Good question.

I took your scenario to an FAA lawyer for his input (he is afreind and we "war game" things like this alot). He went with the "implied" currency for the manufactorer and USPA.

In his legal opinion as an FAA lawyer if your not current your invilation of the "intent" of the FAR.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!