MakeItHappen

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. 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 [eg - if a jumper has an out of date reserve and hooks in, killing himself, the out of date reserve was not a contributing factor to the fatality.]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. 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. 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

I see the validity of recognizing the achievements of individual students. It is a good thing to say 'way to go' to someone that excels. However, the context that you presented this in, may inadvertently say to the lesser achievers something akin to 'you ain't shit. Try to do better next time etc' Your quote of 'Out of 4 students… blah blah blah' says indirectly that the 3 other students did not have accomplishments that were worthy of mention. For instance, if one of these students had finally passed a release dive, after several repeats, they could perceive your comments as ' What am I? Dog meat? Just cuz I'm not the bestest or fastest learner - does that mean I'm not worthy of recognition? Geez - it's where you come from and what it took to get there that means anything. Not a natural ability or inside track to success.' Students need a cooperative environment, not competitive. They need to freely exchange their ideas and thoughts on jumping. Students tell each other things that they won't say to instructors. Now, if there was this 'Okay I'm not gonna help you out cuz I wanna be Student of the Week this week' environment, you may find that the support students give each other diminish. At Nationals, I see a lot of cooperation in dive engineering and very little 'We're keeping our engineering a secret.' Skydiving is something people do to challenge themselves. It rarely has anything to do with an extrinsic validation process, especially in the early stages of student status. I think extolling the accomplishments of all students would be a better methodology. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

There is no negation here at all. There are FARs pertaining to tandem, SL and demo jumps, but there are no FARs pertaining to AFF or IAD jumps. There is an entire FAR, Part 65, that addresses parachute equipment and riggers. Riggers are considered 'Airmen'. Skydivers, including Parachutist in Command and demo jumpers are NOT considered Airmen. USPA has a bunch of requirements and recommendations. These are self-enforced. USPA does not carry the weight of the law. The only penalties that USPA can implement are censure or membership/rating revocation or suspension. USPA does do this upon occasion. In some instances, there are FARs that echo USPA rules. The FARs DO carry the weight of the law. There are FARs pertaining to tandems, therefore tandem jumps are regulated by the FAA is a true statement. In contrast, there are no FARs pertaining to AFF or IAD jumps, therefore AFF and IAD jumps are NOT regulated by the FAA. If you have an FAI CoP and that CoP does not require membership in your nation's parachute organization, then you do meet the requirement. You did not state that you had an FAI CoP. I haven't looked up the rules for the conditions that the CoP is valid. The fact remains that if you only had a USPA D license and your USPA membership has expired, then your D license (and all USPA licenses and ratings) are not valid. It's in the SIM & IRM. We agree that USPA has no legal authority. 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. As for the PIC comparison, USPA has long lobbied to keep such rules out of the FARs with the argument that we can self-police ourselves. The self-policing is not done as a police officer would cite people for rule infractions, but is done in a more or less peer pressure methodology. IOW, if you won't follow USPA requirements then you get kicked out of the organization. This leaves the ostracized jumpers or DZOs in a vulnerable position in a court of law. Historically, the FAA wanted to do away with Part 65 in the 1970s. USPA petitioned the FAA to keep Part 65. This was because there were many home-built parachute systems that were substandard. Eventually, TSO 23 was developed and expanded over the years. Part 65 and TSO 23 regulate the parachute systems and the Airmen that work on the systems in the same way the corresponding FARs regulate A&Ps, pilots, etc and airframe mfgs. Also, Part 105 has been slowly expanded to include demo jumpers and most recently tandem - Parachutist in Command. The FARS are adding in regulations to our sport. This may, one day, turn into regulations for AFF, IAD or even define all parachutists as Airmen. I believe that the prevailing thoughts of the FAA is that they do NOT want to classify parachutists as Airmen, any more than USPA does. On the other side of this equation are the parents of jumpers that died skydiving. The parents that get all bent out of shape because there are 'no laws' pertaining to student training. One set of parents promoted the NV legislation that eventually lead to the USPA BSRs becoming a state law. Another mother tried to get similar laws passed in an eastern state (I do not recall which state). Her efforts failed. See Jumping Through Clouds. In the 70s and 80s there were many states that had laws concerning parachuting. Parachutist magazine has many articles on how these laws were eventually removed from states of CA, MN, NY, CT, IN, IL and others. One new local requirement in MT has closed two DZs there. MT has stated that all aviation operations must have $1M insurance. This is not available for skydiving. The FAA says that the local government must apply the same rules to all operations. This has been done and it effectively closed the skydiving operations. 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). A more prudent tact is to educate participants that skydiving may kill you - even if you do everything right. No sugar coating about it. We don't have to be 'doom and gloom' messengers, but we do have to make sure people realize that they may be serious hurt or killed by participating in skydiving. This is certainly a different message than what commercial airlines project. IOW, the more FARs or state laws that pertain to skydiving, the more the general public will consider it 'safe' and a death or injury as cause for a lawsuit. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

USPA and the tandem mfgs can and have pulled ratings. 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. If the FAA wrote language about ratings, revocation, renewal requirements etc, then that falls into the FAA regulating skydiving. That is something most jumpers do not want. So this leaves that avenue for an un-rated jumper to put out students (AFF, IAD, SL). Someone may do this and not break an FAR.[*] We've always known this. We've given 'the talk' to the FAA that we can self-regulate. The time this becomes important is when there is a problem skydive that results in injury or a fatality. Those that do not have ratings (from USPA or the tandem mfgs) generally suffer in a court of law. [*] 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. and (v) Has been certified by the appropriate parachute manufacturer or tandem course provider as being properly trained on the use of the specific tandem parachute system to be used. because he has not been certified to do tandems. His certification expired when his tandem rating expired. Tandem jumps are regulated by the FAA. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

You need to ask them questions. Lots of them and at times - in rapid fire progression. It's the Socratic way of teaching. You guide and steer people to think and judge things for themselves. That is when the knowledge and information become part of the person. For instance: You: What type of landing are you doing on this jump? Other Jumper: I'll be doing a 270 approach on my new canopy. Y: What altitude will you start your approach? O: I dunno - about abc ft. That's what worked before on my other canopy. Y: Are the WLs the same for your two canopies? O: No. This new one is loaded at 1.x. The other one was loaded at 1.y. Y: Wow - That's quite a difference. That's about a z% increase in airspeed. Does that mean that your control inputs have to be z% faster? Are you doing riser turns or toggle turns? How much heavier are the front risers on your new canopy compared to the old one? Didn't you last jump your old canopy when it was 60F here. Now, it's +100F - I think the density altitude is up to 4K. That adds another 6% of increase in airspeed. Wouldn't that make the rate of control inputs that much faster too? Aren't control inputs more sensitive at higher WLs? I mean 3 inches of riser pull means a sharper turn on a higher WL canopy than a low WL - right? If everything is happening so much faster - how and when do you look for traffic? Once you start your turn - do you look for traffic? If you start your turn above xyz landmark, where will you land? I'm just asking so that I can avoid these airspaces. I don't want to get in your way. I want to land safely. Seems to me that everything for you is happening much faster than you are used to. O: ???? The idea is to get the jumper to think about what he's doing and all of the variables. Since he probably won't have answers to everything, he may back off in his aggressiveness. As to what to use for z% increase - you can rephrase as a question. eg 'What's that - about a 10% increase in airspeed?' eg 'What's that - about a 20% increase in airspeed?' eg 'What's that - about a 50% increase in airspeed?' Whatever number you suggest (unless you actually calculate it) won't be exactly right. The other jumper will then have to estimate or at least think about how much faster he goes under the higher WL and how much faster and sensitive control inputs will be. Something he may not have thought about before. Keep in mind that all the jumpers that have landed in turns already know 'land with wings level', 'do not land in a turn' etc - yet they have done it. What they do not always know is that the altitude picture and the rate of change of the altitude picture change dramatically with changes of several variables. If you can get people to see these changes, then you are more likely to get them to approach changing the variables in a more conservative way. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I meant what was the exit supposed to be like if it was pulled off successfully? Sounds like you go out back to the relative wind and then turn into the relative wind by barrel roll. Is that what was supposed to happen? I'd like to learn why you were doing this exit? Did you learn it in your certification course? Did other TMs also do it or was it something you decided to try? Was this jump the first time you tried the exit or had you done it successfully before? What is your DZ's policy on this type of exit now? Thanks. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Can you give me some clarification on the Skyvan exits described in these two posts? One exit appears to be 'TM faces aft. TM hangs onto the floater bar then swings out towards the tail and releases the bar. Once in freefall the TM turns into the relative wind - by barrel roll (I presume).' One exit appears to be 'TM faces aft. TM hangs onto the floater bar then swings out towards the tail, releases the bar and tucks to initiate a backloop. After the BL, the TM turns into the relative wind.' Are these descriptions accurate? TIA As to the contact with the plane jump - Do I understand this correctly? A TM gets knocked in the head by the passenger's head hard enough to cause a bloody nose (almost knocking him out) as he falls away with a tandem passenger. The head-to-head contact was precipitated by either the rig catching the floor of the Skyvan or the TM head hitting the Skyvan floor during the exit. Please clarify this for me. It is not clear if these were two different jumps or the same one with different descriptions. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

First Person Down [FPD] and land into the wind are a sub-rules to land safely. It would be nice if on each and every jump everyone landed in the same direction. I was on a jump recently were the DZ has a 'to the west ONLY' or 'to the east ONLY' landing direction. Our spot, for a 16-way, was long to the west and landing was to the west. The wind was ~15 from the SW. So I was doing this right hand flat turn into the wind ~100->50 ft. I wanted to turn to the west, but there was another jumper there in the airspace that I needed to get a proper landing direction. The other jumper was also doing a right hand low flat turn. That jumper turned into the wind (SW) - not all the way to the west. That jumper was in the place that I wanted to turn into. Our descent rates were about the same. I opted NOT to turn all the way to the west. I did not want to do that canopy collision thing right off the deck (or at any altitude for that matter) and I did not want to land in a turn. I was at the same altitude as the other jumper and was able to get a heading more towards the west than into the wind, but I definitely stopped turning so that I could land without being in a turn. I also did a tiny correction to get out of the canopy burble and get the wind directly - not downwind of the other jumper. I flared and landed safely, albeit not to the west.[*] After I landed I had several people give me the talk about landing to the west or to the east only. My story and I'm sticking to it, is that I'd rather break some rule than break my bones. The people that gave me the lecture did not see the preceding airspace conflict. All they saw was that I did not land to the west. Some of these people knew I knew the rule and really asked why I landed more into the wind. Once they understood the sequence of events, they didn't have a problem with what I did. Turns out that the other jumper did not know about the 'to the west' rule and that is why he did not turn all the way into the western heading. On this recent jump, I broke the landing direction rule to avoid a canopy collision. Just over a year ago, I broke another landing rule of 'do not land closer than 50 ft from the runway' to avoid another collision. These situations mean that in some scenarios, landing 'rules' might precipitate a collision - if followed absolutely and unquestionably. Bottom line is: Land Safely. [*] I was staying on the outside of the jumper's turn initially because I thought he was going to turn to the west. This would have made my landing out of his downwind burble and to the west. Once I realized he was turning into the wind, and only that far, I did more of a westerly turn to get just ahead (aka west of or inside of his turn) of the downwind burble from his canopy at landing. [Ask me to draw you a picture if this is not clear.] . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Probably the same as today: CD Who evaluates the CDs?? dunno - maybe a peer review or the future Train the Trainer position. Who evaluates the Train the Trainer? TBD. Strange thing is that most evaluators never do any training eval jumps. They start off evaluating rating candidates and then get OJT from a CD. Results are mixed. This past week I got a complaint about some evaluators and a cert course. I won't be able to see the video from these dives until next week, so I do not know how valid the complaint is. THe pilot courses for Train the Trainer had sessions were candidates evaluate a ground presentation by another candidate. Candidates usually all observed the same omissions, but recorded them in different areas. So we need to set up more guidelines on this. [Mark Baur, DJan Stewart and I (among others) all went to the one in FL last year.] I'm off to Eloy for the weekend, so no replies til next week. Keep the comments coming. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

I do not have exact numbers, but my feeling is that this is a problem with anywhere from 5 to 20 % of rating holders. This is certainly a subjective guess, but it is based upon the number of incidents that make it to the BOD for discussion, number of comments I get from members and some inference made from comments (both in person and postings) of students and new jumpers. It is across the country, not localized to one area. Some comments are all too obvious that one person has a grudge against another. Other comments are backed up with video. Most of the real complaints come from people that end up labeled 'whistle blowers'. There should not be such a negative perception upon people trying to make training safer. You can be pessimistic. I am doing background information gathering, asking members to contribute their ideas or suggestions and digesting it into a discussion on whether a check ride jump or continuing education or whatever can help solve the problem of either out-of-date or unskilled JMs (JMs = any coach or instructor). There has always been the long standing problem of entraining instructors with the improvements that happen over time. In the past, the only way to fix this is to require 'yet another cert course'. It would be good to see some mechanism in place that keeps people current as they continue to train jumpers. The existing renewal requirements do not do this. How many other BOD members or USPA staff ask you what you think about such-n-such idea?? The usual complaint is that USPA makes up a program, almost in a vacuum, and declares one day 'Here - do this now.' Re 'almost no problem to solve': One can argue that fatalities are so low percentage-wise per number of jumps made that we should have no concern about them. This instructor problem is large enough to have several members to bring it to the attention of the BOD. Re: 'Drug Testing' At last summer's BOD mtg (or the one before that) USPA took the stance that drug testing should be up to the DZO. I do not see that position changing. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

USPA cannot force jumpers or DZOs to do jumps according to the BSRs. USPA can and does regulate who is a USPA member and who has USPA ratings. The disciplinary actions stated the reason for the action was because the jumper was not rated. This is a violation of the BSRs and for the GM DZOs also a violation of the GM Pledge. The actions made no statement, one way or the other, that said the use of an un-rated jumper contributed to the fatality. As stated above, USPA can only regulate membership and ratings. These were rescinded for specified amounts of time. To clarify how a check ride system would curtail the use of un-rated jumpers acting as JMs: If all staff members had to do a check ride every few years, then up jumpers may notice that so-n-so never had to do a check ride. They may inquire 'Why is that? Don't you have a rating?' In most cases, the DZO knows so-n-so doesn't have a rating but the rest of the jumpers assume that the person has a rating because they are working with students. A DZO may be less likely to use un-rated jumpers. Most issues are dealt with at the local level. For the example of a questionable Instructor, an RD would most likely review video(s) that document a skill deficiency. If a deficiency was found, then the jumper might be asked to obtain additional training from the appropriately rated person (aka DE or CD). Other times the jumper might be 'let go' by one DZ. Then the jumper can go jumpmaster some place else. The skill deficiency does not get corrected. This might happen when the DZ's S&TA is notified of a deficiency and only cares about correcting the DZ's problem, and not the deficiency of the instructor. In more severe cases, an RD can proceed with formal disciplinary actions and can even suspend a rating on the spot for up to 60 days. This procedure is detailed in the Gov. Man. Recently, a Tandem Examiner just happened to observe a TM with deficient skills. The Examiner said the TM could not do tandems until the TM took some additional training from the examiner, otherwise the Examiner would report the TM to the mfg. The TM complied with this request because he did not want to face the rating revocation from the mfg. There was video evidence in this case too. This is an example of how a check ride jump can maintain the quality of instruction. This also illustrates that jumpers can do everything right at a rating course, get their rating and then pick up or fall into bad techniques that jeopardize the safety of students. This mechanism is strongly dependent upon 'whistle blowers' and appropriate follow-up actions. These conditions are not always present were a skill deficient Instructor is. ............. Keep the comments coming. I am putting together a report that lists the Pros and Cons of a Check Ride Jump and possible alternatives. I do like a continuing education type program. And maybe something like a Safety Day for Instructors. And maybe even the PIA Symposium can help augment some Instructor seminars for continuing education as they do for riggers. As to how close to reality is a check ride jump: I do not see it happening at the next BOD mtg. I do see some discussion about it and evaluation of concerns brought to the BOD by members and ways that USPA can ensure quality instructors after they obtain their initial rating. One other advantage of a Check Ride jump or CE program would manifest itself when USPA changes up ratings. (Historically, USPA changes ratings every 5 to 10 years.) When the BIC and Coach were introduced, a lot of Is that had been teaching ICCs and JCCS for 20+ years had to attend a bunch more courses and pay more money. A system that keeps everyone up to date, would ameliorate the expected gripes about having to take yet another course to continue doing what they know how to do. Grand-fathering issues would disappear because everyone would be up to speed with the same skill level and teaching techniques. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Check Ride Jump would also include the ground training. I should have explicitly stated that. This would not allow an evaluator to do the job of evaluating, unless the evaluator was an observer of the dive. Then this gets back to the same problem with video submissions. You may end up with perfect student scenarios. RDs are BOD members. If your RD does not respond to the level you think they should, then you can elevate the problem by contacting the USPA President in accordance to the Governance Manual Sec. 1-6.4.D.3 There is a time limit that may apply to your particular case. Please refer to Gov. Man Sec. 1-6.6.C.1 for the specifics. This comment addresses several of the problem areas. 1 - Small DZs do not always have enough student volume to provide for jumps for all of their staff. Say the re-currency # jumps was raised to 50 per year. This would prevent small DZs from maintaining their staff. 2 - Instructors that skimp etc are an issue, at times, at larger DZS. One potential way to ensure that these instructors are doing what they are supposed to be doing is to require a check ride every so often. 3. - 'DZOs don't care about the quality of instruction.' True and False. One way to elevate the importance of quality instruction is to require a check ride every so often. DZOs carry significant clout as a group, compared to the rest of regular jumpers. This is because they are vocal in their concerns. Most regular jumpers never write to the BOD about their concerns. A savvy DZO would implement annual check rides right now - before USPA does anything about it - to emphasize how much better their instructors are. It would be a fantastic selling point, besides all the claims of thousands of jumps and world records held by staff members. A DZO would then be able to claim that 'Our instructors are tested annually on their teaching abilities and air skills to verify that our instructors are the best of breed.' Initially, they could claim that 'They are the ONLY DZ in the US that does this.' The S&TA meeting thing is almost unique to your region. Sherry Butcher goes out of her way to keep the S&TAs up to speed. Other regions do not have this mechanism in place. It can be put in place by the RD. Elect one that will do that for your region. Many of the larger DZs have regular meetings (weekly) to disseminate this info. Smaller DZs do the same thing, but on a more informal basis. This is a deficiency with the current system. If there was a check ride jump required, every so often, for all rating holders, then the 'get back at them' argument is not valid. Smog checks in CA are not random. Everyone has to get on every two years. Then again it could be implemented now on a voluntary basis to demonstrate to the whuffo community just how good your instructors are. The problem arises when an Instructor goes to a larger DZ. The new DZ staff 'cannot believe that this jumper ever got a rating'. The respondents to the thread have pushed this into AFF mostly. The problem is across disciplines. Ground eval is also part of the 'check ride jump'. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Some additional comments: I have talked about this with many people before this post. We even talked about it at the last BOD meeting. DJan Stewart and I are on a task force committee to look into the implications of a ' check ride jump'. Pencil Whipping: This issue has been raised before too. The thought is that an outsider must do the check ride jumps or some external impartial review would need to take place. Some suggested that allowing another I (aka peer) to do the check ride would make it palatable to all. Yet at the same time this would open up the 'pencil whipping' route. So, I think that if a check ride jump renewal requirement comes to fruition that it would most certainly have to be done by someone that does not always jump with the rating holder. Problem Scope: The problem of 'rating holders not performing up to their duties' applies across all disciplines and ratings. There are reports from all areas of the US that suggest that current rating holders are not always cracked up to be what their paperwork claims. This can further be broken down into a few sub-categories: 1. long-time rating holders that do not advance with modern methods 2. new rating holders that work at their small DZ, but are not up to the standards of a larger DZ or performance required at a certification course. 3. new rating holders that somehow pass a certification course, but in real student jumps do not perform to the level that they demonstrated in a certification course A related problem to this is the use of un-rated jumpers to perform JM duties. When a current and appropriately rated Instructor knowingly allows an un-rated jumper to perform the duties of a Coach or Instructor, then the rated I is not performing up to their duties. There were two disciplinary actions on this at the last BOD meeting. Both were the result of fatalities. Currency Requirement: 'we only require 15 AFF jumps in the previous 12 months' I've heard this issue brought up many times. The strange phenomena is that it is ONLY brought up for AFF, not tandem, S/L, IAD or Coaches. Yet all those other ratings also have an annual 15 jump minimum requirement. A bit of background on why this renewal requirement is so low: This requirement is low to accommodate the small DZS, especially the small DZS in northern states. Small DZs are the norm in the US. Large DZs are the anomaly. Small DZs, especially in the northern states, have very few staff. There are also very few jumpers that continue through the student progression. In order, for the staff to maintain their ratings, a what seems disproportionately low number of annual jumps to someone from a large DZ, has been stated for currency. I agree that the annual number of jumps ought to be higher. At the same time I can see that this would pose a burden on some of the smaller DZS. One way to ensure that these rating holders with only 15-20 student jumps per year were qualified is to add in a 'check-ride jump'. There are also highly experienced jumpers, with a rating, that jump at large DZS and only do the minimum to keep their rating current. These jumpers most often have the air skills, but sometimes they lack in the instructional techniques for student jumpers. Video Submissions: Many people have suggested this. The big drawback is that rating holders would submit their 'best' student jumps. If it was required to submit 'rollovers' or 'bad-exits' etc, then the rating holders with few jumps or excellent teaching skills or with students that opted not for video would be disadvantaged because these extreme scenarios may not occur within the time period of the renewal or there may not have been video on the jump. The key to making a 'check-ride jump' work is that it: 1. identifies the weak instructors and either corrects their instruction or removes them from the instructional pool 2. works for small and large DZS 3. is inexpensive and available . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

General informational question: Renewal requirements: Check Ride jump: a jump done with an evaluator of your rating discipline acting as a student. What are your thoughts on adding a renewal requirement of a 'check ride jump'? Please mention if your thoughts are discipline specific. What would be an appropriate frequency of this? e.g. 1 year, 2 years, 3 years etc Would the frequency depend upon the rating? e.g. Coach every 3 years // S/L, IAD, tandem & AFF every 2 years etc?? Does any other country have a 'check ride jump' as part of the renewal process?? Background Info: Some of the most experienced and current instructors are asking USPA to add some sort of 'check-ride jump' to the renewal requirements of ratings. They have said they would be the first in line to do such jumps. There are some logistical concerns, especially at smaller DZs, where evaluators may not be readily available. There are some concerns about what needs to be done if a jumper failed a check ride jump. The motivation behind this is NOT a money-maker motive from USPA. The motive comes from current and active Instructors that see other instructors that are not performing up to the expectations of their rating. This is motivated by a safety concern. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Quade - It is so obvious that you have never been discriminated against. These Veterans were denied solely because of their calendar age. It had nothing to do with their physical fitness or mental ability to handle a jump today. One of the insidious aspects of discrimination, whether it's racism, ageism, physically-challenged-ism or sexism, is that the group that denies access is the group that you want to get to accept you. Even though you may have righteous indignation towards the power group, you want to get them to accept you and recognize you for your merits and abilities. So the very last thing you want to do is 'get mad' at them. At the same time, you know that the power group perceives the discriminated group as 'less than' for reasons that make no sense and have no validity. There were supposed to be 8 jumpers practicing at Elsinore in the next week for this re-jump into Normandy. One of those jumpers was Tom Morrison. He jumped into Normandy when he was 18 years old. He survived the battles of WWII. He lived 60 more years. He is physically fit to do these jumps - even on T-10s. He is mentally aware of the risks involved. He is also an active skydiver. Yet he was denied based solely and only on his calendar age. That is WRONG. If some of the Veterans could not pass try-outs of physical ability and mental reaction, I can see denying participation. But this is not what happened. They were denied based solely on calendar age, not jump experience, not physical abilities and not mental where-with-all. The bottom line is that these Veterans jumped on D-Day some 60 years ago, fought battles to preserve democracy in Europe, lived another 60 years and have the right to do what they want to do with their life today. If they want to do another paratrooper jump and are physically and mentally qualified to do this, then they have a right to do it. They earned it. It is extremely ironic that a former Commander-in-Chief will be doing his next jump on his 80th birthday and the world is celebrating this event. There is one thing that the current Command-in-Chief can do right in his last term as President. That would be to allow WWII Veterans to participate in the re-jump. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Zip file of Interview Many, Many thanks to Craig Poxon!!!! . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Talk Sport Just finished the interview [earlier than originally planned] Air time will be 6 AM Tuesday May 4 British time also there may be another plug on KABC radio [S. CA area] Tuesday night. - don't know the time I specifically mentioned bpa.org.uk uspa.org By talking really fast - I explained tandem, AFF, SL and IAD to whuffoes. Hope everyone likes the interview. Let me know if there is something else I can add. Blue Ones. . ps - They called me again because they liked my interview from a few years ago. You can listen to that one from a link on MakeItHappen.com . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Your license is probably in the mail to you. In the meantime it is A-044961 I do not have my mag either. I usually get between the 5th and 7th of each month. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Sexual stereotypes are ingrained into us from birth. The first question asked is 'Is it a boy or girl?' There are times when a social belief, that we have grown up with, is so familiar and so comfortable that we cannot see it for what it is. Maybe it is because we never question the values or implications. Kevin's post expresses the deeply ingrained sexual stereotyping of women and the 'value' for their looks or breasts or sex appeal etc. I've read many of his posts. This post was not done with any malice or deliberate intention to hurt anyone. The thought that a 'tasteful depiction of breasts' would help relieve depression is outrageous. Would a 'tasteful depiction of healthy arms and legs' relieve depression for someone that has just lost a limb? People that go thru these life-altering changes are mad as hell about what has happened to them. Wouldn't you be? They need to accept their new bodies as they are, not what society expects to see. Prosthetics may be used in public, but when you get into the shower each morning you have to come to terms with your body. Women are more than a pair of breasts. . I forgot to add that a tasteful depiction of mastectomy scars or missing limbs would be positive imagery. Years ago I saw a web site that showed the physical devastation of breast cancer. Women told their stories about the time and effort it took to accept them for what and who they were. It was a very powerful and moving site. Unfortunately, I cannot find the web site now. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Really?! It is good to see you change your statements. Seems as though you actually realize now that "Part of the reason it is 'so' hard to raise funds is because part of the 'donations' go to pay for the jumps of the participants." from my original post to this thread has some truth in it. It also appears that you are acting as a third party supplier for this promotional item. IOW, JFTC is not paying for the cost the calendar and as such it would not appear as an expense item on their 990. Please correct me, if this is not the arrangement. Perhaps the reason people do not respect what you say is because you continually discount or trivialize other people's comments in a rather flippant way, instead of addressing their concern or comment directly. See above. Yes I did think that you did not consider how your description of the calendar and the erotica photo you posted would be considered by women athletes and breast cancer survivors. You repeatedly said the calendar would have erotic aspects to it. I even referred to the calendar as an erotica calendar. You made no attempt to clarify any misconceptions that anyone might have had. Since you have so much work done already, what are the projected numbers for the calendar? What is the projected cost? What will you sell it for? Here's how those numbers can be used to follow the money trail. [These are example numbers that are approximately similar (mark up - wise) to promotional items sold in 2002.] Cost = $5 Sale price = $10 Percentage of Donor's Money that gets to the Charity: 1999 JFTC 990: 0.5 x 0.6 = .3 => 30 cents of every dollar 2002 JFTC 990: 0.5 x 0.7 = .39 => 35 cents of every dollar The .5 number is based on what the mark up was for similar promotional items at the 2002 JFTC. The .6 and .7 numbers come from the JFTC IRS 990 forms, available at GuideStar, and are a simple ratio of amount donated to the charity divided by total revenue. BTW. those ratios for JFTC are generally considered to be very good. The percentage of Donor's money from the sale of promotional items that makes it to the charity is very low. This is because of the third-party that is in the money trail. If a promotional item had a much larger markup, then the percentage of Donor's money that makes it to the charity could be 50% or more. [50% is generally considered the crossover point in evaluating charities. There are other factors to consider too.] Back to the easy number example- a $5 product sold for $20 would yield: percentage of donor's money to charity = .75 x .7 = .525 or 52 and a half cents of every dollar That would be too late. The judgement is based upon statements you made and photos you posted. Perhaps, you might want a make a new sticky thread with photos that are representative of what you are doing and a clarification of the money trail. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Sexual stereotypes are ingrained into us from birth. The first question asked is 'Is it a boy or girl?' There are times when a social belief, that we have grown up with, is so familiar and so comfortable that we cannot see it for what it is. Maybe it is because we never question the values or implications. Kevin's post expresses the deeply ingrained sexual stereotyping of women and the 'value' for their looks or breasts or sex appeal etc. I've read many of his posts. This post was not done with any malice or deliberate intention to hurt anyone. The thought that a 'tasteful depiction of breasts' would help relieve depression is outrageous. Would a 'tasteful depiction of healthy arms and legs' relieve depression for someone that has just lost a limb? People that go thru these life-altering changes are mad as hell about what has happened to them. Wouldn't you be? They need to accept their new bodies as they are, not what society expects to see. Prosthetics may be used in public, but when you get into the shower each morning you have to come to terms with your body. Women are more than a pair of breasts. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

It's not. The discussion isn't about mocking someone's opinion. I made that remark because it's very easy to sit and criticize, but not so easy to get out there and do something. I don't mock. If I have a personal issue, mostly I take it to pm's, and try to work it out that way. I meant my post in all sincerity, Angela. What the girls and I plan on doing with this calendar may, to some, not be appropriate. It's totally all right with me that someone have a different idea and a different opinion. I honestly don't mind that at all. ... You (and others) have a different opinion about what is moral and dignified. I don't share that with you, but that's all right, isn't it? Michelle I think that you and several others do not fully understand the objection to using erotic images or images that may even be considered pornographic by people to sell a woman's sporting event and breast cancer. Let's consider the erotic type images. These images are indeed art and add to our lives in terms of sensuality. There is no objection (by me anyway) about these images in and of themselves. The objection is when these images are used to promote women athletes breaking existing World Records and breast cancer fund raising. Women have long searched for role models and have come up short. Today, a young girl can see Mia Hamm action shots in soccer. Not so long ago, girls were NOT allowed to play in Little League. Not so long ago, women were NOT allowed in the US military academies. [I suppose it's almost incredulous to younger people that women were denied access to some universities until 1976.] Today, there are women on the USAFA parachute team. In the past 20 years alone, there have been tremendous progress made in opening doors to athletics to women. Consider what women that have trained, practiced and competed for years might think about your pitch to sell her as erotica with a lot of cleavage. They worked long and hard to be the best at their sport. Someone comes along and wants to promote women 'for a good cause' with erotica that values her as a sexual object. Consider a woman that may have had a double mastectomy when you make a pitch to sell her as erotica with a lot of cleavage. She is beautiful with those scars, but can only accept that after a long time of introspection, self-confidence building and body-image building. Women have other assets such as education, intellect, athleticism, family, careers etc that are just as important and worthy. Someone comes along and wants to promote women 'for a good cause' with erotica that values her as a sexual object. The pinkwashing of America's corporations has come under criticism too. There are examples of playing into female stereotypes, cooking, cleaning, cosmetics, but I have never seen anything so insensitive to women athletes and breast cancer survivors as your 'erotica' calendar in the name of a 'good cause'. In the 1940s, one of every 20 women was stricken by breast cancer over a lifetime. Today, that rate has climbed to one in eight, over her life span. Chemicals in our environment are high on the suspect list for the cause of cancers. Many cosmetics, perfumes and deodorants have KNOWN carcinogens in them. Think Before You Pink Breast Cancer Action Not Too Pretty . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Janet Reno is a MAN! I resemble that remark. Oh - wait - I mean I resemble Janet Reno or Janet Reno resembles me. Ahh - We look like each other. I remember when I saw Janet Reno on TV for the first time. I said 'Wow - that's someone that looks like me as the Attorney General of the United States of America!' She was a great visual mentor. She still is. I won't claim to know her personal resume and all the political ramifications. I do know that the image of someone that looked like me, holding a high office was a powerful positive image. After all, I'm just a mere woman that only considers 'looks' to be important. But alas, Janet Reno wears lipstick. That is high maintenance to me. She is too fru-fru. Maybe that's a Washington DC influence? Our football teams. . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Futher information is at this url . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention do not call grown women 'girls'. Do not take this personally, I tell everyone this. Same with 'chick'. . . Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker