riggerpaul

No, that's not at all what I am saying. I am saying that we've come this far without the Solo Challenge, for example. We are not vanishing by any means. Our sport is small because it is not suitable for most people. Making it bigger for the sake of being bigger is not the best thing for anyone involved. Simply snagging more of the tandems to do an AFF class and get into the sport is not going to be good for us, or for them. Before we start pulling in more people for the real student process, we have a responsibility to have a system in place to support them. If we don't have that, we should just accept that our sport is small and should stay relatively small. In the USA we seem to have developed and attitude that you are a failure if you are not growing all the time. If businesses aren't growing, they are failures. Growth seems to be everything. I don't think this attitude maps well onto our sport.

There is nothing you can do about people going on with their lives. I have a whole life. I have a family, I have a home. I am still at the dz most weekends. I don't have a lot of money, and I don't jump much at all. But I am still there because I have committed myself to skydiving. It defines me. If there aren't enough people who make this commitment, then it is irresponsible to fill the queue with people who cannot manage on their own. If it is true that we can do nothing about people going on with their lives, maybe we should stop being so focused on bringing in the new people. They cannot teach themselves. If what you say is really true, and it may well be, then we should accept that the responsible thing is to let our sport go through its cycles of expansions and contractions. If it means a few dropzones close, and we jump Cessnas again for a while, I can handle that. I'd rather make a couple of nice Cessna jumps than see people getting hurt or killed. I know far too many dead people already.

The big problem is not retention of a few of the tandem students. Our big problem is that we lose the person who leaves after 2 or 3 or 4 years. Simply front loading the queue will not fix the problem. If we keep losing the person of moderate experience, we will still never get a sustainable group of long timers who will help keep things from imploding. Don't focus on the new jumper. Focus on the guy who exits just when he has learned enough to be helpful. Somebody said it was a training issue. He is not wrong. But the most important part of our training does not come from the first jump class. The most important part of our training comes from being around the dz and learning through the process of being there, watching the more experienced jumpers and being mentored by them. Our biggest problem is that we continue to lose the people who should be taking over the long term training of the new jumpers. If we cannot stop losing them, then swelling the membership rolls will result in more injury and death, because there won't be enough mentors for the people who need them. After we figure out how to keep the mentors, we can worry about keeping more new jumpers. Keeping new jumpers without having the support for them in place is irresponsible, and will cause us harm in the long run.

If we end up getting more jumpers who are accidents waiting to happen, then we were not successful in promoting safe skydiving. Yes, maybe that is a training issue. Somebody said that, and to some extent it is true. But skydiving used to be hard to learn. People who were not well suited would weed themselves out in the natural progression of things. Now it is too easy to get marginally involved, and I think that the overall quality of the skydiver has been hurt. People can't pack, they get a paid packer. People can't take care of their gear, they find me looking over their shoulder correcting things before they end up as accidents. I don't see many new people coming up to fill these rolls. Sooner or later, there will be nobody looking over their shoulders. What happens then? There is a small pool of people who are lifetime skydivers. Someday, maybe already, we will have a sport where the vast majority will be a group who is in it for a few years and leaves. The ones who stay for the long haul can only take care of so many casual jumpers. If you want to improve the sport for the long haul, stay in it and become one of the old timers. We have plenty enough jumpers to get that done if more of who we have stayed. Responsible growth must be a long term thing, and it must be managed if we don't want it to cause trouble. Simply snagging a few more tandems to say a few years is not the answer. I would much rather find out why people only stay a short time. Those people who leave after a few years are the ones whose retention will result in responsible growth.

Actually, the FAA already guarantees our place at federally funded airports. Yes, USPA calls on the FAA to enforce their own rules. But that has nothing to do with the number of members. We had access when there were fewer members. More members didn't make more access. There are no guarantees of anything. We need our membership to keep our voice heard. I think you far overestimate our influence of our voices. I do not believe that the levels of USPA membership much impress the FAA. We've got what 30,000 members? You think 35,000 will make much of a difference? The GA numbers far exceed ours. They still have their problems. We ride on their coat tails. As long as the FAA legally recognizes us, as in making rules for us, they are legally bound to guarantee access. Sure, the USPA helps by pressing issues, but they do that fine at our present membership levels. As long as the FAA is in the business of guaranteeing access to federally funded facilities, we'll get what little we need. But no matter how big we get, we'll never get a DZ at any major facility. If they recognize us at all, they cannot exclude us. We won't make a bit of difference when a city wants to put up a control tower. That's a different question, and we lose. We will no longer be compatible with the use of that airport. Our increased numbers won't change that one iota. Our increased numbers are not going to make a bit of difference if they decide to drop the equal access policies. So I don't believe your argument holds any water at all.

Some believe that more jumpers mean more money coming through and into the sport. More money means more stuff, bigger (better?) DZs, planes, gear, etc. Also means more commercialization in the general public and more outside money coming into the sport. It also means that a champion 4-way flier would be a sports star and make the news (instead of for an outstanding warrant). Then there might be some "real" money involved in competition results, etc. Its not necessarily a good thing, there are some advantages and some disadvantages to that dream of some becoming a reality. Although I would love to see more money in competitions, I don't want to see the baggage that comes with a large commercialized popular past time (think lawyers). I realize that you aren't really saying bigger is better; that you are expressing the ideas some have about why more jumperes is better. But, you wrote the list, so my response is "attached" to your post. More tandems is what funds our sport. Not more up-jumpers. The DZs have better airplanes because of tandems. The up-jumpers will never pay those costs. We want lower jump ticket prices. Even with more jumpers, there won't be enough money coming from up-jumpers to make that happen. If it weren't for tandems, we would still be jumping out of Cessnas at little dropzones. The big profit margin of tandems is what funds most of what's been mentioned. Up-jumpers are not a big profit margin. So, let's stop fooling ourselves about that. Okay, I'll grant you that getting big ticket sponsors would make competitions have bigger purses. But most of us are not competitors. Most of us will never see any benefit from RedBull or GoFast or whatever. I am happy for the competitors that will see that money, but it will not include most of us. The competitions don't make bigger better dropzones. Bigger better dropzones make better competitions, and bigger better dropzones are funded by tandems. Go ask your DZO. Where does the money come from? He will tell you it comes from tandems. More skydivers doesn't really create more tandems. Up-jumpers don't bring in that many tandems. If they did, we'd see more encouragement from DZOs. The small inducements to bring in tandem customers are because the up-jumpers don't make DZOs any money in the first place. If the Solo Challenge would mean more money for the DZOs, why aren't more of them jumping on that bandwagon. My original objection was that only a relatively few dropzones are getting the benefit of the "TC" designation, while there are many many more who are falsely labeled as not having a training program. If the Solo Challengs was so good, why aren't more dropzones joining?

Actually, the FAA already guarantees our place at federally funded airports. Yes, USPA calls on the FAA to enforce their own rules. But that has nothing to do with the number of members. We had access when there were fewer members. More members didn't make more access.

Why do so many people think that more skydivers is a good thing? Look at Chuck's post. It isn't in the goals of USPA to make more skydivers. So, please, tell me why more skydivers is better. What's the benefit?

Sure, it is a training issue. We don't always insist that the new jumpers are trained as well as they should be. If we really insisted, many of these jumpers would not stick around. The whole thing about expanding the skydiving membership presupposes that all these people should be skydving in the first place. It presupposes that we are somehow failing to keep the people who would make good skydivers. I think that this supposition is invalid. I think that the people who don't continue don't want to continue. The people who want to continue, do continue. It has always been that way. When you first started, were you on the fence? I wasn't. I knew I wanted to do it, and I knew I would have to work hard at it. If a little nudge from USPA makes them stay, are these really the people we need or want? Selling it to them harder doesn't mean they are any better suited to it, though you might convince them to continue a bit longer. Maybe they continue until they get hurt. That's a great way to help the sport. I don't want USPA to be the snake-oil salesman for the 21st century. I don't want USPA to sell skydiving to people who don't need or want it. So what if the USPA membership rolls shrink some? As I said, it is the one-time tandems that are paying for the big aircraft and the fancy dropzones, not the up-jumpers. If USPA is having a hard time making ends meet, there are other ways to fix things besides swelling the membership rolls. I suggested to HQ that they could consider bi-annual renewals to lighten the load on the membership staff, for instance. Then we might not need more staff that have to be supported by more jumpers. So, you tell me. What benefit do we realize by getting more skydivers?

If your rig was packed on 22 July 2008, it is illegal to jump it today. But, starting tomorrow, it will be legal again, and will remain legal through 18 January 2009.

I am not at all convinced that we need more skydivers. Most of the people who make their one and only tandem should do that - make a tandem. Most of them are not well suited to become regular skydivers. The ones who really want to become skydivers will. A thank you note isn't going to make or break the skydiving experience for these people. I take a look at the packing floor and I am distressed at how many of the current jumpers really have no clue. I catch rigging errors all the time that would have turned into accidents. The people for whom I do this are grateful, sure, but they didn't care enough to know enough about their gear to keep themselves safe. How is that going to be good for the sport in the long run? Then I read the posts here about waiting for the AAD when shit happens, or freeflying gear that is not suited to the task. These are just 2 of the things I could mention. There are many more. There are already too many accidents waiting to happen. I don't see that having a bunch more is going to be good for the sport. Still, I would have less of a problem with the TC thing if it didn't imply that those without a TC aren't suitable places to get training. That's been my biggest complaint since this whole program started. As far as supporting the sport and making the big planes available. Tandem skydiving does that just fine right now. Having a few more poorly suited up-jumpers isn't going to change that.

You might want to use a round in that belly-wart. You can't chop the reserve on your regular rig.

Think CF (Canopy Formation).

At the risk of repeating myself, I spoke to my RD shortly after I saw the October magazine. He didn't share my concern. You say you don't think the question about data-mining is being asked. I am asking it here. I am doing it here because my efforts to do it though what you might call normal channels have been unsuccessful. I sent email to HQ and got no response. When HQ saw my posts, they invited me to contact them again. I did, and again got no response. Finally, I sent a PM and got a response. They told me that my email had gone into a SPAM folder. That's not the first time I've heard that response. By the way, I am a USPA Coach, and they have my email address on record. I receive the USPA Professional when it comes out. (Ed Scott - I don't mean this last paragraph to be a continuing complaint. I intend only to tell what has happened so far. I know you are now trying to fix whatever is broken, and I appreciate your efforts on my behalf.)

The way I see it, the building is on fire. Now is not the time to quietly find the manager and say "I think your building is on fire". Now is the time to raise alarms. This thing has gotten way too far already. It has been poorly presented by HQ, and when we see what is really happening, there are some big objections. USPA is supposed to be an organization that serves the needs of the membership. Instead, we have an organization that serves the needs of the organization, whether or not that serves the needs of the membership. That's the tail wagging the dog.

I agree, as easy as it is to get a forum up and running it shouldn't be a problem. I will add though that I don't have a problem doing it right here. My thoughts are just a little bit different, but not terribly much so. If USPA had a membership forum where USPA members could express themselves, that would be better than doing it on dropzone.com. I would prefer that USPA business be discussed among the USPA members. It really doesn't concern anybody else. I would prefer that the directors and HQ should be in close contact with the membership through the forum and operate through consensus, not by secret action. I would prefer to get the sense that my organization is actively trying to understand me and to represent me. Having a special place where we could go to talk amongst ourselves would help me feel that way. But, in the absence of such a place, dropzone.com will suffice. Still, the need to use another place says that we feel our organization is not adequately addressing our needs. It says we have no home of our own. And that is a shameful thing to have to say.

I tried bringing my concerns to HQ with no response. I don't know why that was. In fairness, I'll tell you that HQ (Ed) and I are trying to figure out where my emails go when they get there. So, there. I tried to talk to HQ and it failed. Thanks, Jan, for bringing it back to my attention. I don't want this to be a private matter. I want very little of USPA's actions to be private matters. I want stuff like this to be totally transparent. Because if I'd heard about this before it became fact, I'd have screamed then. USPA is supposed to be US, not THEM against US. Put it all out in the open as soon as possible. Turn it around. Why doesn't USPA have a place of its own where we can discuss these things before they become firestorms? Why didn't USPA solicit comment from the membership before enacting this? Even the FAA has to give the public a chance to comment before they railroad us. Why shouldn't we expect the same from USPA? USPA is supposed to be working on our behalf. We shouldn't be begging to be included.

I can think of better ways to figure out who welcomes students than requiring the dz to send you their customer information. Here's a few: 1) ASK who welcomes students. DZs that aren't interested can tell you. 2) ASK how many first jump classes the dz holds per year. DZs that hold classes might be interested in students. 3) Check your own records to see where the A licenses are coming from. Don't have that info? ASK for it on the application. With this approach, you can even choose to give some recognition to the DZs that are getting the job done. (Better to catch flies with honey...) You don't have to make a program that selects for DZs that are willing to give you their customer records. You don't have to make a note in the magazine that misrepresents the rest of us as not being as interested in the students.

Just to be clear, I mentioned the UPT rig because it is one that closely resembles the operation of your normal rig. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought the OP was interested in getting the experience of a "normal" cutaway. It seemed to me that he wanted to put the extra reserve on the extra harness, leaving the operation of his original system intact. Sure, I have seen other tersh rigs, like the one with the second main hiding the "normal" main, but these rigs don't operate much like your normal rig, so I didn't mention them.

I think I see a misunderstanding here. Your emergency/reserve parachute must be an approved parachute in an approved harness/container. The extra harness could be used for the parachute you intend to chop, but it cannot be your emergency/reserve parachute because the harness is no longer approved. If you want to do an intentional cutaway on your real rig so you know how it feels, you won't get this from a main on an extra harness. UPT has a rig that is modified for this sort of use. You deploy a main from a normal main container, you chop it and go to a parachute that is in the reserve container. This is all "like real". But that second parachute can also be chopped if necessary, and you can deploy a chest-mounted approved parachute from an approved chest-mounted container. Nonetheless, your DZ always has the right to refuse for just about any reason they like.

Then the next step (which maybe should have been the first step) is to discuss the matter with your rigger. I cannot see your rig, but he can. Maybe he will notice something that will help.

First off, a 1994 Javelin, unless modified, is not generally considered a great rig for freefly. The main and reserve cover flaps are likely to open, and the main bridle protection is not great. I have heard that some people have modified Javelins of this era that are acceptable for freefly. My 1994 Javelin J4 has a tendency for the riser covers to come open if the top of the reserve freebag is stuffed too full. The "ears" of the reserve freebag should be quite soft. Can you easily depress the top of the reserve near the riser covers? (The area I am trying to describe is at the top of the reserve container, to the left or right of the top flap.) If these ears are hard, they could be at least part of your problem.

Please fill us in a little more. Which flaps open? What sort of jumping are you doing? Belly to earth? Freefly? When do the flaps open?

At least one major company got rid of the velcro. The Wings rig, right? Other companies just don't seem to have bothered when the old way is simple and usually works, even if velcroless has advantages. True, the Wings does not use velcro on the toggle itself. But they didn't quite get rig of all the velcro. The keepers for spare brake line are still velcro. The hook side of this velcro does not necessarily get exposed during a deployment. But I have seen people mess with it and leave some exposed after a reserve ride. So even a Wings is not totally free from the risk of velcro damage to the reserve lines.

I have no knowledge of a requirement that a DZ has to send USPA client information. Can you send me the materials or pieces of paper that ask the DZ to do this? This is news to me. . Hey, Jan - I first read about it in October's edition of the USPA Professional. I had definitely skimmed over that requirement myself but Paul brought it to my attention in our email chat that he references above and expressed concerns over the potential privacy implications of such a requirement. From the the section entitled USPA Training Centers: (Jan - HQ never responded to me. That's why I was asking you. Maybe they didn't respond because they knew I could find the information in the USPA Professional.) You know, I didn't read the October USPA Professional very well at all. There is is in black and white. They also mention a weekly newsletter to the email addresses they collect. I cannot really tell from that description if they mean they keep sending weekly email to everybody. But I'd probably be a bit peeved if I started getting a weekly spam from USPA just because I'd made a tandem jump. I just took a look at their example of the weekly email. It doesn't seem to have an opt-out link anywhere. Maybe there would be one in an actual weekly email. Or, have they made another little mistake and forgotten to give people a way to stop the spam? The more I hear, the less I like it. Now, I'd like to stop the whole program, but I'd settle for changing the description in Parachutist so that it didn't imply that other DZs were inferior.