Hooknswoop

The SIM's can best answer that question, but in a nutshell, a more comprehensive teaching program. The SIM's can best answer that question, but in a nutshell, a more comprehensive teaching program. Much more difficult than they are now. At the 2001 PIA symposium, one of the presentations (that I didn’t go to) was about the shortage of Instructors. In response USPA, under pressure from DZO’s lowered the standards to be an AFFI. DZO’s didn’t want to pay more to keep staff or treat them better to keep them from quitting, so they had USPA lower the standards so there would be more AFFI’s. Another case where USPA had to choose between skydivers and DZ’s and skydivers lost. Derek

A replacement for my Ace 240, I...uh....lost. Derek

If people are serious about changes at USPA, then vote in a completely new set of ND's that will make those changes. I neither could be nor want to be a ND. So far, the track record has been to elect people that maintaint he status quo. I appreciate the sentiment, I really do, but I am not the right choice. There are people out there that are the right choice though. Derek

See! See!, I am disqualified! Vote for someone (anyone) else. Bill- You run, you would do a good job. Maybe a few years ago, but not now. Now it's too late for me. Derek

But I don't skydive, I won't go to a DZ, these are bad qualities for a ND. Besides the pay sucks. I've given all I'm gonna give to skydiving. I cashed out while I was WAY in the red. Derek

Yes, but I wouldn't be a good choice, for the reasons I listed. I don't even own a rig. I would make a very bad politician. I bet I could, w/o trying, alienate80%+ of the BOD in 15 minutes or less into the first meeting. Then I would neer get anything done. Bill Von is smart, a good politician, skydives, is a member, write him in. Derek

Did it show Raeford as an airport or DZ or both? GPS's will shopw airports, but don't show which airports are also DZ's. Tom- Good job with this effort, it will have an impact on safety. Derek

OK, OK ha, ha, ha. Very funny. Everybody laugh at Derek. OK, jokes over. I'm NOT running! I don't even skydivine! I REFUSE to go to a DZ anymore! I am not a USPA member! Surely these things make me a poor choice? Derek

You would have an easier time pushing a rope. Write in Bill Von. I tried fixing things from the inside, didn't work out. I eneded up pissed off and bitter enough I sold my gear and quit skydiving. As a ND, I couldn't do any better. Derek

Umm. Manadatory canopy control training for each license IS part of the proposal. "The proposal: I propose USPA develop a series of canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. These requirements would need to be flexible enough to allow for aggressive canopy pilots and conservative canopy pilots alike. They would include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, a written and practical test. I also propose USPA implement (grand-fathering in current license holders), canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license. As each license is obtained, the skydiver may jump a canopy with a higher wing loading if they choose to. The WL restrictions could be waiver-able to a certain, defined degree to allow a skydiver that wishes to advance more quickly, puts in the effort, and demonstrates the ability. A Canopy Instructor, AFFI, AFFI/E, or S &TA would be able to waiver a skydiver to a higher wing loading. A skydiver could also earn a canopy restricted "B" through "D" license if they choose not to demonstrate the proficiency required for the next license, in the same manner and similar to those restricted 'D' licenses for those unwilling or unable to perform night jumps. If a skydiver completes the canopy control training requirements for the next license prior to having the jump numbers required and demonstrates the ability, they may be waivered to a higher WL by a Canopy Instructor, AFFI, AFFI/E, or S &TA. When the USPA implemented the “A” license canopy skills requirements, they correctly determined that Instructors were qualified to teach these basic canopy skills, without the need for further training or certification of the Instructor. As a skydiver progresses through their skydiving careers, their initial Instructor who taught them basic canopy control skills may not be qualified, or have the skills to teach more advance canopy control without further training for the original Instructor. Therefore, I further propose the creation of the Canopy Instructor (CI) rating. A coach rating would be required to become a CI. Whereas the AFFI/ SLI/Coach rating courses focus on free-fall skills and instruction, the CI rating would focus on canopy skills and instruction. A one or two-day course where a Canopy Instructor Candidate learns how to teach more advanced canopy control. Each candidate will be required to demonstrate the ability to perform and teach advanced canopy control skills. A thought would be to simply add canopy piloting skills and canopy instruction skills to the current I rating courses. This brings up the dilemma of a great free-fall Instructor and flyer that can’t fly a canopy or teach canopy piloting very well not being able to teach free-fall skills, what a waste. Also, a CI would not be working with pre “A” license students, but licensed skydivers, and don’t require the free-fall skills and teaching ability to teach advance canopy skills. So the CI rating would be similar to the Coach rating, except focusing on canopy skills, not free-fall skills. License # Jumps Maximum Wing loading A license 25 1 psf max B license 100 1.1 psf max C license 200 1.3 psf max D license 500 no limit Skills covered for each license: High performance malfunctions Flat/Flared turns Collision avoidance/flying in traffic Sliders (Kill line, stowage, etc) Accuracy skills Basic Principles of Flight Recovery Arc Effects of wing loading Canopy Maintenance Adjusting Steering Line Length Preventing and Curing Line Twists Canopy Piloting Skills Long Spot Techniques Flying in Turbulence Dealing with Traffic Approach and Landing Accuracy Off DZ landings Crosswind/downwind landings. For each license, each topic will be covered more in-depth, building upon prior teaching and experience." So who are we missing? Derek

See waht you've done? Write in Bill Von, he would be a great ND. Derek

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! 81 now Derek

I can't wait till you get home Derek

2 problems with that; 1) you have to be a USPA member to run for office (I'm not), and 2) I have the Glock right here, it needed to be cleaned Derek

Glad you asked: 1) Spin off the GM program as a separate entity to eliminate the conflict of interest and require an inspection of the DZ before awarding GM status. This inspection will include aircraft maintenance, Instructor abilities, gear, landing area, etc. The VIP program would be the starting point for the inspection. Also conduct random inspections. If a DZ fails an inspection, give it 30 days to correct the deficiencies or revoke GM status. Also revoke GM status to any DZ that fails to follow the BSR’s. 2) Make the ISP program mandatory, just as it initially was. There is no doubt that the ISP is better than old school AFF. I know several DZ’s that will not switch to ISP because the competing DZ offer 7-level AFF. The first jump student can be easily taken by a sales pitch of, “It old takes 7 jumps with us and it takes 20 jumps with ‘them’.” 3) Return the standards to become an AFFI to where there were. 4) Require an annual training and re-certification of AFFI’s, Tandem I’s, S/L I’s, and IAD I’s, similar in scope to a bi-annual for a pilot. 5) Hire a liaison tot he FAA and AOPA. It would be their full- time job to educate the FAA and AOPA on skydiving issues and work to get the FAR’s pertaining to rigging and skydiving fixed. They would also present DZ inspection records to the FAA, so that the FAA would have a warm fuzzy that skydiving is being regulated and that they don’t need to bother with it. 5) Require all incidents to be thoroughly reported similar to how the APF does it. 6) Instructors found to have violated the BSR’s have their rating(s) revoked for an appropriate amount of time for the offense. This gives the Instructor the ability to tell a DZO “no” because they will be risking their rating(s) and the associated income. 7) Have the USPA, working with AOPA go over every U.S sectional map and have removed old parachute symbols for non-existent DZ’s and ensure active DZ’s have the parachute symbol over their DZ. 8) Have USPA monitor DZ advertising to ensure it is accurate, using the inspection program data. If everything DZ’s advertised were true, there would be a lot more jumpships and bars at DZ’s than there really are. 9) Have USPA maintain a complete library, paper and electronic, of AD’s and SB’s for parachute gear. Make this information available to riggers. Also have a rigger on staff available to answer rigging legal questions and able to contact the FAA for official rulings regarding rigging issues. That’s all I can think of off the top of my head, but it is a good start. Derek

I don't see how you could, once broken, re-use a seal on a reserve I packed. That would be a neat trick though. And if you could, by the time you went through all that effort, it would have been easier to get me to replace the seal or get the reserve re-packed. Do you have a better idea than the current lead seal and seal thread on the reserve ripcord? Derek

You continue to post your (negative) opinion of others working solutions. You continue to fail to post YOUR solution, same as last year. Again, your input would be a lot more beneficial if you would do an analysis and propose your solution. You are a smart guy, why don't you do the analysis and come up with an idea? I personnaly would love to hear your (positive) input. Derek

Exactly why it will never change. Derek

LOL! Anyone have $2 million they want to loan me? No banks, Own the land and aircraft, all the nicest gear and don't have to push the limits because the loan payment is due. Never happen. Derek

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

I appreciate that, I really do. But I fell tremendously short of my goal of fixing the root problems. I had small successes along the way, but I can't change the real problems. What did I get for trying? Alienated. So now I can speak out w/o repercussions, hat are they going to do? Ban me? Still won't change anything, but I fell better.

If that were true, then a lot of DZ's would have gone out of business. Truth is if the DZ screws a jumper, other jumpers, even if they care, won't actually do anything about it. Staff is cheap and abundant. Up-jumpers are a dime a dozen. Once the jumpers get ‘stung’ and go across the street, there is no-one to warn the newer jumpers about how they got ‘stung’ and the cycle continues. Derek

But you will/have in your analysis? I am eagerly awaiting your analysis and proposal for a solution to the rate of landing incidents. Derek

True, but I don't go to DZ's anymore. I would like to jump and that is probably why I still hang out at DZ.com, but the two aren't exactly the same. Evntually, I won't come here anymore either. I just hate to throw away what I spent so much energy to learn. It is probably also my way of showing people what they have lost, not that they care. I could be a an asset to a DZ. Derek

Thanks for the invite and sharing my pain, but I'm done. Skydiving will never change, so I won't be back. Trying to do the right thing will make you unpopular in skydiving. Derek