Hooknswoop

Is there someplace that describes specifically what USPA has done? I see it more as the FAA doesn't want to be bothered with skyding if they can help it vs. the USPA has done a great job. Derek

And the report, like you, is wrong. Look at the pictures. It isn't a Caravan and it isn't a 210 (retractable gear). It is a 206. Derek

I was on that. Beezy was docking on me. Derek

"good point to raise.... this is happening now to us in Canada. It looks like the government is about to regulate skydiving and we don't have, and can't get, much information about what they are going to do to us. Was this because CSPA didn't do a good enough job? Some will say yes and site examples, some from very long ago, where CSPA didn't act as effectively as some, probably a very vocal minority, would have hoped. Others will tell you its because of a non-CSPA dropzone having several accidents that were highly visible to the public and all the bad press skydiving got because of these accidents. Unfortunately the very vocal few and the bad press together are going to see skydiving regulated in Canada and the government has not been very open to working with CSPA to develop whatever regulations they are going to impose on us." I meant as an example of what could happen if USPA continues to do a poor job. Derek

In don't know those organizations. Just seems to me that the people paying the dues get the leftovers after the DZO's eat. USPA's unofficial motto is what is good for DZ's is good for skydivers. Now I agree that on some level that makes complete sense, but what happens when USPA must make a choice between the skydiver and the DZO? Who wins? What if a workers union represented both the factory and the workers? Now, the more money the factory makes, the more they can afford to pay the workers. Now a good union will get the workers what they deserve so that both the factory and the workers prosper. If the union is controlled by the factory owner, the union won't get the workers the compensation they deserve. A union cannot serve 2 masters. That is why we see things differently. I just wonder why AOPA can attract members voluntarily and USPA must resort to mandatory membership. I am aware that AOPA has a much higher budget, etc, but they survive on voluntary membership. I believe it is because they effectively meet their member's needs, while USPA does not. Isn't it part of the RD"s responsibility to visit the DZ's within their region? Too bad, let scream all they want. IF they are professional they will see that re currency eval/training is a good thing for them. The Instructor pays for the training/eval jump. 1 jump every year or 2 is not a large amount of money. The GM program is a sham. The public sees it as a stamp of approval from the USPA. In reality all it is is the DZO sent USPA a check. I don't think USPA needs to rule with an iron fist, but they do need to do a much better job. Look at Canada. USPA needs to put the skydiver's needs ahead of the DZ's needs. Derek

No. I would be in favor of USPA serving it's members and not the DZO's. I would be in favor of USPA resurrecting the inspection program, with those DZ's that pass being placed on a list on USPA's web site and another list of the DZ's that failed and why. I would be in favor of the GM program being eliminated. I would be in favor of the AFF course standards being raised to pre-2001 levels. I would be in favor of annual eval jumps for Instructors, tandem, AFF, etc. I would be in favor of higher pay for more experienced, higher quality Instructors. I would be in favor of USPA actually doing what they say they do and self-policing so that the FAA never steps in. Right, they do not self-police nor claim to. What does USPA spend on self-policing every year? $11 per member? That would bring the net down to the same as AOPA, $39. With that voluntary membership money, they do a lor for it's members. What does USPA do with it's $50 per member that is mandatory? Why can't USPA be as sucessful as USPA in generating membership dues? Why must they become DZO's lao dogs by trading mandatory membership enforced by DZO's in return for USPA serving DZO's and not it's members? There is a conflict of interest and USPA does not do what it says it does. Eventually, this will mean the FAA will step in and do it. For example, why is it that there is no pattern in safety levels between GM and non-GM DZ's? If the GM program and USPA was doing it's job, wouldn't GM DZ's be much safer places to jump than non GM DZ's? Skydivers are forced to support the DZO's organization. Why? Simple, if the DZO's simply funded it, they wouldn't have the power of numbers. So they work with USPA and require the jumpers to be members. Then they control it to work for them. What a scam. Derek

I agree, with everything except that the S & TA's are enforcing the BSR's. If you don't see a connection between the lowering of the AFFI standards and AFFI having no recourse since they can replaced easily, then you have missed my point. DZO's simply say, if you don't like it, you know your options. AFFI's are a dime a dozen. And DZO's keep it that way so that they can easily replace them. It is a simple solution, an annual eval jump with an evaluator. Not expensive and should be a no-brainr if the AFFI is meeting the standard. My reference to AOPA is they do not have sort of mandatory membership and they have a large membership. They have members because they do a good job of meeting their members needs. How many skydivers would pay USPA membership dues if they didn't have to? I think not many. Why is that? Why can't USPA attract members based upon it's services to those members while AOPA can? If the USPA continues to fail in it's role of self-policing, eventually the FAA will step in. That is bad. Derek

I am not looking for any particular answers, except maybe honest ones. It is funny how almost all skydivers don’t want to touch this type of questions with a 10-foot pole. How can you reconcile your ‘yes’ answer with; “How often are the BSR's violated ? Rarely? Often? Probably quite often, depending on where you are.” USPA admits action is rarely taken, but you realize that BSR’s are broke often. Isn’t that a contradiction? How can you say USPA is self-policing when the vast majority of the time a BSR is violated, nothing happens? Seems to me that USPA fails to meet the definition of self-policing. Is it a coincidence that Don Yarling had a presentation at PIA 2001 about the Instructor shortage and shortly thereafter the course standards for AFFI's were lowered? Were they really lowered, or is that just the perception by old schoolers who walked uphill five miles in the snow each way to get the the DZ? I really don't know the history to which you are referring, so I ask you, how were the standards lowered? This has been well-documented. You can do a search, but here is a short version: Old course= 6 jumps with a 0-4 points possible on each jump. New course= get a ‘pass’ on 2 of 3 jumps. Scenario: Jump 1: 0/Fail Jump 2: 2/Pass Jump 3: 2/Pass Jump 4: 3/ N/A Jump 5: 2 / N/A Jump 6: 2 / N/A Result: Old course: Fail New course: Pass Over-night the pass rate at the AFF course went from 50% to 85%. Skydivers did not get 35% better overnight. I have been involved in and witnessed situations of DZO’s demanding Instructors take students in conditions the exceeded the BSR’s, etc or being told if you say anything, you are fired. There is no system in place for Instructors that are faced with a DZO putting profit before the BSR’s. USPA actually created this program, inspectors were recruited, trained, etc. One DZ was inspected and then the program went away. Do a search. Yes/No. Ya, it is better to keep egos intact and have sub-standard Instructors. To hell with the students, we have egos to think about! DZO’s make money per student jump, not for the quality of that jump. High quality Instructors is bad for DZO’s, since they want to be treated and paid fairly. Better to fire them and hire new, inexperienced Instructors. If it is obviously such a good idea, why doesn’t USPA do it? Simple, DZO’s no not want it and USPA does want the DZO’s wants it to do. Amazing then that AOPA is doing so well then. Maybe because they serve the needs of their members that their members will send their dues in without being extorted. If the DZ takes ownership of the BSR’s and enforces them as their policies, it doesn’t matter if the jumper is a member or not. They are already in place and called S & TA’s and RD’s. I once told an RD about a DZO that was doing AFF w/o an AFF rating. She said, “What do you want me to do, take away a rating he doesn’t have?” Derek

I was hoping I would get at least one person to answer the questions. My intent by re-posting my unanswered questions was to try and bring this thread a bit back to the original topic, is skydiving self-policing? Derek

Does USPA meet this definition? GM DZ's are required to sign a document pledging; "to follow USPA Basic Safety Requirements, including providing training by only USPA-rated instructors, and using USPA-required equipment." Does the USPA "monitor its own adherence to legal, ethical, or safety standards" and "directly monitor(s) and punishe(s) its own members"? Is it a coincidence that Don Yarling had a presentation at PIA 2001 about the Instructor shortage and shortly thereafter the course standards for AFFI's were lowered? Why does USPA not protect Instructors that they certify when a DZO demands they violate a BSR? Why did the DZ inspection program fail? Why doesn't the USPA maintain a manufacturer Service Bulletin database similar to the APF? Why doesn't USPA require minimum performance requirements for Instructors renewing their rating(s)? Why does the USPA require GM DZ's to require skydivers to me USPA members in order to skydive at that DZ? How often are the BSR's violated ? Rarely? Often? "On rare occasions, USPA Regional Directors may investigate when USPA individual members or Group Member drop zones deviate from the BSRs." Derek

Wind will not turn a a canopy. Wind shear/turbulence can turn a canopy. Derek

"Self-policing, a form of Self-Regulation, is the process whereby an organization is asked, or volunteers, to monitor its own adherence to legal, ethical, or safety standards, rather than have an outside, independent agency such as a governmental entity monitor and enforce those standards. Advantages To the organization An organization can maintain control over the standards to which they are held by successfully self-policing themselves. If they can keep the public from becoming aware of their internal problems, this also serves in place of a public relations campaign to repair such damage. To the public The cost of setting up an external enforcement mechanism is avoided. Disadvantages To the organization Self-policing attempts may well fail, due to the inherent conflict of interest in asking any organization to police itself. If the public becomes aware of this failure; an external, independent organization is often given the duty of policing them, sometimes with highly punitive measures taken against the organization. To the public The results can be disastrous, such as a military with no external, independent oversight, which may commit human rights violations against the public. Forms of self-policing organizations • In direct self-policing, the organization directly monitors and punishes its own members. For example, many small organizations have the ability to remove any member by a vote of all members. • Another common form is where the organization establishes an external policing organization. This organization is established, and controlled by, the parent organization, so cannot be considered independent, however. • In another form, the organization sets up a committee or division for policing the remainder of the organization. The House Ethics Committee is an example in the United States government, while various police departments employ an Internal Affairs division to perform a similar function." Does USPA meet this definition? GM DZ's are required to sign a document pledging; "to follow USPA Basic Safety Requirements, including providing training by only USPA-rated instructors, and using USPA-required equipment." Does the USPA "monitor its own adherence to legal, ethical, or safety standards" and "directly monitor(s) and punishe(s) its own members"? Is it a coincidence that Don Yarling had a presentation at PIA 2001 about the Instructor shortage and shortly thereafter the course standards for AFFI's were lowered? Why does USPA not protect Instructors that they certify when a DZO demands they violate a BSR? Why did the DZ inspection program fail? Why doesn't the USPA maintain a manufacturer Service Bulletin database similar to the APF? Why doesn't USPA require minimum performance requirements for Instructors renewing their rating(s)? Why does the USPA require GM DZ's to require skydivers to me USPA members in order to skydive at that DZ? How often are the BSR's violated ? Rarely? Often? "On rare occasions, USPA Regional Directors may investigate when USPA individual members or Group Member drop zones deviate from the BSRs." Derek

-Nothing. Derek

Right, and to prevent bag strip, you do not need to double wrap your line stows, nor should very tight, double wrapped stows be used as as fix for a hard opening canopy. That is why I would question a manufacturer's recommendation to double wrap rubber bands. Bag strip is very rare and is easy to prevent. Line dump and bag strip are often blamed for a hard opening when again bag strip is rare and line dump doesn't create a hard opening. I have offered good reasons not to double wrap. I have not heard any good reasons to double wrap rubber bands. Derek

I think I am misunderstanding the question, but let me see if I can get it. Most people do not flat track. They either stay at the same fall rate or greater than normal belly fly speeds. Flat tracking will yield a softer opening. When I would hear someone complain about a hard opening canopy, I would try and jump with them and follow them on their track and watch them deploy, almost 100% of them were diving in their track and not flat tracking. I would teach them to flat track and amazingly their canopy would open much nicer. So, flat tracking makes for better openings and diving tracks make for harder openings. Derek

I think that for 2 reasons. 1) physics; slowing down from 100 to 5 mph vs. 140 to 5 mph over the same amount of time results in more 'G' forces. 2) personal experience. Pitching up to slow my foward speed and pitching before my vertical speed increased back to normal belly speeds would result in a noticable softer opening than simply deploying on my belly without tracking first. And they also think an elliptical 170 makes a good student canopy They are also known for hit or miss quality control. Derek

Yep, that was back when I thought the manufacturers knew everything. Because I have seen a lot of video of deployments and seen a lot of hard openings and I have never seen the canopy come out of the d-bag before line stretch. Yep, and I believe 90%+ of hard openings are caused by either not slowuing down after a diving (not flat) track or not keeping the slider against the stops while packing. I do not believe that bag strip or line dump is the cause of very many hard openings. That sort of thing tends to result in an extremely hard, even catostrauphic opening. If loose stows cause hard openings, why does using 2 locking stows and a pouch for the lines (no stows) not result in 100% hard openings? Derek

Try smaller rubber bands. I have deployed numerous canopies with only 2 locking stows (the rest of the lines in a pouch free-bag style) and no ill effects on the opening. Derek

The last time I followed the manufacturer's instructions without questioning the, it almost killed. PA recommended packing my FX-70 w/o setting the brakes. It folded in half, forwards, and spun so fast I could not lift my arms to the handles and almost blacked out. For the sport rig and the tandem, standard rubber bands. Large. Nothing wrong, but not new tandem drogue, and a very new PC on the sport rig, less than 50 jumps. Yes, both the sport rig and the tandem. In both cases, the double wrapped bands held with more force than the drogue or PC could overcome. No. I looked at both cases very hard and could not find any other cause for the bag locks. The tighter the stows, the more the bag rocks back and forth, possibly causing it to spin and if they are tight enough, a bag lock. Derek

Aviator w/ a PD-R. Derek

What do I win? Derek

Did the jumper just buy the main? I have seen the risers of mains rubber-banded together. If the rubber band wasn't removed, but slid up the riser, after installing the riser, it could have slid back down. Derek

I think they need just tight enough to hold the lines and make for an orderly deployment. The concern is wrapping lines around a main flap or around another line stow. You can make small bands tighter by installing them twice. They are lark's-headed onto the d-bag, and then you wrap them again before pulling them tight. Same thing works for large rubber bands. I learned that trick from tube stows. Derek

I completely agree

No, and I think it is very unlikely you experienced bag strip. Again, I have asked if anyone has video of bag strip on a sport rig and I have yet to every see video of it. It is very rare. The bag can spin, especially if one line group snagged on the bottom corner of the reserve container. If you still had excess speed from a non-flat (diving) track, one shoulder lower than the other, one leg strap tighter than the other, one leg strap farther down your leg than the other, etc. While packing, ensure that the slider grommets are against the slider stops. Keep them there with your knees not on the grommets (which damages the fabric and actually moves them away from the stops) but on the slider material above the grommets. Make nice even line stows. Make sure to leave 18+ inches of line, neatly stowed, from the last stow and the links. Be sure your hips are square with the horizon and shoulders even during deployment. Work on flat tracking, where you fall rate is slower than your normal belly fly speeds. Deploy after coming out of the track and slowing your forward speed but before your vertical speed picks back up to normal again. Don't double wrap rubber bands. They simply do not need to be that tight. I had a bag lock on a tandem from double stowed bads and recently had to re-pack someone's reserve after a bag lock from double-wrapping the rubber bads. Derek