Am I the only one that thinks like this?????

Am I the only one that thinks like this?????

Post by skydive » Tue, 09 Nov 1999 04:00:00


When I got my "D" rating in 1980, it was applied for at a S&TAs location
away from my local DZ. I'd heard the guy was "by the book" but fair.  Thats
all I wanted.  I felt that ANY possibility of the "buddy system" should be
avoided at our very small DZ.
Most ratings in those days  (at least those I was aware of)  were arrived at
fairly and "by the book."  Even real water jumps into lakes or rivers HAD to
be performed.

Then sometime in the mid to late 80s it appeared that too many people were
getting the "D" rating that didnt have the qualifications.   This proved
itself not only on the field but also in the headlines when a so-called
"expert jumper" injured someone on a demo.

So USPA made the standards tougher by adding the PRO Rating.  Now.... The
only problem I saw with that was the fact that the same "buddys" that handed
out the D ratings...were now handing out the PRO ratings.  (and I saw this
first hand).

Not only that... but the PRO rating is most often gotten by doing the
following:

1...  Only pick perfect wind and weather conditions to make your required
jumps.
2..   Only jump at the same DZ that you have jumped at for many months (or
years)    in order to line up with the known landmarks.
3...  Only jump into an area as big as 50 football fields with no
obstructions.  (most DZs)

Ok...  now we have a PRO Rating.  So on our first tight Demo, the winds are
10 to 15...the landing approach is over a power
line/buildng/crowd/...someone has managed to place themselves in your "safe"
area... And you're qualified to land within 15 feet of the crowd.   Little
bit different in the REAL world isnt it?

A smart PRO "newbie" will find obstructions to practice with, LONG before
doing a real  (tight) demo jump.  Do they?  I think its just a matter of
time until some PRO jumpers make the headlines just like the D raters did.
And as long as we're self policing...the buddy system is always lurking in
the background for some.

Having said that..... I understand that the FAA might adopt the USPAs
guidelines for PRO raters.  I have no problem with that, as long as there's
a way to get the PRO rating without belonging to USPA.  (I've been a member
for 20 years)  But the very idea that the government could force you to join
a "private" club chills me to the bone.
Any hunters out there?  What if the government said you HAD to belong to the
NRA?
And photographers ?  What if the government said you had to belong to the
USPA AND a camera club before you could take skydiving videos?  Am I the
only one concerned with this?  Having talked to USPA just last week... I was
informed that altho it was illegal... it WAS going to be the FAA rule soon.

Most FISDO guys arent going to give you any breaks when it comes to them
signing you off on a demo jump.  And it USED to be that the USPA recommended
a FAA official watch you make an actual jump if you didnt belong to any
skydiving club or organization.  Seems to me the same PRO guidelines could
be applied in this respect.
There HAS to be a way to get the rating without allowing the government to
force you to join ANY club for ANY reason.  I told myself that I wasnt going
to used this word in this post, but I cant help it: Communism?  God I hope
not.   Blue Skies.....

 
 
 

Am I the only one that thinks like this?????

Post by Curtpa » Tue, 09 Nov 1999 04:00:00

The PRO rating has some flaws even "by the book" An example: I can get a PRO
rating through USPA on any type/size of canopy, however according to our FSDO
rep, who is a former skydiver, if you are over the manufacturers recommended
wing loading you may not jump that canopy on a demo. USAP is setting itself up
for a lawsuit. This will only really come into effect if something goes wrong.
Picture this: Skydiver jumps a high loaded canopy (On which he has a PRO
rating) on a wide open demo spectator gets injured or killed some how. FAA
fines the jumper for the accident due to wing loading. Family, event sponsor,
media, etc file a mega lawsuit against the jumper, affilliate, and USPA and the
S & TA for issuing an illegal PRO rating. Not a pretty picture for skydiving. I
think the Qualifications should include different weather and landing
conditions. And buddies beware of approving underqualified friends sooner or
later an event which I described is going to happen.    

 
 
 

Am I the only one that thinks like this?????

Post by Paul Quad » Tue, 09 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Please see my comments elseware in this news group about this topic in
general.

Long story short -- it doesn't have to be in the FAR, however, to get the
7711 waiver you need FSDO authorization, so you might as well do it their
way.

Paul

**********

Quote:

> CAN OR HAS THIS FSDO REP SHOWED YOU SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM THE FAA
> THAT STATES A PARTICULAR REGULATION CONCERNING WING LOADING?  I WOULD
> LIKE TO SEE WHERE THIS IS
> STATED.   IF IT IS NOT A SPECIFIC FAR THEN IT WON'T STAND.  I MAY BE
> WRONG BUT I THINK YOUR FSDO COME UP WITH THIS ONE ON HIS OWN, WHICH
> MEANS NOTHING.
> IF SOMEONE HAS PROOF TO THE CONTRARY PLEASE LET US KNOW.

> Peace
> Mavrik


 
 
 

Am I the only one that thinks like this?????

Post by mavri » Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
> The PRO rating has some flaws even "by the book" An example: I can get
a PRO
> rating through USPA on any type/size of canopy, however according to
our FSDO
> rep, who is a former skydiver, if you are over the manufacturers
recommended
> wing loading you may not jump that canopy on a demo.

CAN OR HAS THIS FSDO REP SHOWED YOU SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM THE FAA
THAT STATES A PARTICULAR REGULATION CONCERNING WING LOADING?  I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE WHERE THIS IS
STATED.   IF IT IS NOT A SPECIFIC FAR THEN IT WON'T STAND.  I MAY BE
WRONG BUT I THINK YOUR FSDO COME UP WITH THIS ONE ON HIS OWN, WHICH
MEANS NOTHING.
IF SOMEONE HAS PROOF TO THE CONTRARY PLEASE LET US KNOW.

Peace
Mavrik

--
Dean Vaughn
Skydive Jacksonville
Life is 10% of what Happens to you and 90%
How you react to the 10%. Positive Attitudes

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

Am I the only one that thinks like this?????

Post by Fly-N-Fal » Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:00:00

No doubt about it.  If an inspector at the FSDO gets a burr under his or her
saddle, the burden of proof IS NOT on the inspector.  Just ask Bob Hoover...
(For the non-pilots/fans in the audience--Bob is very talented air show
performer, who lost his medical and a small fortune in court battles because
an FAA inspector thought that he was too old to perform any more.  Bob
eventually won out and regained his medical but it took several years.  The
inspector had no legal justification for this other than his own opinion.
Welcome to United States administrative law, where the FAA and the IRS
reign!!)

Paul Quade wrote

Quote:
> Long story short -- it doesn't have to be in the FAR, however, to get the
> 7711 waiver you need FSDO authorization, so you might as well do it their
> way.


> > CAN OR HAS THIS FSDO REP SHOWED YOU SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM THE FAA
> > THAT STATES A PARTICULAR REGULATION CONCERNING WING LOADING?  I WOULD
> > LIKE TO SEE WHERE THIS IS
> > STATED.   IF IT IS NOT A SPECIFIC FAR THEN IT WON'T STAND.  I MAY BE
> > WRONG BUT I THINK YOUR FSDO COME UP WITH THIS ONE ON HIS OWN, WHICH
> > MEANS NOTHING.
> > IF SOMEONE HAS PROOF TO THE CONTRARY PLEASE LET US KNOW.

> > Peace
> > Mavrik

 
 
 

Am I the only one that thinks like this?????

Post by mavri » Thu, 11 Nov 1999 04:00:00

I was actually addressing the issue of someone taking a DZ/Jumper/Pilot
to court over the fact that they exceeded the max weight of the canopy
and that this was a direct violation of FAA regulation. The FAA DOES NOT
STATE ANY THING ABOUT there being a regulation addressing this.  IF you
or any one can show me a specific FAR that states a PRO/DEMO jumper, or
any jumper for that matter, can not exceed the MAX suspended weight and
if they do they are in violation.  Hell if there is then 75% of all
jumpers in this country are in direct violation.

I do realize that if someone sues and can PROVE that a incident/accident
was a direct result of over loading the canopy AND there was negligence,
then YES they could win the lawsuit.

Peace
Mavrik

Quote:


> > CAN OR HAS THIS FSDO REP SHOWED YOU SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM THE
FAA
> > THAT STATES A PARTICULAR REGULATION CONCERNING WING LOADING?  I
WOULD
> > LIKE TO SEE WHERE THIS IS
> > STATED.   IF IT IS NOT A SPECIFIC FAR THEN IT WON'T STAND.  I MAY BE
> > WRONG BUT I THINK YOUR FSDO COME UP WITH THIS ONE ON HIS OWN, WHICH
> > MEANS NOTHING.
> > IF SOMEONE HAS PROOF TO THE CONTRARY PLEASE LET US KNOW.

> > Peace
> > Mavrik

--
Dean Vaughn
Skydive Jacksonville
Life is 10% of what Happens to you and 90%
How you react to the 10%. Positive Attitudes

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

Am I the only one that thinks like this?????

Post by KEITHV77 » Wed, 24 Nov 1999 04:00:00

faa?? irs?? did you leave out the insurance companies in error ?? they are the
big brothers in charge of the world you know
 
 
 

Am I the only one that thinks like this?????

Post by Peanut40 » Wed, 24 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

>faa?? irs?? did you leave out the insurance companies in error ?? they are
>the
>big brothers in charge of the world you know

I KNOW,, I KNOW,   its a dirty job,, but hell,,
BARTENDER,, CAN I HAVE A BEER?