USPA Board Meeting

No update about the meeting is on USPA.org yet. That is usually done Sunday night.

Anyway, the following motion was adopted:

Move  to add to SIM Section 2-1.G.1.c “On any student jump, the supervising instructor or both instructors if a two instructor jump, must submit a completed incident report to USPA within 48 hours if any AAD was activated on the jump. No disciplinary action will result from this self-report."

Please let me know how you would interpret this new BSR.

.

On 2/5/2019 at 11:28 AM, billvon said:

>Please let me know how you would interpret this new BSR.

You have to send a report to USPA if anyone's AAD fires during a student jump.

That's what I would think too. After asking, no report is needed if the I's AAD fires, as long as the I is not acting as a TI on that jump.

28 minutes ago, MakeItHappen said:

That's what I would think too. After asking, no report is needed if the I's AAD fires, as long as the I is not acting as a TI on that jump.

In other words, "any AAD" does not mean "any AAD."  Did I get that right?

--Mark

2 hours ago, mark said:

In other words, "any AAD" does not mean "any AAD."  Did I get that right?

--Mark

That's right.

Snark aside, I'm sorry to hear that that's the interpretation, for two reasons.  First, it calls into question all the other places in the BSRs where it says "all" or "must."  Which is just about everywhere.  Second, if there's an instructor AAD fire, that's a strong indication that there was something else going on that might be good for education of other other instructors.

--Mark

So then, it does not mean what it says? Can we move the topic into SC then?

The BSR means exactly what it says.  ANY AAD fire on a student jump requires a report. If a student, TI, AFFI or even a videographer filming a tandem has an AAD fire, the incident MUST be reported within 48 hours. Any means any.  Also, if the incident is self-reported within 48 hours, there can be no disciplinary action because of the report. The BSR was written in plain language that does not require interpretation.

Paul Gholson USPA Regional Director  Safety & Training Committee Advisor

29 minutes ago, mark said:

Snark aside, I'm sorry to hear that that's the interpretation, for two reasons.  First, it calls into question all the other places in the BSRs where it says "all" or "must."  Which is just about everywhere.  Second, if there's an instructor AAD fire, that's a strong indication that there was something else going on that might be good for education of other other instructors.

--Mark

It means exactly what it says, if ANY AAD fires on a jump with a student, a report is required.  USPA definitely wants to know if an instructor has an AAD fire on a student jump.  You can confirm this with USPA Safety & Training Chair Michael Wadkins or Director of Safety & Training Ron Bell.  Their email is: michael.wadkinsxcelskydiving.com,    [email protected]. 

Thanks for the clarification, Mike Mullins and Paul Gholson.  

--Mark

Some heavy editing and/or post removal going on here. But that's probably for the best. The clarifications make perfect sense. Some of the earlier posts did not and would have confused people.

This was the most important thing for the board to do? Don't get me wrong, that's an important thing but, it seems that shude be an S&TA  DZO issue. Maybe I missed how big of an issue this is. I've only seen it happen once.....

What does USPA plan to do with the information gathered from these reports?

How is USPA going to protect the instructors who submit these reports from being sued by a student? 

What guarantee does an instructor have that USPA will keep his/her name confidential?  For that matter, what guarantee does an AFF instructor have that his/her entire report will be kept confidential?

If an instructor or cameraflier does not report their own AAD fire occurring on an AFF skydive within 48 hours, they are subject to disciplinary action? What exactly does this disciplinary action consist of? 

Simple answer

They won't. To put ANY trust in the Board is a major mistake. I can easily see some members of the board using this info against anyone/organization they may have a dispute with. They have a long track record of doing that. Couple of options:

Stop doing AFF in any way shape or form.

IF this happens, keep it under wraps anyway necessary (Bribes, sexual favors, etc...)

If yer the camera guy or instructors, don't use the AAD.

Or, do what appears the USPA is trying to do. Quit working in this sport and go save the Elephants...

The USPA, "If it ain't broke, We'll fix it!"

I'm not all that familiar with the USPA system. But wouldn't ANY AAD fire on a DZ be considered an incident and therefore require an incident report? As far as fearful instructors go, what would they be afraid of? Accountability? USPA issues the rating, if you don't want to follow the USPA rules then give up your rating. Simple.

May want to get familiar before making uninformed remarks. I am not nor do I believe any instructors are :Fearful" of being accountable for their actions. If they were, doing AFF is not a very good choice. Have you ever been to a DZ? Make ANY mistake, perceived or real and everybody and their brother will be critiquing it. As far as I know (incident reports/Parachutist/personal experience), this has not been a problem in the past.. AFF has been around awhile. And all of a sudden, this needs to remedied?  My experience tells me there's more to this. I cude be wrong but, I'm usually not. Let's see. 

22 minutes ago, baronn said:

I cude be wrong but, I'm usually not. Let's see. 

I've seen you be wrong once or twice in these forums. Even I am wrong sometimes. But that's beside the point. I'm wondering just what nefarious motivation you think the BoD might have for the new rule. More than likely it came at the request of a committee. Probably a training and/or safety committee. It's just not the kind of thing a BoD, who perform an administrative function, just comes up with out of the blue. I bet there will be meeting minutes that describe a discussion on the matter.

5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

But wouldn't ANY AAD fire on a DZ be considered an incident and therefore require an incident report?

Hi Ken,

It goes back probably 10 yrs ago but I was informed by an employee of USPA Hq that incidents are NOT req'd to be reported.  Only fatalities.

I do not know about today,

Jerry Baumchen

18 hours ago, skybytch said:

What does USPA plan to do with the information gathered from these reports?

From the USPA website about incident reports:

Please explain how an incident report is destroyed after it has been published? 

18 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

From the USPA website about incident reports:

 

Incident Reports

Submissions are handled confidentially. According to USPA policy, all reports are studied, printed in Parachutist and then destroyed. USPA keeps only a brief synopsis on record, which doesn’t include the names of any individuals or the locations of the incidents.
 

For this valuable system to work, USPA needs USPA Safety & Training Advisors and other USPA members to report on incidents, both fatal and non-fatal, from which other jumpers can learn something. Jumpers can download the Incident Report Form from the right or submit an Incident Report online. It lists the most important information to include to make it more effective. However, reports in any format are welcome.

 USPA compiles this information annually into the Incident Statistics Report available online.

Nowhere do I see mention of disciplinary action against anyone (I, S&TA, dzo, Joe fun jumper, etc) who doesn't file an incident report. Filing an incident report is voluntary. Why is disciplinary action being threatened to an I or camera flier that doesn't report their own AAD fire?

Information from a USPA fatality report has made it into the hands of plaintiffs lawyers in  the past.  Why should USPA be trusted to keep that info confidential?  How can we know for sure that names have been redacted and the report destroyed?  We can't.  We can only trust.

Does anyone want to trust their livelihood to an organization that has already proven it can't be trusted to keep that info away from lawyers?

I see no issue with voluntary reporting of student AAD fires, as long as there is no disciplinary action threatened for not filing it within 48 hours. Especially when the student can die and there is no requirement that anyone file an incident report in any amount of time.

And there shouldn't be!

1 minute ago, skybytch said:

Why is disciplinary action being threatened to an I or camera flier that doesn't report their own AAD fire?

I would imagine that answer to that question involves rights and privileges and obligations of holding an instructor rating issued by USPA. Although I don't think that would apply to the camera flier. The notice given here is incomplete. The explanation given here by  Paul Gholson certainly clarifies the meaning of the rule. What is missing is an explanation of the reason for the rule. USPA owes it's membership that information if it expects willing compliance. I assume it will be explained in the official report of the meeting.

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I've seen you be wrong once or twice in these forums. Even I am wrong sometimes. But that's beside the point. I'm wondering just what nefarious motivation you think the BoD might have for the new rule. More than likely it came at the request of a committee. Probably a training and/or safety committee. It's just not the kind of thing a BoD, who perform an administrative function, just comes up with out of the blue. I bet there will be meeting minutes that describe a discussion on the matter.

The BOD has a long record of going after organizations they disagree with or simply don't like. The main point here is, why now? Has there suddenly been a rash of AAD's firing?  Do you really think anyone, Student, AFF instr or Camereperson actually wants to fire an AAD? If there isn't any injuries, this is a non event. Shude be handled on the DZ side (as it always has up till now) and left there. Seems to me we have MUCH more important issues which need attention besides this. For instance the ISMHOF fiasco...….

6 minutes ago, baronn said:

The BOD has a long record of going after organizations they disagree with or simply don't like.

That is pretty much conspiracy theory. Who do you suspect the intended target is? In any case, if you read the minutes of the July meeting you will see that it was considered then and deferred. No reason is given either for the action or the deferment. I suppose you would have to ask someone who was present at the meeting.

" 13. The committee once again discussed the possibility of having a BSR for reporting all tandem and student AAD activations. Even though the committee felt that it was a good idea, they could not agree on who is responsible for reporting the incident. The item was tabled for further discussion and deliberation. "

16 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I would imagine that answer to that question involves rights and privileges and obligations of holding an instructor rating issued by USPA. Although I don't think that would apply to the camera flier. The notice given here is incomplete. The explanation given here by  Paul Gholson certainly clarifies the meaning of the rule. What is missing is an explanation of the reason for the rule. USPA owes it's membership that information if it expects willing compliance. I assume it will be explained in the official report of the meeting.

Assuming and trusting those who haven't earned it or have proven they don't deserve it, is a mistake. Those elected to the board seem to forget they are elected to REPRESENT the membership. Not turn into matriarch's who feel they need to rule thru intimidation  and un-necessary rules. To whoever came up with this stupid idea, GET BACK IN YOUR LANE!

We're getting fed up with these dumb decisions...…..