USPA BOD... Nothing more than a mouth piece for manufacturers

Amazon

Is it time yet for boycotts of those manufacturers, DZO's and BOD members who pushed for this travesty???

Good luck with that. Hell, we can't even get more than a small fraction of USPA members to vote in association elections. I doubt contention over a BSR that affects very few people will spur much - if any - action on the part of the membership.

Hi top,

Quote

It lost every time because the basic argument was it was not about safety therefore it could not be a BSR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rose_by_any_other_name_would_smell_as_sweet

Maybe the USPA should have some additional rules. Such as Basic Operational Rules - BOR's.

So what if it isn't a safety issue; it is needed or it is not needed.

Just my $0.02 worth,

JerryBaumchen

JerryBaumchen

Hi top,

Quote

It lost every time because the basic argument was it was not about safety therefore it could not be a BSR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rose_by_any_other_name_would_smell_as_sweet

Maybe the USPA should have some additional rules. Such as Basic Operational Rules - BOR's.

So what if it isn't a safety issue; it is needed or it is not needed.

Just my $0.02 worth,

JerryBaumchen

They have some rules for DZ's for AC and ops, but we as an organization are now charged with protecting the assets of another association (PIA) and its members as a Safety Issue. Not every manufacturer is a member of PIA, not every manufacturer is in the US, but now all the rules that apply to US manufacturers are going to hinder ALL.

I think that is the real driving force behind this BSRule, the manufacturers in the US fear that a company from Yougaria may start making tandem rigs (or buy the rights to manufacture a system), and that gear would not be subject to any age restrictions, because who is going to sue a company in Yougaria? Or get a judgement? So foreign gear was starting to look more attractive to DZO's as there were less punitive restrictions (and implied threats if they felt you misused the gear). So, you get USPA to make it impossible to have any advantage by making it a SAFETY issue, rather than make it look like you are restraining trade.

top

Preventing the entry of new or foreign manufacturers? I thought that was what the new requirement's in the TSO were for. It's hard enough to hold a US TSO in a foreign country. You basically have to be some place where you can be monitored. But if you could set it up you could beat out all the competition just on price. By say half if you weren't greedy. Age limits aren't an issue in comparison.

Lee

Hi Lee,

Quote

Preventing the entry of new or foreign manufacturers? I thought that was what the new requirement's in the TSO were for.

There is nothing in any TSO standard that addresses location of the mfr.

Quote

You basically have to be some place where you can be monitored.

Yup. It used to be that the FAA actually travelled to the foreign mfrs to keeps their eyes on them. But not anymore. They turn the oversight to the aviation entity in what ever country the PAH ( that's FAA-speak for Production Approval Holder ) the mfr is located in.

JerryBaumchen

Actually I was making a tongue in cheek reference to the tightening of test standards and requirement for measurement of forces in the last couple of TSO's. Not that any of these are a bad thing but it does raise the hurdle for any one looking at doing a new TSO.

No one ever seems to get my humor.

Lee

Quote

They have some rules for DZ's for AC and ops, but we as an organization are now charged with protecting the assets of another association (PIA) and its members as a Safety Issue.

You know who else gets sued when someone goes in besides the equipment manufacturers? USPA.

JerryBaumchen

Hi Lee,

Quote

Preventing the entry of new or foreign manufacturers? I thought that was what the new requirement's in the TSO were for.

There is nothing in any TSO standard that addresses location of the mfr.

***You basically have to be some place where you can be monitored.

Yup. It used to be that the FAA actually travelled to the foreign mfrs to keeps their eyes on them. But not anymore. They turn the oversight to the aviation entity in what ever country the PAH ( that's FAA-speak for Production Approval Holder ) the mfr is located in.

JerryBaumchen

Your statement is misleading. True the address it's self is not a part of the TSO standard but the facility is. You set up shop in one warehouse, and decide to move down the street because the rent is cheaper, your TSO is invalid until you have the facility inspected again.

Hi JP,

Quote

True the address it's self is not a part of the TSO standard but the facility is.

Just to be really clear: The address is not a part of the TSO standard. The TSO standard is the document that sets the certification qualifications; such as PIA TS-135. Then you have additional req'ments in TSO C23(x). Then you have additional req'ments in FAA Part 21.

JerryBaumchen

PS)

Quote

You set up shop in one warehouse, and decide to move down the street because the rent is cheaper, your TSO is invalid until you have the facility inspected again.

And the latest Quality Program req'ment requires that you actually get FAA approval before you can relocate. IMO that one is really dumb.

Hi Lee,

Quote

No one ever seems to get my humor.

I'm beginning to get it.



JerryBaumchen