08/31/2021
The USPA Summer BOD Meeting Update. Cincinnati OH, Aug 27-39, 2021
To lend some insight as to how these items get added or presented to the S&T Agenda, most items are suggested by members, instructors, DZO’s, S&TA’s, IE’s and sometimes even other board members. There is no private agenda as others spiculate or scheme to make skydiving more difficult to do, more expensive or get more money for the USPA. We are obligated to put any these ideas on this agenda to debate on and consider. That’s what the process is about… We are a volunteer board trying our best to represent and serve our membership - nothing more
1. The committee discussed the need of revamping the SIM and possibly the IRM to be in line with current academic courseware design. The original design of both these manuals were great at the time but are in need of a drastic overhaul. We received approval to gather bids for consideration.
2. The committee deliberated on the importance of having a BSR to ensure that instructors are doing their due diligence in conducting the required gear checks for their students. There has been several issues in the past with AFF Instructors as well as tandem instructors not completing this critical task prior to conducting their respective student jumps. Even though instructors and members know the importance of this because it is listed in the IRM. The committee felt that there was a need to put this in writing in the form of a BSR. The new BSR will be implemented - “d. Each Instructor or Coach must ensure that all gear used on a student jump has received a complete gear check and is ready to jump before boarding the aircraft."
3. The committee discussed the value and the need to have a BSR for Balloon jumps. Depending on how these jumps are being conducted (considering the FAR’s and BSR) - Many of these jumps may or may not be covered under the USPA’s 3rd party liability USPA insurance. Having a BSR could help ensure that these types of jumps follow the intent the FAR’s and serves the members who are doing these types of jumps. The motion failed
4. The committee realized that after adopting the AFF Tunnel BSR that it failed to add this option in the transition protocols outlined in Section 4 categories B, C, & D. The committee decided that the S&T director could make these edits.
5. The committee debated once again on the minimum requirements to attain a coach rating and considered having a minimum freefall time of 45 mins. The committee felt that the present requirements were sufficient for the rating and that the Examiners in the field are overall responsible to uphold a higher standard. (No Action the motion failed)
6. The S&T Director proposed to the committee that he would like to develop a new tandem rating system by separating the tandem rating into two separate categories. One rating will be a tandem Instructor rating with all the privileges associated with that rating. The other proposed rating will be the tandem trainer or tandem pilot who will only be able to take first time non-ISP student on their initial skydive and have no other privileges and will not need to meet the tandem instructor renewal requirements only the manufacture renewal requirements. The committee approved his request to develop a program to bring to the S&T committee for review at a later timeframe to see if it is feasible to implement in the USPA Tandem program.
7. The committee adopted an overall designated evaluator program for all disciplines to aid and assist rating holders either complete a rating or help meet the renewal requirements from 1-2 years. The committee felt that this served the memberships rating holders, and it was beneficial and gave them more options to maintain currency and help finish courses due to weather of unforeseen circumstances.
8. The committee discussed redefining what the Tandem Instructor needs to do for their FJC renewal requirements. The result was the committee had all the rating renewals realigned to assist lend clarity for all ratings. The goal is for an instructional rating holder to either have taught or assisted in a FJC, or do a complete review of the FJC content with a student or uncurrent licensed skydiver. The new language for instructors in the IRM for recurrency will be - “having taught or assisted with at least one entire first-jump course or conducted a complete review training in all general portions and method-specific procedures of a solo first jump course.” and remove “and ISP ground training for tandem progression in Categories A and B” from IRM T-1.I.2.a.(5)
9. The committee streamlined the time frame that an examiner had to take to finish the IRC to 24 Months. In addition, any examiner candidate who has sanctions levied against them by the CG, will not be able to get their Examiner rating for up to 24 months. These timeframes may differ depending on the disposition of the compliance action.
10. Due to the meaning and perceived perception of what the word “Swoop” means the committee decided to change the terminology of “Swoop and Dock” to “Dive and Dock” within the ISP:
11. In Category G the SIM and its quiz questions – it had outdated information on AADs near the door. The committee wanted to focus more on handles and pilot-chutes near the door and will implement the appropriate information in the net edit of the SIM.
12. The committee discussed how an instructor should sign a student jump on the logbook in regards to SIM section 3-1. The committee felt that the endorsing signatures in logbooks must include a legible USPA membership or license number.
13. The Committee discussed the importance of possibly having a BSR requiring AFF-I’s having an ADD and hard helmet. Even though this has merit, the committee decided not to implement a BSR. The motion failed.
14. The committee discussed the importance of having an altimeter on all student free-fall jumps and why it only focused on AFF instructors. They committee felt that all instructors needed an altimeter when conducting these types of jumps, which resulted in a BSR motion - SIM Section 2-1.M.4. to read “All Instructional Rating holders must have a visibly accessible altimeter when conducting student jumps.”
15. The committee discussed that current instructors who are already rated in a method-specific program and are pursuing another rating – instead of making them participate in 2 additional FJC’s as a prerequisite, offer them the ability to attend the course and conduct the training of the method-specific portions of the FJC during the course to obtain the rating instead of attending 2 FJC’s. The motion was passed and will become effective 1/1/22
16. The S&T committee has spent some time on this and has finally agreed on the content of a “Code of Conduct” for all instructors. The committee and Director Lowe and Nicole Richards worked in conjunction and collaboration to craft a suitable and Viable Instructor “Code of Conduct” which resulted in a motion to add this Code to IRM section 1-1.
“INSTRUCTIONAL RATING HOLDER CODE OF CONDUCT”
“Responsibility to the Profession
Act in a professional manner, with honesty, integrity, and ethical conduct while interacting with all students, members, and the general public. Exercises principles of good judgment for the safety of yourself and others. Avoid impropriety and misconduct and commit to the USPA Values Statement.
Responsibility for Competence
Act as role models and embrace the concept of leadership in teaching and mentoring in all aspects of training. Ensure that all documents and records associated with the privileges of the rating are accurate, complete, and submitted in a timely manner. Take responsibility to maintain and update their professional skill sets, content knowledge, and competency on an ongoing basis.
Responsibility to Students and Members
Respect diverse traditions, heritages, and experiences and reject discrimination based on race,
ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, or any other attribute not
related to performance or merit.
Responsibility to follow the Rules
Comply with applicable BSRs, FARS, IRM content, and with timely reporting of incidents on the USPA Confidential Incident Report.”
18. The SIM states that there should be only 10% wear on the reserve closing loop and the committee felt that this was extremely inaccurate and that there should be no visible wear at all on the reserve closing loop. The committee passed a motion to correct it - Motion; Remove terminology in SIM and IRM “ten percent” worn regarding the inspections of reserve closing loops and reword to “must have no visible wear”
19. The S&T committee and the EC approved an interim motion to allow certain IE’s and designated Drop Zones to beta test the Tandem Hand Cam Training Program.
20. The committee discussed adding to the IRM a recommended 1:4 ratios for Examiner to Candidate and Instructor to student. The committee felt that there was no need to restrict instructors by have mandated ratios
21. The committee discuss and approved changing the expired examiner rating and renewal requirement from “Assist in one Instructor Rating Course” to “Assist in a full rating course and Teach at least 50% of that Instructor Rating Course”
22. Within the IRM A-1.C.2, it still had “Challenge Procedures” listed as an option - there is no longer a challenge to any course. The committee directed the S&T director to remove this option.
23. The committee changed SIM section 4-H.B.1.a.(3). - Which is in regard to front riser work and why a jumper would do it. Some of the answers listed was to “lose altitude rapidly” and “to catch up with another jumper under canopy below”. The committee felt that that was an inappropriate answer and wanted to remove it. “.
24. The committee discussed the ambiguity of terminology that was found in the BSRs SIM section 2-1.G.1.a - “the direction and oversight.”, and decide to use a more consistent defined terminology of “ supervision” and “direct supervision”.
25. The committee discussed removing or clarifying in the AFF Section in the IRM IRM A-2.2-2.C.1 - under “Flow of the Dive” : that the AFF first-jump student freefall training classes should be limited to no more than six students per instructor. As we did with early agenda items, we decided not to restrict the instructor’s abilities to teach by using mandated ratios.
26. Even though there is some language in Category C on this topic - The committee decided to put clearer verbiage in the IRM SL/IAD Category B portion – “that it is recommended that the last PPCT/PRCP in Category B and the first clear and pull in Category C should be done on the same day.
27. The committee discussed adding new changes that were developed by the S&T Director to the B-license canopy card. The committee appreciated the value of the new canopy work and the review of emergency procedures with a focus on low altitude (canopy landing) emergencies. Before implementing the new program, the committee wanted to send it out to the field and have the experts test it.
28. The completed Military Transition Card was presented to the committee for review and approval. The committee agreed with the content and how the card was going to be used in regards to military jumpers who have completed the their respective military freefall course (HALO) and what is required of them once the show up at a USPA GM DZ to get their A license.
29. The committee discussed the clarification of obstacles defined in the BSR. (“Obstacles” is not in the BSRs? Hazards?). In addition, there was some disparities on the definitions of both hazards and obstacles. After much debate the committee felt that the word Obstacles was more relevant then the word Hazard which resulted in a change and addition to BSR SIM 2-1.J.2. - Move to change SIM 2-1.J.2. to read “Obstacles are defined as telephone and power lines, towers, buildings, bodies of water, highways, vehicles, and trees. However, trees that will not interfere with parachute landings are not considered obstacles.”
30. The committee discussed the issues of the definition of medicals as defined in SIM Section 2-1.C.2. were the words “equivalent medical certificate acceptable to USPA” and the problems on how this was being interpreted. The original intent behind this verbiage was to address military medicals such as flight physicals or diver physicals. To alleviate any misinterpretation of what is required the committee felt that we needed to clarify this in the BSR’s. - Move to remove SIM section 2-1.C.2 - “equivalent medical certificate acceptable to USPA” and insert “military flight or diver physicals that are required by their position or duty status by their military command authority”
31. Due to the recent events, problems and fatalities in the past with landing pattern issues and jumpers colliding with each other while flying their patterns at their respective Drop Zones. The committee felt that it was important to help alleviate these traffic issues and support local DZ’s to help them enforce the landing patterns that are dictated at their respective locations. The motion failed.
32. The FAA form 7711 was discussed for demo jumps as outlined in SIM Section 7 and the committee debated the need that a certificate of authorization may also be needed for an open field and a level one demo depending on the location. The committee Directed the S&T Director to state that these documents may be necessary regardless of it being an open field or level one demo.
33. The committee was presented with the notion to require a current Covid-19 vaccine, or a negative Covid-19 test within 72 hours prior to USPA training and certification course events (held in the US) by all attendees, including, but not limited to, USPA representatives, candidates, evaluators, host staff, independent vendors and all other support people. The Committee felt that they had no jurisdiction or authority to dictate business practices if drop zone owners and leave it up to the respective states to govern that process. Motion Failed
34. The committees was present with the idea that both the online test and hard copy test should have the same retesting requirements. The committee felt that that the process that was in place served the membership and was sufficient. Motion Failed
