Will Forshay
R. Mehler
Proving that either miracles do happen or that truth is stranger
than fiction, my November Parachutist arrived in the first week
of November, only slightly damaged from the mailman's dog chewing
on it.
Anyhow, all of us who are opposed to censorship now have the chance
to make it an interesting year at USPA headquarters. How many of
you have gotten your ballots in yet?
RM
Bradley C. Spatz
rme...@eesun2.tamu.edu (R. Mehler) writes:
>Anyhow, all of us who are opposed to censorship now have the chance
>to make it an interesting year at USPA headquarters. How many of
>you have gotten your ballots in yet?
Attend the second online USPA town meeting on Tuesday, November 12,
1996, at 9:00pm Eastern Standard Time (EST, GMT-0500) on the Skydive!
Archive IRC server, irc-skydive.afn.org. For more information, visit:
http://www.afn.org/skydive/org/uspa/irctm/
Blue skies!
--
Bradley C. Spatz http://www.afn.org/~bcs/ b...@afn.org
Jim Beck
rme...@eesun2.tamu.edu (R. Mehler) wrote:
>
>Anyhow, all of us who are opposed to censorship now have the chance
>to make it an interesting year at USPA headquarters. How many of
>you have gotten your ballots in yet?
Actually, I was rather disappointed by Will's strong focus on BASE
jumping issues while running for USPA National Director. I personally
don't have a problem with "Parachutist Magazine" not publishing articles
or photos of BASE jumping. I am not against BASE jumping (and I was at
The Bridge last month), I just feel that there are already other
publications and organizations which cover BASE jumping. "Skydiving
Magazine" occasionally covers BASE and there is the World BASE
Association and the Cliff Jumpers Association of America.
USPA's responsibility is to Sport Parachuting and its members who are
sport parachutists. I don't have a problem with the fact that USPA does
not handle other types of activities that involve parachutes: military
parachuting, para-sailing, powered parachutes, BASE jumping, etc.
A primary service USPA provides is to represent the sport parachuting
community to the FAA. The FAA defines a parachute jump as an intentional
jump from an aircraft in flight in which a parachute is to be used for
all or part of the descent. USPA can do a more effective job of working
with the FAA if it narrows its focus to what the FAA regulates.
Basically the FAA allows us to police ourselves and it is very important
to keep this privilege if we don't want a lot more regulation which can
be expected to dramatically increase jump costs, restrict access, etc.
I do respect Will for saying directly what issue is important to him. At
least people who vote for him will know exactly what his priority will
be.
-
- Jim Beck
Bill Von Novak
In article <55vnvi$j...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM>, jb...@kodak.COM says...
>USPA's responsibility is to Sport Parachuting and its members who are
>sport parachutists. I don't have a problem with the fact that USPA does
>not handle other types of activities that involve parachutes: military
>parachuting, para-sailing, powered parachutes, BASE jumping, etc.
that's not the point. parachutist has published pictures of all
the above activites, and sometimes mentions them in stories where the
activity is related.
however, parachutist will actually blank out the picture of a
BASE jump to avoid making any mention of it, and will alter people's
articles to avoid mention of it. they actually changed the word "BASE
jump" in a recent article to "a stunt which required a parachute but did
not involve sport parachuting." that's absurd.
BASE jumping and skydiving use very similar equipment.
often, many of the things learned in BASE jumping are applicable to
skydiving. would we have as many collisions after opening if we had
parachutes that could back up? or that could fly very slowly in brakes?
is a rear riser turn the best way to turn to avoid a collision? people
reading parachutist will not benefit from the large amount of research
done on those topics by BASE gear manufacturers because they refuse to
even acknowledge its existence.
i don't want USPA involved with BASE jumping. but i want them
to treat it as they would any other related activity - allow ads for
BASE gear, allow passing mention of it in articles, and acknowledge
innovations in BASE jumping that could help skydiving become safer.
>A primary service USPA provides is to represent the sport parachuting
>community to the FAA. The FAA defines a parachute jump as an
>intentional jump from an aircraft in flight in which a parachute is to
>be used for all or part of the descent.
then what do garages and parasails have to do with skydiving?
USPA allows ads for those items. why would you exclude something even
closer to our sport?
-bill von
Jim Beck
Bill,
I guess the more fundamental reason that USPA does not want to give any
appearance of supporting BASE jumping is the simple fact that BASE is
mostly illegal in this country (I don't agree with that, but that's the
way it is). For USPA to remain in the good graces of the FAA it probably
can't afford to support or even appear to support an activity which is
prohibited by federal laws.
Your comment about research and experience gained from BASE which is
important to the safety of skydivers too is a good one. However, as I
said before, there are other publications and organizations which do
publish about BASE and advocate those issues. "Skydiving Magazine" is
widely read by skydivers and this information can be widely disseminated
by such a publication.
As far as working toward changing laws to legalize BASE, that is being
done by the World BASE Organization and the Cliff Jumpers Association
of America. Yes, it might happen faster if 33,000 USPA members were able
to learn about BASE issues thru "Parachutist Mag," however, that would
put the effectiveness of USPA's relationship with the FAA at risk. BASE
jumping is not important enough to me to risk skykiving as we know it
today.
For people who do find BASE jumping to be personally very important,
they can work toward change through
the above mentioned avenues. In fact, I do plan to send some letters to
various government agencies and officials as suggested by the CJAA which
had a nice display at Bridge Day last month.
Let's let BASE jumpers worry about BASE jumping and let's let USPA worry
about skydiving. I really feel USPA already has enough on its plate.
-
- Jim Beck
Darren Guidry
Jim Beck <jb...@kodak.COM> wrote:
>
> rme...@eesun2.tamu.edu (R. Mehler) wrote:
> >
> >Anyhow, all of us who are opposed to censorship now have the chance
> >to make it an interesting year at USPA headquarters. How many of
> >you have gotten your ballots in yet?
>
> Actually, I was rather disappointed by Will's strong focus on BASE
> jumping issues while running for USPA National Director. I personally
> don't have a problem with "Parachutist Magazine" not publishing articles
> or photos of BASE jumping. I am not against BASE jumping (and I was at
> The Bridge last month), I just feel that there are already other
> publications and organizations which cover BASE jumping. "Skydiving
> Magazine" occasionally covers BASE and there is the World BASE
Many skydivers are interested in BASE (how many whuffos do you know who
became BASE jumpers without skydiving?). I, a skydiver interested in
BASE, have yet to see or hear of a magazine for BASE jumpers (if someone
knows of such a mag, let me know how I can start receiving it). Plus, if
it is considered part of our sport (and it seems to be), then "Parachutist"
should give it at least a little exposure. And don't forget, if we get rid
of BASE from possible topics, maybe we shouldn't allow companies to advertise
BASE gear, trips, etc. in our magazine. Just send them their money back.
>
> USPA's responsibility is to Sport Parachuting and its members who are
> sport parachutists. I don't have a problem with the fact that USPA does
> not handle other types of activities that involve parachutes: military
> parachuting, para-sailing, powered parachutes, BASE jumping, etc.
>
Hey, wait a minute here. The FAA may define a parachute jump as blah blah,
but they deal with aviation and aircraft. Duh, they wouldn't see BASE as
an activity they would have any jurisdiction over (well, considering what
was written recently, maybe...). Obviously parasailing and powered parachutes
(parasails) are not related to our sport. They are completely different
animals. The objective with them is to "go up", not jump, fall, land safely.
BASE jumping, however, has similar goals to a "parachute jump" from an
aircraft, jump, fall, land safely. IMHO, BASE jumping is parachuting without
aircraft, which is why the FAA doesn't recognize it.
> A primary service USPA provides is to represent the sport parachuting
> community to the FAA. The FAA defines a parachute jump as an intentional
> jump from an aircraft in flight in which a parachute is to be used for
> all or part of the descent. USPA can do a more effective job of working
> with the FAA if it narrows its focus to what the FAA regulates.
> Basically the FAA allows us to police ourselves and it is very important
> to keep this privilege if we don't want a lot more regulation which can
> be expected to dramatically increase jump costs, restrict access, etc.
>
To me, the USPA is suppose to serve the skydiving community first. That is
why they are our sports collective voice with the gov't (FAA and any other
gov't dept, office, etc. that can affect "sport parachuting"). But that is
not they sole job, unless we say so or settle for it.
And as far as focus, if the USPA takes on BASE jumping officially and
dedicates certain people to it with a shoestring budget, it wouldn't
necessarily "take their focus" off of dealing with the FAA.
> I do respect Will for saying directly what issue is important to him. At
> least people who vote for him will know exactly what his priority will
> be.
>
> -
> - Jim Beck
>
And he'll probably get my vote, too!
Blue skies and clear BASE objects!
Darren Guidry
C-26447
dgu...@LasVegas.ess.harris.com
"Okay, who put a "stop payment" on my reality check?"
tom...@aol.com
<To me, the USPA is suppose to serve the skydiving community first. That
is
<why they are our sports collective voice with the gov't (FAA and any
other
<gov't dept, office, etc. that can affect "sport parachuting"). But that
is
<not they sole job, unless we say so or settle for it.
<
<And as far as focus, if the USPA takes on BASE jumping officially and
<dedicates certain people to it with a shoestring budget, it wouldn't
<necessarily "take their focus" off of dealing with the FAA.
Actually, most BASE jumpers want USPA to stay out of the BASE business. We
are very happy dealing with BASE as an unorganized organization. We do not
want a big national organization dictating rules and policy.
What BASE jumpers want is a lack of hostility from USPA. We should be
handled just as any other aviation type group that does things of interest
to USPA members. We would like the right to advertise BASE products in
Parachutist, just as other dealers advertise non-skydiving things in our
magazine. We would like USPA to mention things that happen in BASE that
may be of interest to skydivers, such as technology improvements that can
aid fast on heading openings. We want the ability to use the word BASE if
we are quoted in Parachutist without an editor killing the quote because
the board of directors thinks it is a naughty word.
A long time ago USPA did have some regulatory functions with regard to
BASE. They got out of the business, and decided to distance themselves by
not ever mentioning the word again. That was deep in history. This is
1996, and the past hostility should be long gone. Let's open our eyes to
everything in aviation and parachuting that might be of interest to USPA
members. But lets not go back to the days of direct USPA involvement in
BASE.
-Tom Buchanan
BASE-128
Instructor (AFF, S/L, Tandem)
Charles Thomas
In article <56a4d4$d...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM> Jim Beck, jb...@kodak.COM
writes:
>
>Let's let BASE jumpers worry about BASE jumping and let's let USPA worry
>about skydiving. I really feel USPA already has enough on its plate.
Jim, you're missing the point again. Perhaps you just don't want to hear
it, which is fine.
However, the point is not that USPA should be supporting, managing, or in
any other way becoming involved in BASE activities.
It's simply that an active censorship of anything BASE-related in their
magazine is completely ridiculous and not in the best interests of the
membership. There is no reason that ads for BASE equipment or the word
"BASE" itself should not be allowed to appear in Parachutist. It
certainly hasn't detracted from the informational content or the
acceptance amongst skydivers of "Skydiving" magazine (a much better
magazine by almost anyone's standards).
Beyond the above, which is the central issue, I'll go one better and say
that an article on how to prepare for, or reporting on, Bridge Day (like
the ones featured in Skydiving each year) is a perfect example of
something that Parachutist should be doing. Bridge Day isn't really for
BASE jumpers as much as it is a BASE activity for skydivers. Keeping
skydivers safe is what Parachutist SHOULD be concerned with.
Of course, all the above is IMHO, so if you don't like it... ya don't
have to read it.
--
Charles Thomas
Member: Sky Knights SPC
USPA Licence: D-18226
SKYDIVING: GRAVITY-POWERED ADVENTURE!
Bill Von Novak
In article <56a4d4$d...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM>, jb...@kodak.COM says...
>I guess the more fundamental reason that USPA does not want to give any
>appearance of supporting BASE jumping is the simple fact that BASE is
>mostly illegal in this country (I don't agree with that, but that's the
>way it is). For USPA to remain in the good graces of the FAA it probably
>can't afford to support or even appear to support an activity which is
>prohibited by federal laws.
BASE isn't prohibited by federal laws. there are 100% legal
sites. there are also some sites where access is an issue (i.e. you will
get arrested for trespassing, not BASE jumping.) there are also some
areas where it's prohibited due to an odd aerial-delivery law.
so it's legal some places, not legal in others. kind of like
skydiving, huh?
and what does that have do do with anything, anyway? PARACHUTIST
publishes pictures of people smoking pot. is that more legal?
>Let's let BASE jumpers worry about BASE jumping and let's let USPA worry
>about skydiving. I really feel USPA already has enough on its plate.
no argument there. the USPA should not support BASE, and it
certainly should not spend time eradicating any mention of it in ads,
articles and pictures.
-bill von