Re: [Para5-0] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll
In reply to:
I am not argueing with you at all you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it.
With that said, there are so many points you make and inuendos that are 100% false and strictly assumed. I have read every single word of the original proposal. The roll out process as presented was fair and included 7 I/E's from geographical areas spread out across the United States. There is and never was any one person monopolizing this.
Further-If you think that this was initiated for any financial gain whatsoever to any one person call me on my cell, email me, PM me, or come to my house and I will explain to you how this is not only 100% untrue but it has been verified by myself personally
To prove it I will attach the roll out process but withhold any names associated with the appointments. I will say I have corresponded with all 7 I/E's and they are all committed to a fair and expeditious roll out. If the membership USPA decides to move forward.
Further, it is blatantly obvious where you stand on this topic, and I have no problem with you advocating against standardized training amongst your community. I am aassuming you are an active wingsuiter but I dont know.
Keep in mind the dates are null and void due to the tabling of the entire topic, so disregard the dates. This is also a draft that was presented to us. This is only a draft and is subject to complete sensor by USPA S&T and Full BOD. Lt me say that again this is just the roll out that was presented.
I've never ever not one time said anyone was pushing this for financial gain, have I? Look it up.
The whole thing is BS for a multitude of reasons and apparently you have not been on the BOD long enough to know what a clusterfink you are creating because as soon as one subdiscipline gets a separate rating, all the other peope involved in teaching any of the other subdisciplines become lawyer food. Period. Full stop.
Look it up.
As soon as you add this standalone subdiscipline instructor rating, you create a cascade clusterfink in the entire USPA rating and instructioinal structure because now everything has to be synced up bureaucratically.
Look it up.
You want to know the absolute giveaway word about the coming clusterfink?
The primary proposal pusher's assertion that this proposal "merely" does XYZ. *
"Merely," huh? If this whole thing is about "merely" doing XYZ, then why exactly is there so much pressure and push to do it?
Nothing any of you say about this adds up, to include:
* the 3rd grade science class methodology of your "poll;" and
* your provably false claim that if USPA doesn't take charge of this the insurers will stop insuring our airplanes.
Really, Rich, why are you and the primary proposal pusher waving the insurance thing front and center when it is absolutely false -- when the insurers do not care one way or the other whether USPA regulates wingsuiting or not -- when all the insurers want is for people to quit hitting the tails of the planes they insure?
Why the lies, Rich?
* ď'We just donít need a "program" for this, itís a lot of change.' Actually, itís not. Itís merely requiring an FFC that uses the same content found in the current SIM Section 6.9. instruction."
(This post was edited by robinheid on Oct 2, 2012, 9:11 AM)
Post edited by robinheid
() on Oct 2, 2012, 9:11 AM