Forums: Archive: 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections: Re: [matthewcline] BOD members on WS Rating: Edit Log


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 5, 2012, 9:28 AM

Views: 2956
Re: [matthewcline] BOD members on WS Rating

In reply to:
In reply to:
Thanks for replying Rich. I appreciate your honesty and I respect that you're not afraid to take a position on this publicly.

I'm sure there are issues that we agree on. I can't vote for you because of this one though. I worry that since you support this proposal so enthusiastically, you would also be in favor of similar bureaucracies for freeflying, swooping, camera flying ... I just don't think it's a good path to go down.

Please don't feel like I'm throwing spears or attacking you personally. We just disagree.

If I was going to throw a spear at someone it would be the genius that decided the dude who is afraid of wingsuits should be chair of the USPAs wingsuit subcommittee. Tongue

Even if this path MIGHT keep WS flying alive in the US?

Matt

DEMOLISH that straw man, Matt!

False premise, false choice. Many proactive actions have already been taken at multiple DZs by DZOs and the jumpers themselves to reduce tailstrikes and better coordinate ATC issues -- all without an out-of-scope, none-of-USPA's-business "solution" that will increase costs and liability.

The tailstrike issue is the only thing that could "kill" wingsuiting from airplanes in the US and that issue is something that is only marginally and peripherally addressed by the mindless nonsense being pushed by a select few who have an agenda that ignore's the association's best interests and that, by the chief pusher's own admission, barely even mentioned tailstrikes until it became a hot button from which they hoped to gain rhetorical advantage.

Have you read Dr. Lee's email yet? Hard to believe that someone with your CV would persist in arguing for this mindless nonsense if you had.

44
Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Nov 5, 2012, 9:31 AM)


Edit Log:
Post edited by robinheid () on Nov 5, 2012, 9:31 AM


Search for (options)