Forums: Archive: 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections:
Winter BOD Meeting

 


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jan 25, 2012, 8:09 AM
Post #1 of 78 (2915 views)
Shortcut
Winter BOD Meeting Can't Post

It sems everyone has been working hard getting ready for the Feb BOD meeting. The agendas of all committees are online at http://uspa.org

Specifically speaking about the Safety and Training agenda http://www.uspa.org/...genda_ST_2012_02.pdf

These topics will be covered and possibly a motion may be voted on. There is a full agenda for the three days but now is your chance to voice an opinion. I know once it is all said and done, there will be the normal complaints coming from those that kept their mouth shut. It is a bit disheartening when you try to involve membership to the best of your ability and they still complain. I can't guarantee your opinion will prevail but I can guarantee it will be heard. I respect the online community and think it is an excellent source of expertise, so why let it go to waste.

Take a moment and read through the agenda, talk about topics that concern you with fellow jumpers and if you have an opinion respond accordingly. I promise to bring forward any concerns.

One point that I am sure will be an area of contention is raising the min deployment altitudes for C and D licenses. That is just one topic. There will be others. (Coach Wing Suit Rating, additional types of medicals to accept for tandem instructors, and a bunch of waivers)
If nobody speaks up how are we supposed to represent accordingly? I have my own opinions on subjects but ultimately it is the memberships voice that should matter.

Please, if you want to get involved read through the agenda and comment. Not just S&T by the way, all agendas for all committees are posted.

Also remember that the vast majority of Directors will be at Skydive San Diego on Thursday Feb 16th all day long. So if you are near by you can voice opinions or concerns in person. or here is a novel idea, COME TO THE MEETING.

Rich Winstock
USPA National Director


kallend  (D 23151)

Jan 25, 2012, 9:02 AM
Post #2 of 78 (2860 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If nobody speaks up how are we supposed to represent accordingly? I have my own opinions on subjects but ultimately it is the memberships voice that should matter.

Please, if you want to get involved read through the agenda and comment. Not just S&T by the way, all agendas for all committees are posted.



Rich Winstock
USPA National Director

Hard to comment on a proposal when we don't know what's in it (wingsuit coach rating, for example).


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jan 25, 2012, 9:04 AM
Post #3 of 78 (2858 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

My feed back if I may.

1. Keep the renewal to annually, dome DZ'swill let it become the "norm" and never review any procedures or process for the reason why they have the waiver. They will get complacent.

2. No issues.

3. Is this truly necessary? or is it just a way around admitting our newer jumpers are NOT educating them selves about the new canopies opening distances needed? If it is truly necessary raise if for C.

4. No issues, the SIM and its Recommendations and BSR's should follow the FAR's, just like the Jumpers and BOD.

5. I say keep the log book signatures for the needed jumps, too many are faking things as it is. I recently discovered some of my past Candidates faked their log books claiming they had them on the audible. But at least with a written record the I/E and USPA as well as the hosting DZ has SOME liability protection from the fraud.

6. Maybe I am an exception but my AFF I Course we went over the "Oh Shit" situations not evaluated. I saw this again in the I/E Course. Maybe this should be a Standardization issue.

7. I think this has merit, just like the Canopy Pilot Coach has merit.

8. If any thing the standards are too LOW and it should be a BSR at minimum.

9. Not Coaches, most Coaches are still lacking the skills themselves, I/E's are a better option with the S&TA the Second Option.

10. Well, if it allows one to go to Outer Space, sure, it seems a bit higher in quality than the Class 3 which is pretty simple to pass, but no NONE US exams for US T-I's, no waivers either.

11. Simple, Follow the FAR's for the FAA Classes. Show proof at each renewal (if the people involved pay attention the renewals and Medicals will start "lining up") If military they are more restrictive in passing/failing, they are pretty simple to understand if one fails or not, the Military minimal is well above the Class 3.

12. What proposals?

13. A. What limitations? at face value I would say "No".
B. Lack of Planning, is not an emergency on the BODs Part, I would say "No".
C. I would say "No" as I no reason the experience is not needed, is there more to this? Military JM? hold numerous ratings already?

Matt


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jan 25, 2012, 9:31 AM
Post #4 of 78 (2852 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Additional Feed Back.

Regional Directors

1. What is the Question?
2. Add Drifts as well, see S&TA Feedback for how they should ALL be dealt with, regardless if format.
3. What is the issue?
4. Disciplinary actions do not happen often enough and are glossed over if even recognized.
5. Enforce the Pledge!

Matt


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jan 25, 2012, 9:37 AM
Post #5 of 78 (2850 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Feed Back.

Membership Services.

1-2-3. No Issues.

4. Why not, $5 a copy, plus Shipping and Handling. They could look the similar as the 1000 jump and 12 hours awards certificates.

5. Life time, if one gets an awards for Service to USPA, US or World wide Skydiving, then make it a perk of the award, unless they do 30 plus years in USPA they can pay for the membership.

6. There should be a bias, Parachutist is part of the GM perk. If You want USPA to lose more GM DZ's, continue to allow the None USPA GM DZ's free Advertising!

Matt


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jan 25, 2012, 9:37 AM
Post #6 of 78 (2850 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Matt,
Exactly what I was looking for. I appreciate your input very much, I wish more would voice opinions. I can advocate one way or another on each topic based on input here. I have noted all your points.

In my world I would love a solid audience at the meeting to voice opinions in person.

Blue Air,
Rich


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jan 25, 2012, 9:39 AM
Post #7 of 78 (2847 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Rich,

Well, I figured as I was waiting on the P2 cards to transfer I would be "helpful".

I might not jump as much this yea,r as years past, but I can still be of assistance to USPA and its membership!

Matt


mark  (D 6108)

Jan 25, 2012, 10:06 AM
Post #8 of 78 (2843 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
One point that I am sure will be an area of contention is raising the min deployment altitudes for C and D licenses.

The rationale for setting pack opening altitudes where they are was to allow time to deal with malfunctions. When all canopies take about the same amount of time and altitude to open, this system works ok. These days, canopy opening times are more variable.

Instead of using pack opening altitude, we should be concerned about the altitude at which a main canopy should be functionally open.

I propose:
-- for C and D license holders, the main canopy must be functionally open no lower than 1800 feet.
-- for B license holders, the main canopy must be functionally open no lower than 2000 feet.
-- for A license holders and unlicensed skydivers, the main canopy must be functionally open no lower than 2500 feet.

Each jumper would be responsible for determining his or her own deployment initiation altitude, which would depend on canopy characteristics, jump run speed (for low altitude jumps), and license level.

C and D license holders would still be able to make hop-and-pops at 2000 feet, canopy and jump-run speed permitting. Because of the canopies we choose to jump, for must of us pack opening altitudes would go up.

Mark


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)
Moderator
Jan 25, 2012, 11:58 AM
Post #9 of 78 (2832 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

See you there, mate.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jan 25, 2012, 12:49 PM
Post #10 of 78 (2823 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey mark,

I have heard this arguement. It is basically you must be open by, instead of you must deploy by. I am sure someone will bring it up.


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)
Moderator
Jan 25, 2012, 1:09 PM
Post #11 of 78 (2820 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

This came up about three meetings ago, with Cliff Schmucker from SSK presenting the issue to the board.

The issue with that is that it is much easier to get "container open" at an accurate (minimum) altitude than get a canopy "fully open" at an accurate (minimum) altitude.

The majority of skydivers wear an altimeter (or two). That instrument allows for "container opening" at the established minimum altitude as close as altimeter calibration and perception of the human eye allow. In the age of digital altimeters, that becomes even more accurate.

We do not have an instrument that tells us when to deploy to be "fully open" by an accurate (minimum) altitude. I jump the same three canopies for the most part, and I believe I could determine how much altitude each takes to open on average and keep them straight in my head. So when I'm jumping my Velo I need to deploy at XXXX to be "fully open" by the minimum . . . with my personal Storm it's XXXX . . . with my work Storm it's XXXX. Of course those altitudes may change over time as the parachute and lineset starts to show their age. But what about tandem rigs? We have 8 at my home DZ and some of them open quite differently, some taking more altitude than others. Adding to the complication . . . snivelly purple main in rig #3 may end up in rig #8 after a repack or reline. On the contrary, I trust the accuracy of my N3 digital altimeter and my ability to release a drogue at my own minimum altitude, which is 500 FT higher than USPA's.

The other part of the conversation at the meeting a couple of years ago was that those who are jumping canopies that take a long time to open are already opening high enough to stay out of the "thick air." Those who are not and are having AAD fires will probably not produce a new result if the verbiage is changed.

In my opinion you can change from "container opening" to "fully open" if you want, but most folks are going to continue to pull where they pull using their altimeter and the "container opening" minimum with their own padding added on to suit equipment and comfort level.


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 26, 2012, 6:23 AM
Post #12 of 78 (2756 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
10. Tandem Instructor medical requirement: A request has been made to accept the NASA
medical exam as an equivalent to the FAA third class medical.

11. Tandem medical requirement compliance: Discussion of procedures that can help ensure
each tandem instructor maintains a current medical.

First, the FAA dose not require tandem I's to carry a medical in the FARS, there is no reason for USPA force members to carry one in the first place and add additional expense to the cost of being an USPA instructor. If the FAA was so worried about tandem I's acting as PIC, they could have required all TI's have a current medical card, and they did not!

Second, if the USPA is going to allow a bunch of wavers to the rules for the just military and now a NASA medical. Then the USPA needs to allow all USDOT approved physicals/medicals, after all the FAA is a branch of the USDOT, the DOT medicals for truck drivers and train engineers is for the most the same physical you take for a class 3 for flight, we are forced to get and it is approved by the USDOT and their sub-branch the FAA, there for seems reasonable to allow all equivalent forms of USDOT approved medicals, if we're going to continue to force members to have a medical!


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jan 26, 2012, 8:17 AM
Post #13 of 78 (2738 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
10. Tandem Instructor medical requirement: A request has been made to accept the NASA
medical exam as an equivalent to the FAA third class medical.

11. Tandem medical requirement compliance: Discussion of procedures that can help ensure
each tandem instructor maintains a current medical.

First, the FAA dose not require tandem I's to carry a medical in the FARS, there is no reason for USPA force members to carry one in the first place and add additional expense to the cost of being an USPA instructor. If the FAA was so worried about tandem I's acting as PIC, they could have required all TI's have a current medical card, and they did not!

Second, if the USPA is going to allow a bunch of wavers to the rules for the just military and now a NASA medical. Then the USPA needs to allow all USDOT approved physicals/medicals, after all the FAA is a branch of the USDOT, the DOT medicals for truck drivers and train engineers is for the most the same physical you take for a class 3 for flight, we are forced to get and it is approved by the USDOT and their sub-branch the FAA, there for seems reasonable to allow all equivalent forms of USDOT approved medicals, if we're going to continue to force members to have a medical!

Seems a reasonable point.

FYI.
The Nashville FSDO pointed out that, No they do not require a physical by the direction of the FAA, but they do require the T-I to be trained and certified by the Course Director, they recognize USPA and the Manufacturers reps and their rules as Course Director. In his "Opinion", this means a physical as per the USPA and Manufacturer.

Matt


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Jan 26, 2012, 9:14 AM
Post #14 of 78 (2723 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not real big on the minimum altitudes one either.

As far as the waivers, well, I think that a periodic re-review is a good thing, for the complacency reason mentioned upthread.

Jump logging -- as long as DZ's review the recording altimeters, then I don't see an issue. It's easier to inflate a logbook than a recording altimeter Unsure, and we've all seen that happen.

I'm not involved in the other areas.

Wendy P.


theonlyski  (D License)

Jan 26, 2012, 9:26 AM
Post #15 of 78 (2720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
9. Not Coaches, most Coaches are still lacking the skills themselves, I/E's are a better option with the S&TA the Second Option.

Matt, I believe they meant Coach Examiners.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jan 26, 2012, 9:36 AM
Post #16 of 78 (2716 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
9. Not Coaches, most Coaches are still lacking the skills themselves, I/E's are a better option with the S&TA the Second Option.

Matt, I believe they meant Coach Examiners.

That makes more sense. After rereading it, I think you would be right too.

Matt


Southern_Man  (C License)

Jan 26, 2012, 12:35 PM
Post #17 of 78 (2688 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not going to comment on all the issues but a couple I have some thoughts about:

I am against raising the minimum deployment altitudes. I can be open less than 200 ft. after leaving the plane on a hope and pop. I would not and do not open at 2000 at terminal but I would have no problem leaving the plane at 2100 ft.

I tend to think that logbooks (and that means signatures) are a better safeguard than audible altimeters. My audible will allow me to set whatever number I want in there. I know both can be faked and we are all essentially on the honor system but it seems that changing the audible is a lot easier.


jimjumper  (D 11137)

Jan 26, 2012, 5:37 PM
Post #18 of 78 (2664 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Feedback for 2012 S+T Agenda:

1. Im in favor of keeping the annual renewals. It at least keeps the issue fresh and some current thought given to it once a year.

2. No issues.

3. In favor of keeping the opening altitudes as is. Part of the purpose of having a C or D license is recognizing appropriate opening altitudes dependant on exit altitude and canopy choice.

4. No opinion. I dont have a Pro rating and would be unlikely to attempt a Level-2 demo tandem in any case.

5. I would keep the paper logbooks for right now. For those using logging audibles, I know that they are already used to verify raw jump numbers but some information needed for licenses or ratings isnt logged or verified yet. If that info is downloadable to be independently verified (i.e. signature) then I would think the raw jump numbers would be considered verifiable by using the audible.

6. Im OK with a general high opening procedure or policy as long as its kept appropriate for all DZs. Extended procedures that dont work for all DZs just causes confusion.

7. Im not in favor of specialty ratings. When the subject comes up it turns into an argument of:
A. Who should the instructors be?
B. Who should be required to be instructed?
C. How do I get qualified to be an Instructor?
D. What specifically is going to be taught (i.e. course syllabus) and does the individual have to pay for it or can it be self taught or taught for free?
Everybody wants to be the evaluator and get paid for it and everybody outside will hate having to pay for it and will try to find a way around it.

8. I think 200 jumps is about right for taking along a camera. The distractions of using a camera make them something that should only be done after a jumper is comfortable with basic skydiving skills.

9. All for it! I still believe that Instructors should be allowed the privilege of signing off B licenses but at least this proposal provides a definitive path for an Instructor to get there. I found it offensive that Instructors were treated this way and have stated my opinion in the S+T forum in detail. I find it silly that Instructors can sign approval for A and C licenses but an S+TA, (without any required Instructional ratings!), is necessary for a B.

10. How about getting rid of the medical exam requirement instead? Ive been getting them now for 15 years and they are a waste of time and money. I had hoped it would happen when the tandem manufactures started getting out of the certification system but it didnt turn out that way.

11. See response to Item 10.

12. What changes?

13. Personal requests to the board that I have no information or opinion on.

Let me know if you need clarification or info.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jan 27, 2012, 12:40 PM
Post #19 of 78 (2619 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
10. Tandem Instructor medical requirement: A request has been made to accept the NASA
medical exam as an equivalent to the FAA third class medical.

11. Tandem medical requirement compliance: Discussion of procedures that can help ensure
each tandem instructor maintains a current medical.

First, the FAA dose not require tandem I's to carry a medical in the FARS, there is no reason for USPA force members to carry one in the first place and add additional expense to the cost of being an USPA instructor. If the FAA was so worried about tandem I's acting as PIC, they could have required all TI's have a current medical card, and they did not!

Second, if the USPA is going to allow a bunch of wavers to the rules for the just military and now a NASA medical. Then the USPA needs to allow all USDOT approved physicals/medicals, after all the FAA is a branch of the USDOT, the DOT medicals for truck drivers and train engineers is for the most the same physical you take for a class 3 for flight, we are forced to get and it is approved by the USDOT and their sub-branch the FAA, there for seems reasonable to allow all equivalent forms of USDOT approved medicals, if we're going to continue to force members to have a medical!

Well, not too many truck drivers or train engineers regularly go to 14,000ft and down again several times a day.


Deisel  (D 31661)

Jan 27, 2012, 2:10 PM
Post #20 of 78 (2605 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Im a huge proponent of electronic logbooks. Every one of us trusts banks to manage our money electronically. We vote electronically. The list of things that are accomplished without the use of ink and paper is endless, and skydiving logbooks could easily be one of those things. But using the audible however, is not the way to go. There are a number of reasons that this can be inaccurate.

I would propose that USPA look into the creation of a standardized electronic logbook that would be used industry wide as the only acceptable form. There are a number of these that already exist for the iphone/ipad that could be copied or purchased from their creators. The one I use personally even has an option for electronic signatures.

Another reason to consider electronic logs is the fact that they can be backed up remotely. Copies can be made and saved on standalone devices (i.e. icloud) that allows for data to be recovered in the event of an ooops. This cant be done with pen and paper books. This is too easy to not consider.


(This post was edited by Deisel on Jan 27, 2012, 2:14 PM)


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 27, 2012, 2:40 PM
Post #21 of 78 (2599 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

It's the same physical.


airtwardo  (D License)

Jan 27, 2012, 10:06 PM
Post #22 of 78 (2562 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jimjumper] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

3. In favor of keeping the opening altitudes as is. Part of the purpose of having a C or D license is recognizing appropriate opening altitudes dependant on exit altitude and canopy choice.


In reply to:

That's about the most well worded rational for leaving it alone, that I've seen thus far. +1


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Jan 29, 2012, 7:35 AM
Post #23 of 78 (2498 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

My 2 cents....

1. Waiver submissions for wind and water gear requirements currently require an annual
renewal. A request has been made to change the process and allow the waiver to stay in
place permanently instead of requiring an annual renewal.


This is a "makes sense" proposal. If nothing has changed at the DZ holding the waiver (like a body of water being created closer to the DZ than the waiver was written for), then there's no reason to have the additional work and cost of renewing the waiver.



3. SIM Section 2-1 G. Minimum Deployment Altitudes: A request has been made to raise the C and D license minimum deployment altitude from 2,000 feet AGL to 2,500 feet AGL.

I disagree with this proposal. Container openings of 2,000 feet AGL are no riskier than those at 2,500 feet when performed by appropriately skilled jumpers utilizing appropriate equipment such as faster a opening canopy in a rig not equipped with an AAD. BSR's are supposed to be minimum safe limits, not minimum safe limits for some people under certain conditions. Creating a BSR limiting everyone's practices when only some (even if most) people are effected would blur the lines of BSR's as a concept.

I believe minimum container opening altitudes should be addressed as gear and situation specific, and various scenarios would be better included in the SIM in the "equipment" section as recommendations for various gear configurations and experience levels. A note could be included in the "deployment altitudes" section of the BSR's referencing the more detailed discussion in the equipment recommendations section.



4. SIM Sections 2-1 J.3 and 2-1 J.5. refer to tandem jumps into level-2 landing areas and stadiums. Due to FAA guidance in the 8900 inspector handbook, these two BSRs do not meet the FAA guidelines, which do not allow for tandem jumps into level-2 landing areas or stadiums.

BSR's should not be in conflict with FAA guidelines. If the current BSR's are in conflict, they should be changed to follow the FAA guidance.



5. Jump logging requirements: A member has suggested that the license requirements be amended to eliminate the need for logbook signatures for jumps as outlined in Section 3. Given the current trends in logging with electronic devices, should the language in Section 3 be changed to recognize the current processes for logging jumps, such as using data from audible altimeters? Airplane pilots do not need to obtain logbook signatures for logging flight time.

I believe some form of verification in logging should remain necessary for jumpers to obtain licenses and ratings or participate in jump-number specific activities like jumping a wingsuit, whether that verification is in the form of witness signatures in a logbook or a printout from an electronic logging device. There is a growing problem in our increasing complex sport of people pushing the limits of having appropriate experience for the activities they want to take part in, so some form of verification needs to remain in place to minimize logbook "padding".


skydived19006  (D 19006)

Feb 14, 2012, 8:17 PM
Post #24 of 78 (2321 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Membership Services
5. Lifetime Membership: Should Lifetime Membership be awarded to long-term
members?


This is an interesting idea. I could see granting Lifetime Membership at 20 or 30 years. The 20 year group can't be a very large percentage of the membership, let alone the 30 year group. My opinion would be to look at the numbers of members and make this policy. It may encourage a few folks to maintain membership a few more years just to hit the magic number.

REGIONAL DIRECTORS
1. S&TA qualifications

Just a topic for discussion? No ideas what the potential requirements may be. Attempt to disallow the DZO from being the S&TA as a conflict of interest (I laughed to myself on that one).


S&T
4. SIM Sections 2-1 J.3 and 2-1 J.5. refer to tandem jumps into level-2 landing areas and
stadiums. Due to FAA guidance in the 8900 inspector handbook, these two BSRs do not
meet the FAA guidelines, which do not allow for tandem jumps into level-2 landing areas
or stadiums.


The irony of this to me, is that the military does what ever the fuck they want, which in some cases is totally reasonable. But seriously, being a member of the military should really make a difference when jumping into a civilian event? The paperwork I get back from the FAA exempts DOD all over the place. So, a DOD TI with 400 skydives is allowed to put a tandem into a stadium because...?

I guess I went into rant mode there! I realize that what the DOD does is beyond the auspices of the USPA BOD.

5. Jump logging requirements: A member has suggested that the license requirements be
amended to eliminate the need for logbook signatures for jumps as outlined in Section 3.
Given the current trends in logging with electronic devices, should the language in
Section 3 be changed to recognize the current processes for logging jumps, such as using
data from audible altimeters? Airplane pilots do not need to obtain logbook signatures for
logging flight time.

I don't like the idea of using altimeters as log books. What's to keep me from "borrowing" someone elses altimeter? I can see both sides of the "signature argument". Pilots aren't required to have verification signatures, and I'm sure that just as many of them pad their log books as do skydivers. Even with signatures, people can easily pad. Maybe require signatures up to 500 jumps? That's about when I stopped screwing with signatures. I update my log book once a year taking from the manifest.

That's all I have to say about that.


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)
Moderator
Feb 17, 2012, 9:12 AM
Post #25 of 78 (2249 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I am in the gallery and posting updates on the Raeford Parachute Center Facebook Page if you want to keep tabs on what's happening. Cool

By request, I will also be posting daily highlights on the Blue Skies Mag Facebook Page


(This post was edited by slotperfect on Feb 17, 2012, 10:26 AM)


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Feb 17, 2012, 12:09 PM
Post #26 of 78 (1387 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Martin,

Quote:
Lifetime Membership: Should Lifetime Membership be awarded to long-term
members?

I'm all for this one. Tongue

Member since 1964,

JerryBaumchen
USPA #357


airtwardo  (D License)

Feb 17, 2012, 8:26 PM
Post #27 of 78 (1354 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

 No argument here! Blush


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 19, 2012, 8:21 PM
Post #28 of 78 (1271 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Well,

The meeting is over and I am sure I speak for all of the directors when I say everyone is exhausted and looking forward to getting home. The agendas were robust in all committees and work went well over our planned time schedule.

Minutes will be available soon or visit raefords page for updates.

Had the opportunity to meet some dz.comers Monkey and NWflyer were present at the meeting. Nice to meet you both. Also Jumper jim made a short stop by to say hello. Great to meet everyone.

On another note I am in the beginning stages of planning a full day of jumping with Directors, USPA Staff, and USPA members the Thursday before the next meeting. August 2nd. I think this might be enough time to schedule accordingly. We will be jumping at Twin Citties and the meeting is in Minneapolis.

Thanks,
Rich


SStewart  (D 10405)

Feb 19, 2012, 9:13 PM
Post #29 of 78 (1268 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

So the regional boundaries have been re-drawn. This has not happened in a long time and it would seem to be a big deal but no input from the membership was included.

Mad

What about giving long time members lifetime membership?


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)
Moderator
Feb 19, 2012, 9:53 PM
Post #30 of 78 (1261 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Apparently there is already a 50% discount on a lifetime membership once you reach 25 years as a member. They decided that was good enough.

Let's see if I can make it another 2 years without the price going up. I will probably jump on that deal.

Clint Vincent at USPA HQ has the details.


SStewart  (D 10405)

Feb 19, 2012, 10:40 PM
Post #31 of 78 (1255 views)
Shortcut
Re: [slotperfect] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I see, so they had an opportunity to do something cool to honor long time members who have paid for lifetime memberships many times over and they decided to vote against it.

I would like to know by name who voted against this.

This was one positive thing the board could have done and they blew it. USPA would have still been able to get dues for rating renewals from these members. It is long past time that the members who have helped this sport grow to what it is today to be recognized.

I propose that anyone who has been a USPA member for 25 (or more) years be given lifetime membership. They will still have to pay for pro ratings, instructor ratings, etc.

Tell your regional and national directors you support this and lets get this on the agenda for the summer 2012 meeting.


theonlyski  (D License)

Feb 20, 2012, 3:45 AM
Post #32 of 78 (1244 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I see, so they had an opportunity to do something cool to honor long time members who have paid for lifetime memberships many times over and they decided to vote against it.

25 years at $55 a year is $1375, lifetime is currently $1000. I wouldn't consider that paid many times over. (IIRC the renewal fee just went up recently, so it would be a little less than the $1375)

In reply to:

S&T
4. SIM Sections 2-1 J.3 and 2-1 J.5. refer to tandem jumps into level-2 landing areas and stadiums. Due to FAA guidance in the 8900 inspector handbook, these two BSRs do not meet the FAA guidelines, which do not allow for tandem jumps into level-2 landing areas or stadiums.


The irony of this to me, is that the military does what ever the fuck they want, which in some cases is totally reasonable. But seriously, being a member of the military should really make a difference when jumping into a civilian event? The paperwork I get back from the FAA exempts DOD all over the place. So, a DOD TI with 400 skydives is allowed to put a tandem into a stadium because...?

If they're on orders for that event, jumping for their mission, with team gear it's one thing, if they're just going out because they've got a rating and jumping the local dz's gear, that's different.

SL jumps at <1250' are legal for military on haz duty orders and USPA says they're within the BSR's, but does that mean that some civilians should be doing it too?


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Feb 20, 2012, 4:32 AM
Post #33 of 78 (1241 views)
Shortcut
Re: [slotperfect] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Apparently there is already a 50% discount on a lifetime membership once you reach 25 years as a member.
When did that go into place? Because I became a lifetime member 3-4 years ago, after 30+ years of membership, and didn't hear anything about a discount.

Wendy P.


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)
Moderator
Feb 20, 2012, 7:46 AM
Post #34 of 78 (1223 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

It didn't come out of Committee; I wasn't sitting in on that Committee so I don't know who voted what . . . issues don't always come to a vote if there is not enough support for a motion.

Engaging your RDs and NDs to get it back on the agenda for summer is the right thing to do if you are still passionate about it.


Premier NWFlyer  (D 29960)

Feb 20, 2012, 7:51 AM
Post #35 of 78 (1221 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Apparently there is already a 50% discount on a lifetime membership once you reach 25 years as a member.
When did that go into place? Because I became a lifetime member 3-4 years ago, after 30+ years of membership, and didn't hear anything about a discount.

Wendy P.

Not sure, but since several of the directors expressed surprise at that rule, too, it sounds like it's not well-known and it's possible that the person processing your lifetime membership didn't know. Perhaps you should ask for a refund!


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)
Moderator
Feb 20, 2012, 7:57 AM
Post #36 of 78 (1220 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I have no idea - I'd never heard about it before. Clint Vincent has the details.


JohnRich  (D License)

Feb 20, 2012, 8:45 AM
Post #37 of 78 (1214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I see, so they had an opportunity to do something cool to honor long time members who have paid for lifetime memberships many times over and they decided to vote against it.

What are the numbers? How many members are there with over 25 years of continuous membership? How much money is that in membership dues? What is the effect of the loss of that on the budget?

There are about 32,000 members. If 1,000 of those are 25-year members, that's a $55,000 per year budget hit - a not insubstantial amount. And it's not a one-time expense, it's every year.

Before I take a position on such a proposal, I need to know the numbers...

Furthermore, it's kind of a welfare mentality. If I'm still jumping and still receiving the magazine (which accounts for a substantial portion of the USPA budget), then I ought to still pay to support the organization which keeps me jumping and informed. I don't look for a free ride just because I've been around a while.


(This post was edited by JohnRich on Feb 20, 2012, 1:27 PM)


Premier NWFlyer  (D 29960)

Feb 20, 2012, 10:35 AM
Post #38 of 78 (1197 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

My random thoughts on the meeting...

This was the second USPA board meeting that I attended - the first was in February 2008 in Orlando. Some may recall there were some "hot" issues on the agenda for that meeting, to be sure.Laugh

I have to say that I came out of this meeting with a stronger, generally more positive impression of the board and the work they do after this meeting. Are there politics? Of course - put more than one person in a room and something's going to get political. Are there personal agendas? I'm sure there are - again, it's hard not to have them. Are the board's decisions sometimes overly-skewed towards the interests of DZOs? Yes, sometimes they are - when there are a number of current and former DZOs on the board, and as long as the group membership program exists, those concerns are going to be there.

BUT ... I am also seeing a shift from the board of just a few years back. There's quite a bit of new blood on the board, and the new energy was definitely noticeable. Between the hallway chats, Friday evening at the bar and Saturday night at the lifetime achievement award reception and afterward, I was able to spend time with several different board members - getting to know them as people, and also talking about some of the issues raised during the meeting. I was pretty quiet in the gallery - only sharing my thoughts a couple of times, but I can tell you that I heard my comments from some of those hallway conversations later reflected in discussions.

Basic impression is - most are listening, and listening thoughtfully. They're not always going to make decisions that I agree with, or that every member agrees with. It's very possible a board member will hear what I have to say, and still disagree. That's okay. They're at least listening.

There were several big topics brought up where the reaction after much heated discussion was "Let's put this back out to the membership before we make a decision," and plans were made to put a poll on the USPA web site, or solicit feedback through the USPA Professional newsletter. The opportunities are there to provide input if people are willing to take them.

It also never requires a poll to provide your thoughts - you can always reach out to your regional director, a national director, or even another regional director. I would actually recommend direct contact with an individual board member over a blast email to the entire board. Think about how you react to mass emails vs. how you react to someone who specifically says "I'm reaching out to you because I value your thoughts on this issue because of [X]." So figure out who's the person (or persons) to talk to about the issue you're passionate about, and reach out to them directly and build a connection.

There were other topics where board members read emails or shared comments that they'd received from the membership. And of course the gallery was always welcome to provide comment. Of course, there weren't that many of us "random members" in the gallery - but if you're there, you *can* be heard.

Anyone who knows me knows that I can be as cynical as the next person about the "political process," so I hope no one thinks I'm trying to say that the USPA Board is all sunshine and rainbows. It's not. They're human (well, I'm not so sure about Stokes - he's clearly part cyborgWink) and flawed. But it's not an axis of evil hell bent on world domination. Laugh


airtwardo  (D License)

Feb 20, 2012, 12:10 PM
Post #39 of 78 (1170 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NWFlyer] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

 
But it's not an axis of evil hell bent on world domination.

In reply to:

She says while slyly petting a white cat perched on her lap! Sly


SStewart  (D 10405)

Feb 20, 2012, 2:22 PM
Post #40 of 78 (1144 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
25 years at $55 a year is $1375, lifetime is currently $1000. I wouldn't consider that paid many times over. (IIRC the renewal fee just went up recently, so it would be a little less than the $1375)

Currently it is $1000 but it has been steadily going up over the years. 30 years ago it was only a few hundred bucks so yes if you have been a member for 25-30 years you have paid it many times over, just not at todays rate. Not to mention with rating renewals it is much more than $55. My dues were $100 this year.

There are not that many of us so it would have been a very cool thing to do, we bring new people into the sport and create new members.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 20, 2012, 2:35 PM
Post #41 of 78 (1140 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Scott,

This item didnt make it out of committee for whatever reason. I am not on that committee and wasnt privy to how the discussion or vote went.

Rich


Premier NWFlyer  (D 29960)

Feb 20, 2012, 2:37 PM
Post #42 of 78 (1134 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I believe that the proposal was just for membership - lifetime members would still need to pay annually to renew their ratings. I wasn't in the committee meeting either so didn't hear the discussion.


Halfpastniner  (D 30747)

Feb 20, 2012, 7:40 PM
Post #43 of 78 (1102 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Then maybe you should have bought it when it was only a few hundred bucks huh?Shocked

And people say my generation is the entitlement generationLaugh


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Feb 21, 2012, 1:26 PM
Post #44 of 78 (1045 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I see, so they had an opportunity to do something cool to honor long time members who have paid for lifetime memberships many times over and they decided to vote against it.

I would like to know by name who voted against this.

This was one positive thing the board could have done and they blew it. USPA would have still been able to get dues for rating renewals from these members. It is long past time that the members who have helped this sport grow to what it is today to be recognized.

I propose that anyone who has been a USPA member for 25 (or more) years be given lifetime membership. They will still have to pay for pro ratings, instructor ratings, etc.

Tell your regional and national directors you support this and lets get this on the agenda for the summer 2012 meeting.

Why 25 years? Because you've been a member for 25 years?

Paying annual dues for 25 years does not add up to the cost of "lifetime memberships many times over" - not even close.

There are more 25+ year USPA members than ever before and the number grows every year. If the board were to approve your proposal we would see an ever-increasing number of members drawing on the resources of the organization without paying for them.

Not trying to be snide, but I don't see that USPA owes a member anything just because of longevity of membership. You paid your money and you got what you paid for.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Feb 21, 2012, 1:28 PM
Post #45 of 78 (1044 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnRich] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I see, so they had an opportunity to do something cool to honor long time members who have paid for lifetime memberships many times over and they decided to vote against it.

What are the numbers? How many members are there with over 25 years of continuous membership? How much money is that in membership dues? What is the effect of the loss of that on the budget?

There are about 32,000 members. If 1,000 of those are 25-year members, that's a $55,000 per year budget hit - a not insubstantial amount. And it's not a one-time expense, it's every year.

Before I take a position on such a proposal, I need to know the numbers...

Furthermore, it's kind of a welfare mentality. If I'm still jumping and still receiving the magazine (which accounts for a substantial portion of the USPA budget), then I ought to still pay to support the organization which keeps me jumping and informed. I don't look for a free ride just because I've been around a while.

+1


AggieDave  (D License)

Feb 21, 2012, 2:17 PM
Post #46 of 78 (1032 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnRich] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There are about 32,000 members. If 1,000 of those are 25-year members, that's a $55,000 per year budget hit - a not insubstantial amount. And it's not a one-time expense, it's every year.

In the new USPA money matrix, that's 5.5 new demo teams they could put in play.


SStewart  (D 10405)

Feb 21, 2012, 3:11 PM
Post #47 of 78 (1020 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Actually I was in favor of 30+ years, you young fellas with only 25 years would have to wait 5 more years.Tongue

And yes, if I would have been smart and bought a lifetime membership back when it was only $200 bucks I would have not paid that amount many times over. I guess USPA would be broke now if we all would have done that.

As it stands now after 30 years you get it at half price. By your reasoning that is wrong and we should have to pay full price. I mean come on, why should you get a discount just because you have been a dues paying member for 30 years?

Also members with 50+ years now get free membership, I suppose you must be against that too? I mean come on, why should those old farts get free membership? screw them, right?

Sheesh!


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Feb 21, 2012, 4:05 PM
Post #48 of 78 (1009 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Scott,

I have my thoughts about all of this; but like a lot of things, some would agree with me & some would disagree.

I have happily paid my dues every year.

Back when I was 15 & started reading TIME magazine, I could have gotten a lifetime subscription and saved a lot of money compared to the money that I have spent over all of those years on my annual subscription(s).

C'est la vie.

Crazy

Quote:
Also members with 50+ years now get free membership,

But tell me more about this.

48 + yrs & counting.

JerryBaumchen


airtwardo  (D License)

Feb 21, 2012, 4:11 PM
Post #49 of 78 (1007 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Actually I was in favor of 30+ years, you young fellas with only 25 years would have to wait 5 more years.Tongue

I kinda like the 35+ years in the sport mark myself! Sly


It would be nice if the USPA would do something like that... but in all reality I gotta agree with Chuck on this one.

There are more & more 'longtime' members every year and that's not likely to change.

We get more from the USPA for the $ than some other similar type organizations offer so I can live with it.

Maybe something like 30 years in and over 65 might be a good idea to consider though...when it's 'fixed income' time the annual dues = a few low ones! Cool


SStewart  (D 10405)

Feb 21, 2012, 4:41 PM
Post #50 of 78 (998 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I like your response Jim. It shows you can disagree with someone and not be a complete dick about it.

I would be Ok with 35 years, that is not that far away.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Feb 21, 2012, 5:05 PM
Post #51 of 78 (1058 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Actually I was in favor of 30+ years, you young fellas with only 25 years would have to wait 5 more years.Tongue

And yes, if I would have been smart and bought a lifetime membership back when it was only $200 bucks I would have not paid that amount many times over. I guess USPA would be broke now if we all would have done that.

As it stands now after 30 years you get it at half price. By your reasoning that is wrong and we should have to pay full price. I mean come on, why should you get a discount just because you have been a dues paying member for 30 years?

Also members with 50+ years now get free membership, I suppose you must be against that too? I mean come on, why should those old farts get free membership? screw them, right?

Sheesh!

Yep. You are correct. I don't see any reason to give discounts or free memberships, lifetime or otherwise, to anyone just because of membership longevity. There are valid reasons to reward a member on merit, but simply paying member dues for a long time isn't meritorious.

There will always be people that believe they deserve a break at the expense of others because they feel they have "earned it" more than the other guy has. Those people don't care that if everyone felt that way and got their way, there would be no "undeserving" underlings left to pay the way for the skygods who believe they shouldn't be asked to open their wallets for such triviality. In my experience those people are usually lousy tippers too, but I digress.

And just to keep my comments on subject, count my vote as opposing discounts and freebies based solely on membership longevity.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Feb 21, 2012, 5:05 PM
Post #52 of 78 (1058 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
There are about 32,000 members. If 1,000 of those are 25-year members, that's a $55,000 per year budget hit - a not insubstantial amount. And it's not a one-time expense, it's every year.

In the new USPA money matrix, that's 5.5 new demo teams they could put in play.

Nice one, Dave!


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Feb 21, 2012, 5:08 PM
Post #53 of 78 (1057 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I like your response Jim. It shows you can disagree with someone and not be a complete dick about it.

Heat. Kitchen. There are other rooms in the house.


stratostar  (Student)

Jul 11, 2012, 7:38 AM
Post #54 of 78 (941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.google.com/...nt_ImGlA&cad=rja


Rich Winstock.... Please tell me again why the USPA insists on supporting the MFG's bogus requirement of having a class 3 medical in order to do TDM's, when even the FAA is considering dropping the requirement for some pilots?

Now can we get some action this, this time around or are we going to have to wait longer for BOD people to "study" this?


(This post was edited by stratostar on Jul 11, 2012, 7:39 AM)


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 11, 2012, 11:13 AM
Post #55 of 78 (924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Even if the USPA drops this, we still need it to do a Tandem in the US using US made gear.

We need the Manufacturers to fell safe enough to drop the requirement.

Matt


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Jul 11, 2012, 11:24 AM
Post #56 of 78 (925 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
We need the Manufacturers to fell safe enough to drop the requirement.

Matt

I doubt that will happen, Matt. The medical may be a joke in reality, but to the tandem manufacturers it's an established standard of health for a pilot in command, and could be helpful in defending a lawsuit.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 11, 2012, 12:34 PM
Post #57 of 78 (912 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, it is, and since the field of Tandem Instructors and Rig owners keep doing things that drags the manufacturers in to court, it won't go away any time soon.

USPA would be better served upholding standards.

Matt


stratostar  (Student)

Jul 11, 2012, 8:07 PM
Post #58 of 78 (895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes I know that, that is why I email both UPT and strong today to ask that they support other approved DOT medicals as equivalent, the same as are or have been willing to do for those in the military. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask, if it's fair for the service peeps to be granted an equivalent, well then it should good enough for the rest of us.


Deisel  (D 31661)

Jul 12, 2012, 4:56 AM
Post #59 of 78 (886 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think that you can really compare civilian to military tandem ops. There a long list of differences but mainly I think that it's the limited liability piece. If an active duty guy pounds in another active duty guy there's not much chance of a law suit. Hell, chances are that the incident details won't be made public to begin with (ala Ted Strong). And if they live there arent any medical bills to be concerned about.


stratostar  (Student)

Jul 12, 2012, 6:08 AM
Post #60 of 78 (879 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I don't think that you can really compare civilian to military tandem ops.

Ah but that is not what we are talking about. If they are doing military op's then they don't need a USPA equivalent/exemption to the rule then do they. And for that many of the FAA rules fly out the window, the military does what the fuck they want to do when they want to do it regardless of USPA or FAA because they do not have to answer to them.

The only reason to need or get one is if they are conducting op's on a USPA dz or working as staff on civilian dz doing civilian work jumps. The case has been made, they shouldn't have to comply with the requirements that we do, because they are military people and have already been given a military medical exam that should be granted as an equivalent, so they don't have to get a second medical exam, same as I'm saying for any DOT approved medical card holder, if your going to allow an equivalent, then allow it for everyone and not some special interest group that seems to think their special because they are in the armed services.

Bottom line is the FAA class 3 medical is nothing different, other then the type of paper work filed and where it's filed, then the DOT medical all safety sensitive positions.


(This post was edited by stratostar on Jul 12, 2012, 9:03 AM)


Deisel  (D 31661)

Jul 12, 2012, 6:30 AM
Post #61 of 78 (874 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Right. But if I understand this correctly, a military guy is doing work as a civilian, they have to meet all civilian requirements. Effectively, they are civilians and military exemptions no longer apply. No?


stratostar  (Student)

Jul 12, 2012, 7:38 AM
Post #62 of 78 (867 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

That is correct and why they are asking for an equivalent/exemption to the rule, so they can use their military medical exam as an equivalent to the FAA class 3.

So if this equivalent/exemption is good enough for one segment of our membership, then it should apply to all members of USPA and not just the military people.

Again, the FAA lives in the house of the Department of Transportation..... So one would think that if an equivalent/exemption can be for the military, then surely a DOT approved medical for all safety sensitive positions should meet or exceed the requirements of an approved equivalent!

If you have diabetes you can't be a trucker, train engineer, boat capt, etc, because you might pass out behind the wheel and run over your family and flatten you dead, that is a DOT regulation, and a condition that would fail you on a DOT medical, last time (may 2012) I took another class 3 they dipped a stick the same as they do for the DOT test for diabetes! Pretty sure you can't have diabetes and be a airline pilot, but I have not bothered to look it up, because it will keep you from holding a DOT safety sensitive position.


(This post was edited by stratostar on Jul 12, 2012, 7:50 AM)


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 12, 2012, 9:59 AM
Post #63 of 78 (852 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

The Exam the Military gets is many times more thorough than the FAA Class 3, the Military Halo/Flight Phys is well above the FAA Standards.

Since your asking for the DOT phys to count (Exceeds the FAA Class right?), use that angle, that is, it is in excess of the FAA's like the Military Phys they accept.

Matt


stratostar  (Student)

Jul 12, 2012, 10:36 AM
Post #64 of 78 (848 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Exceeds the FAA Class right?

It is equal too in every aspect, and in fact it is the same physical with different paper work, that is the only difference, the paper work and where it's filed.

For the record, I could care less how much more the military physical is, if we are going to start making rule changes, then apply them across the board for all the membership and not just a special interest group!


Deisel  (D 31661)

Jul 12, 2012, 11:11 AM
Post #65 of 78 (841 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed. But it also should be noted that the AOPA is leading a significant effort to do away with the Class 3 altogether for smaller operations (not more than 1 passenger).

ETA - Tandem skydiving operations by a self examined TM would be prohibited under this proposal.

Quote;
"AOPA and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) on March 20, 2012 submitted a request to the FAA that, if successful, would offer pilots an option of obtaining a 3rd class FAA medical or instead become educated on medical self-assessment and operate familiar aircraft recreationally using the driver's license as the baseline of health."

http://www.aopa.org/...cation-petition.html


(This post was edited by Deisel on Jul 12, 2012, 11:14 AM)


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jul 12, 2012, 4:56 PM
Post #66 of 78 (818 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Exceeds the FAA Class right?

It is equal too in every aspect, and in fact it is the same physical with different paper work, that is the only difference, the paper work and where it's filed.

For the record, I could care less how much more the military physical is, if we are going to start making rule changes, then apply them across the board for all the membership and not just a special interest group!

I agree, if it is equal to or a higher standard, apply it. That would be the argument if I was making it.

Matt


stratostar  (Student)

Jul 12, 2012, 7:28 PM
Post #67 of 78 (809 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

I thought so.... The argument some people have had is the DUI thing... with the FAA if you get one your required to report it, correct? And if you get two DUI's they yank your medical.

With a CDL license holder your required to (in order to operate) have a medical card. If you get stopped ANY motor vehicle and given a test... it's an automatic half of the states law.

IN other words, in most states it's .008 for regular peeps, but a CDL holder regardless of vehicle (personal car, or commercial truck) your held to .004, if you blow .004 you get a DUI!!! http://www.duiarresthelp.com/cdl-dui-offenses.php

Also if you get a second DUI, you lose your CDL for LIFE! That means no more DOT medical. So again the same as the FAA rules. No big surprise there after all we're still talking about the same household, known as the DOT, where the FAA lives.

The USPA is all worried about liability for issuing ratings to known drunks with DUI records, there for they want to keep the FAA class 3 because of the fact that the FAA will yank your medical for two DUI's.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jul 13, 2012, 12:04 AM
Post #68 of 78 (796 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey Strat,

Just to keep everyone in the loop and up to date on this issue. You and I had some conversation and correspondence about this topic and it was brought in front of the Safety and Training committee for discussion at the last meeting.

After said discussion, it was decided we needed more information about DOT medicals, military medicals, NASA medicals, and a few others.
The gist of the debate was if we could start to compile a list of U.S. medicals that would be acceptable to meet the other equivilant requirement.
For now that only is used for foreign medical equivilants.

What we decided to do was form a sub-committee much like the wingsuit instructor sub committee. This committee is charged with looking into each medical and determining if indeed it is an equivilant firstly, and secondly if there will be any liability for USPA if they decide to accept other types of medicals.

I can ellaborate that the overall gist of the committee was favorable to accepting other types of medicals. I think most felt we just needed to perform our duedilligence before just making a motion or vote to accept something we do not have the knowledge of.

I support this and spoke on behalf of you and the other members that have been pushing for it. I just need to wait until the next meeting to hear the results of the committee.

I would urge you if you are that serious about it to send a correespondence to Tony Thacker who is the sub committee chair and was appointed and volunteered to ackle this issue. I will let Tony know about this thread if he doesnt already and see if he might chime in.

If I can help further PM me or contact me and I will be happy to assisst.

Rich Winstock


stratostar  (Student)

Jul 13, 2012, 6:08 AM
Post #69 of 78 (788 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the post Rich, never was trying to say you didn't go to bat on this issue, I know you did and you get a major thanks for that!

But when I see AOPA is pushing for the removal and the FAA is considering it, well that kind of adds a new spark.

Yes I will be contacting TT.


Ron

Aug 2, 2012, 7:32 AM
Post #70 of 78 (720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
ETA - Tandem skydiving operations by a self examined TM would be prohibited under this proposal.

No, the FAA does not care if CURRENTLY the guy doing a tandem has a medical.

The only people that care about a medical is the USPA and the manufacturers.

If I can fly a 1300 pound aircraft that does 140 MPH... And in fact INSTRUCT in that 1300 pound aircraft without a medical. It makes ZERO sense to require a medical for tandem operations.


Ron

Aug 2, 2012, 7:34 AM
Post #71 of 78 (720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Even if the USPA drops this, we still need it to do a Tandem in the US using US made gear.

The history of the USPA taking over the ratings for tandem is long and rocky. Both the USPA and the Manufacturers wanted the USPA to take over certifying TI's.... But the manufacturers demanded that their standards still be held to.....

The USPA *should* of told the manufacturers to fuck off. If they want to control the ratings, then they should of continued to issue them.


Ron

Aug 2, 2012, 7:40 AM
Post #72 of 78 (720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
After said discussion, it was decided we needed more information about DOT medicals, military medicals, NASA medicals, and a few others.
The gist of the debate was if we could start to compile a list of U.S. medicals that would be acceptable to meet the other equivilant requirement.

The medical should not even be required.

* I can fly a 1320 pound 138 MPH aircraft with a single occupant without a medical.

* I can TEACH in that same 1320 pound 138 MPH aircraft without a medical.

* I can fly a hot air balloon without a medical.

* I can fly commercially in a balloon without a medical.

The 3rd class medical is a stupid requirement. In fact, the AOPA and EAA have petitioned the FAA to allow a pilot to fly anything under 180HP without a medical.

There is no reason to require a 3rd class medical for tandem operations. Every other organization is trying to move AWAY from it, yet the USPA (who is not even required to have it from the FAA) is stuck on it.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Aug 2, 2012, 9:15 AM
Post #73 of 78 (710 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Even if the USPA drops this, we still need it to do a Tandem in the US using US made gear.

The history of the USPA taking over the ratings for tandem is long and rocky. Both the USPA and the Manufacturers wanted the USPA to take over certifying TI's.... But the manufacturers demanded that their standards still be held to.....

The USPA *should* of told the manufacturers to fuck off. If they want to control the ratings, then they should of continued to issue them.

(Manufacturers still issue an initial rating, no need to renew as long as current with USPA, exception is I/E's, they need to renew with USPA and Manufacturers, info-current as of last month)

Matt

Former USPA and UPT T-I/E


Ron

Aug 2, 2012, 9:23 AM
Post #74 of 78 (709 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
(Manufacturers still issue an initial rating, no need to renew as long as current with USPA, exception is I/E's, they need to renew with USPA and Manufacturers, info-current as of last month)

Well, if the manufacturers want to control the renewals..... Then they should not have handed it over to the USPA.

The USPA should be an organization that supports and represents the JUMPERS, not the manufacturers.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Aug 2, 2012, 9:35 AM
Post #75 of 78 (707 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
(Manufacturers still issue an initial rating, no need to renew as long as current with USPA, exception is I/E's, they need to renew with USPA and Manufacturers, info-current as of last month)

Well, if the manufacturers want to control the renewals..... Then they should not have handed it over to the USPA.

The USPA should be an organization that supports and represents the JUMPERS, not the manufacturers.

In talking to the USPA Rep and all three US Manufacturers, this is what they all agreed to.

USPA gets there annual renewal monies, the Manf. get a list who is rated and are able to send out updates through their I/E's, as well as doing QC on the I/E's.

The failing is: USPA and the Manufacturers stopped communicating effectively and don't enforce either's rules, that they both agreed to.

Matt


Ron

Aug 2, 2012, 10:53 AM
Post #76 of 78 (274 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
In talking to the USPA Rep and all three US Manufacturers, this is what they all agreed to.

The USPA should not have agreed. Pretty simply put: The USPA should represent the JUMPERS, not the gear manufactures.

The failing is that the USPA is not living up to who they are supposed to represent.

I had a BOD member call me.... His claim is that it is DUI's that make it so the USPA wants an FAA medical.

Hey, here is a thought.... Just don't allow a guy that is drunk to do tandems!


skydived19006  (D 19006)

Aug 15, 2012, 7:24 AM
Post #77 of 78 (172 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

I had a BOD member call me.... His claim is that it is DUI's that make it so the USPA wants an FAA medical.

Hey, here is a thought.... Just don't allow a guy that is drunk to do tandems!

I got the same thing indirectly through USPA Headquarters. They want the FAA Medical in order to prohibit anyone who's had a DUI from being a tandem instructor.

That said, after some time, jumping through a few hoops, and spending some $3,000 to a "FAA Medical Specialist" or whatever they're called. You can get the medical back.

All that said, the logic is disconnected. My guess would be that the vast majority of tandem instructors drink alcohol. I'd also guess that another smaller but still quite large percentage of them have at one time or another operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of said alcohol. So, we could extrapolate that every one of these instructors by USPAs logic should be disallowed doing tandems. As it stands, only the guys who've been recently been caught and charged are subject to the restriction.

I'd be in favor of elimination the Medical requirement. Maybe going to a requirement to have a driver's license? The DL would also cover Headquarters DUI concern.


Ron

Aug 15, 2012, 8:20 AM
Post #78 of 78 (168 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydived19006] Winter BOD Meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
They want the FAA Medical in order to prohibit anyone who's had a DUI from being a tandem instructor.

Yep, dumbest reason ever. I guess having a DUI and doing AFF is ok by them then?

Quote:
I'd be in favor of elimination the Medical requirement. Maybe going to a requirement to have a driver's license? The DL would also cover Headquarters DUI concern.


YES. It should be treated like the light sport instructor rating, or the commercial balloon rating.



Forums : Archive : 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections

 


Search for (options)