Forums: Archive: 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections:
BOD members on WS Rating

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Ron

Nov 6, 2012, 9:41 AM
Post #26 of 53 (1327 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

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

That is a totally incorrect comment. There is NO proof that this will do anything to 'save' WS.

There is no proof ANYWHERE that this will do ANYTHING but create another clusterfuck out of the USPA. NOWHERE else do we have instruction for experienced skydivers mandated by the USPA. Not in CRW, not in bigways, not in camera flying, not in freeflying, not in RW... NOWHERE.


SStewart  (D 10405)

Nov 6, 2012, 11:13 AM
Post #27 of 53 (1308 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Even if this path MIGHT keep WS flying alive in the US?

That is a totally incorrect comment. There is NO proof that this will do anything to 'save' WS.

There is no proof ANYWHERE that this will do ANYTHING but create another clusterfuck out of the USPA. NOWHERE else do we have instruction for experienced skydivers mandated by the USPA. Not in CRW, not in bigways, not in camera flying, not in freeflying, not in RW... NOWHERE.

Exactly! But it will open the door for new discipline specific ratings in the future.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 6, 2012, 1:11 PM
Post #28 of 53 (1287 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Even if this path MIGHT keep WS flying alive in the US?

That is a totally incorrect comment. There is NO proof that this will do anything to 'save' WS.

There is no proof ANYWHERE that this will do ANYTHING but create another clusterfuck out of the USPA. NOWHERE else do we have instruction for experienced skydivers mandated by the USPA. Not in CRW, not in bigways, not in camera flying, not in freeflying, not in RW... NOWHERE.

Exactly! But it will open the door for new discipline specific ratings in the future.

And essentially FORCE USPA to impose system-wide discipline-specific ratings because once it singles out one advanced discipline, then the others must follow to protect themselves from the liability that ONE such advanced rating will create.

And then, of course, the costs and complications thereof ripple through the whole system and will make the Skyride fiasco look like a good use of member $$ and BOD time.

This is what I meant in a previous post about the pushers of this proposals not looking forward or understanding the way USPA works as they seek to impose their narrow agenda on the rest of the organization, to its financial and operational detriment.

44
Cool


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 6, 2012, 1:17 PM
Post #29 of 53 (1284 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
So the sample is ONE DZ?

Matt

No. Why would you say that?

44
Cool

That was all you presented, one.

Matt

I believe Mr. Norris is the insurer you asked about, NOT a DZ owner.

Quote:
How has the major insurance carrier for the majority of Skydive A/C flown in the US responded to this?

Matt


I have been so informed, and am up on the right page with the info now. Thank you and to Robin as well.

So now if this is acceptable Standardization for the Insurance folks, ALL insured A/C at those DZ's have to accept and implement this.
That will handle Tail Strikes, hopefully.

How does the GA Pilots and FAA feel about the other issue of WS flights being outside the NOTAM'd radius?

I know the discussions focused on the Tail Strikes, but it was just the "flashy" issue, there is this smaller one to consider too.

Again, maybe a whole rating plan is not needed, but and industry standard for WS flights is. IMO.

Matt

Another simple, decentralized, non-USPA solution here too: Find out how CReW-heavy DZs handle their NOTAM process and apply to any DZ with significant wingsuit activity.

The thing is, wingsuit spots and jumps aren't nearly as long, in distance or duration, respectively, as CReW spots and jumps, and CReW has co-existed peacefully and without problems with other GA users for... decades.

Also, ask Perris and Elsinore how they manage their pretty busy and complex local airspace with regard to wingsuits and apply to any DZ with significant wingsuit activity.

Problem solved. No USPA involvement needed. No out-of-scope, peripherally-relevant bureaucracy needed.

44
Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Nov 6, 2012, 4:11 PM)


CarpeDiem3  (D License)

Nov 6, 2012, 2:13 PM
Post #30 of 53 (1267 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
And essentially FORCE USPA to impose system-wide discipline-specific ratings because once it singles out one advanced discipline, then the others must follow to protect themselves from the liability that ONE such advanced rating will create.

And then, of course, the costs and complications thereof ripple through the whole system and will make the Skyride fiasco look like a good use of member $$ and BOD time.

And that, in turn, will suck all the life and fun out of skydiving, and make the learning progression something that everyone despises. We here the Brits complaining about this kind of nanny-state micro-management, where new jumpers aren't allowed to jump with others, because they don't have the proper ratings yet. And there aren't enough instructors to help them get the proper ratings. So they jump alone, or quit the sport.

Let's not do this to skydiving in America.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 6, 2012, 9:19 PM
Post #31 of 53 (1238 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CarpeDiem3] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
And essentially FORCE USPA to impose system-wide discipline-specific ratings because once it singles out one advanced discipline, then the others must follow to protect themselves from the liability that ONE such advanced rating will create.

And then, of course, the costs and complications thereof ripple through the whole system and will make the Skyride fiasco look like a good use of member $$ and BOD time.

And that, in turn, will suck all the life and fun out of skydiving, and make the learning progression something that everyone despises. We here the Brits complaining about this kind of nanny-state micro-management, where new jumpers aren't allowed to jump with others, because they don't have the proper ratings yet. And there aren't enough instructors to help them get the proper ratings. So they jump alone, or quit the sport.

Let's not do this to skydiving in America.

It's for good reason that the BPA is called the "Ban Parachuting Association" by many Brits.


loudtom  (D 23115)

Nov 7, 2012, 5:32 AM
Post #32 of 53 (1210 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

I must have missed your opinion John are you for or against USPA getting involved in these ratings???
lt


Ron

Nov 7, 2012, 9:49 AM
Post #33 of 53 (1185 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The only ones on your list i know are not for it is Larry and Mike

Larry and Mike are the only two that got my vote.


MakeItHappen

Nov 7, 2012, 10:36 AM
Post #34 of 53 (1179 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hello Tony,
I can help you a bit. At the risk of losing your support i know i am for it. You can read a few hundred posts about why. The only ones on your list i know are not for it is Larry and Mike. All other incumbants are in favor. I do not know about new candidates.

Sorry. I would hope our records would aid you a bit other than this one issue.
Thanks
Rich Winstock

Whoa hold on there Rich.


You do not speak for me or any other BOD member.


At the last BOD mtg it was my idea to send this issue to the membership because it was split across the BOD and the WS community.
The USPA BOD needs to do what is best for the majority of the membership.

My stance now is to wait and see what the membership says to the BOD.

Three years ago when Spot asked me about USPA taking on such a rating I told him to keep it and implement it himself - ala SDU methods. USPA would mutate it into something that he may not like.

This summer, going into the mtg, I thought the WS community overwhelmingly endorsed this program.
They do endorse the program, or one very similar to it, but there are a fair number of people that do not want USPA to implement the program. (Probably for the same reasons I gave Spot 3 years ago)

Since the implementation is split - then maybe USPA needs to hold off on implementation or find alternative ways to implement the same set of constructs.

One thing I do know is that a more formal, structured and objective set of criteria does need to be applied to WS jumpers.
Most WS and non-WS jumpers agree to this. The sticky point is whether USPA should or should not implement a program.
To me, that says a whole lot more about USPA as an organization than the WSers fighting each other.

.


(This post was edited by MakeItHappen on Nov 7, 2012, 10:39 AM)


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Nov 7, 2012, 10:59 AM
Post #35 of 53 (1172 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

I stand corrected. I was basing that on thoughts at the last meeting. I too am on standby for the results.

and from what other BOD members have said most of them are sitting back and waiting before they commit either way.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Nov 7, 2012, 6:12 PM
Post #36 of 53 (1130 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I stand corrected. I was basing that on thoughts at the last meeting. I too am on standby for the results.

and from what other BOD members have said most of them are sitting back and waiting before they commit either way.

Actually, I think that is sad. it rings of "waiting for the poll results, then we will tell you what you".

I want to know what the BOD thinks, then they weight that with my input (and all the membership).

Too late to change my vote, oh well.
At least, IMO, I put safety first, me second.

Matt


MakeItHappen

Nov 8, 2012, 7:30 AM
Post #37 of 53 (1091 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I stand corrected. I was basing that on thoughts at the last meeting. I too am on standby for the results.

and from what other BOD members have said most of them are sitting back and waiting before they commit either way.

Actually, I think that is sad. it rings of "waiting for the poll results, then we will tell you what you".

I want to know what the BOD thinks, then they weight that with my input (and all the membership).

Too late to change my vote, oh well.
At least, IMO, I put safety first, me second.

Matt

Matt,

This appears to be a "damned if you do" or "damned if you don't" situation.

Members complain when the BOD does something they object to and were not informed about.
Members complain when the BOD asks the members opinion and BOD members remain noncommittal until the results are in.


.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 8, 2012, 8:21 AM
Post #38 of 53 (1073 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I stand corrected. I was basing that on thoughts at the last meeting. I too am on standby for the results.

and from what other BOD members have said most of them are sitting back and waiting before they commit either way.

Actually, I think that is sad. it rings of "waiting for the poll results, then we will tell you what you".

I want to know what the BOD thinks, then they weight that with my input (and all the membership).

Too late to change my vote, oh well.
At least, IMO, I put safety first, me second.

Matt

Matt,

This appears to be a "damned if you do" or "damned if you don't" situation.

Members complain when the BOD does something they object to and were not informed about.
Members complain when the BOD asks the members opinion and BOD members remain noncommittal until the results are in.


.

Jan,

I would have sent this as a private message but you don't accept them so...

Of course you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. That is part of the job description.

In this case, however, the damning from one quarter comes not for what you did or didn't do but for how you executed what you did.

Long story short, USPA violated the basic tenets of Polling Methodology 101 and thus the results will be invalid whatever they are because of that.

I outlined those errors to Mr. Winstock in other threads but basically USPA did everything wrong in how it framed the issue, phrased the question and presented it to the membership.

Moreover, it's illegitimate on its face because the whole thing goes way outside USPA's current scope and standard practices. Seriously, before you can attach even the most remote validity to the results, you must first ask a scoping question, to wit:

"Should USPA spend a significant amount of its resources creating instructor ratings for advanced training such as wingsuiting, formation skydivng, canopy piloting, freeflying and CRW?"

THAT is the principal issue for the BOD to consider because imposing the proposed wingsuit regulation breaks new ground for the organization and the BOD needs to have input on that new ground generally before it decides what it should do about one specific sub-set thereof, the consequences of which will ripple through the entire system if it is imposed.

Next, by singling out one sub-discipline, you create a "leading question" that prima facie invalidates the results.

Finally, to make this poll valid, it must have multiple questions drawn up by a professional polling organization, and it needs to be presented as a standalone poll, not something attached to the BOD election ballot. Such a poll would have been a perfect candidate for this allegedly fantastic new online balloting system we have.

This is way too important an issue to do on the cheap by having a USPA committee whose members have zero poll creation expertise or experience creating a "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" question and attaching it to a completely unrelated document that skews its importance and ruins the results.

As I said to Rich, we all pack our parachutes with the best of intentions but sometimes we do a bad pack job and we gotta cut it away before it kills us.

That is what USPA needs to do with this poll and the whole wingsuit regulation issue. It doesn't matter what your intentions were; you did a bad pack job and now you need to cut it away before it kills us all.

And if you have any doubts about the need to cut this turkey away, then I say to you what I have said to others: Please read Dr. Lee's parting email and as you read, ponder the fact that this man who has been such an outstanding steward of USPA resources for almost two decades spent almost the entirety of his parting remarks devoted to convincing you to... cut this turkey away.

44
Cool


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Nov 8, 2012, 2:23 PM
Post #39 of 53 (1031 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

I wanted you to have a stance you would stick with. Not one you would flip flop on when it looks like a second term in a row could be lost.

You supported the idea in the BOD meeting, then once news got out in public you flipped.

That is not normally how you operate. Now if this is a case of more information and education changed your mind, then you have stated it as such, but it is too late now.

As the BOD rarely listens to the membership (with few exceptions), I find great irony in reading those words from a member of the BOD.

Matt


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 9, 2012, 2:16 PM
Post #40 of 53 (991 views)
Shortcut
Re: [loudtom] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I must have missed your opinion John are you for or against USPA getting involved in these ratings???
lt

I'm against, for the same reason I'm against USPA getting involved in CRW, head-down, sitfly or bigway training. Once the precedent is set, the others will surely follow.


kallend  (D 23151)

Nov 9, 2012, 2:20 PM
Post #41 of 53 (997 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Finally, to make this poll valid, it must have multiple questions drawn up by a professional polling organization, and it needs to be presented as a standalone poll, not something attached to the BOD election ballot. Such a poll would have been a perfect candidate for this allegedly fantastic new online balloting system we have.

I made exactly this point to Mr. Winstock some months ago. Ignored.

Creating an unbiased, valid poll is very difficult and is the business of professionals.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 9, 2012, 4:52 PM
Post #42 of 53 (978 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Finally, to make this poll valid, it must have multiple questions drawn up by a professional polling organization, and it needs to be presented as a standalone poll, not something attached to the BOD election ballot. Such a poll would have been a perfect candidate for this allegedly fantastic new online balloting system we have.

I made exactly this point to Mr. Winstock some months ago. Ignored.

Creating an unbiased, valid poll is very difficult and is the business of professionals.

As is patently obvious not only by the above but by the totally cheeseball cheapskate execution on the ballot.

I just checked out my ballot. This question is tucked away in the lower left corner in a teeny tiny box with only the question: No preamble, no introduction to the issue, nothing except this floating-in-space question coming out of (lower) left field and for the (majority) of USPA members who do not frequent these forums, I'm sure there will be a lot of "WTF is THIS?"

Really USPA BOD: Didn't you learn your lesson with Skyride about doing things half-assed and going off half-cocked?

Jan, I didn't support your reelection back in 2008, but I did when you ran again in 2010 because it seemed that you had learned what you needed to learn to minimize the downside that came with your significant upside.

Well, now it's time for you to put that upside into action and cut away from this turkey now, before it causes more damage. Whatever validity there may have been when you came up with the idea to present it to the membership has evaporated under this onslaught of utter incompetence and ignorant arrogance on the part of those who took your idea and turned it into... what it is now.

The whole thing is even more apalling than I thought, now that I have seen the ballot.

Please please PLEASE heed Dr. Lee and cut this turkey away. Or to put it another way:

It's your baby, baby. Abort it.

44
Mad


normiss  (D 28356)

Nov 10, 2012, 8:22 AM
Post #43 of 53 (945 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

Wow.

Insults and attacks now.
Classy.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 10, 2012, 8:45 AM
Post #44 of 53 (941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Wow.

Insults and attacks now.
Classy.

The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names.

44
Cool


Ron

Nov 14, 2012, 6:18 AM
Post #45 of 53 (828 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I must have missed your opinion John are you for or against USPA getting involved in these ratings???
lt

I'm against, for the same reason I'm against USPA getting involved in CRW, head-down, sitfly or bigway training. Once the precedent is set, the others will surely follow.

This.

In addition:
1. There is zero evidence this will fix the problem.
2. A private individual could start a program with less risk to the USPA and the free market could decide if it is a good idea.

This is nothing but an attempt to make training mandatory so a few people can make money teaching it... Because simply put, there is nothing stopping them from teaching it now... They will just get higher volume if the USPA makes it mandatory.


(This post was edited by Ron on Nov 14, 2012, 6:22 AM)


stratostar  (Student)

Nov 14, 2012, 6:51 AM
Post #46 of 53 (821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
This is nothing but an attempt to make training mandatory so a few people can make money teaching it... Because simply put, there is nothing stopping them from teaching it now... They will just get higher volume if the USPA makes it mandatory.

Yea, IMHO sounds just like the current E/IE and the mandatory standardization meetings every two yrs program and the people who gain the most from that... also seems they were voting on that at the BOD or staff level too....


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Nov 14, 2012, 9:35 AM
Post #47 of 53 (794 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

Statements like "find alternative ways to implement the same set of constructs" make me a little nervous.

Sounds like some people are setting up for an end run. WHEN the membership votes this thing down, will the whole idea of giving a monopoly on WS training to these few guys be dropped?

Or will these guys start the "US Wingsuit Association" and have their cheerleaders on the USPA BOD implement a BSR that requires anyone flying a wingsuit at a uspa dz to be a member of the "USWSA" or whatever they decide to call it?

Or am I just being a paranoid conspiracy theorist?


(This post was edited by NSEMN8R on Nov 14, 2012, 9:38 AM)


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Nov 14, 2012, 1:34 PM
Post #48 of 53 (766 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes.

Matt


MakeItHappen

Nov 15, 2012, 7:13 AM
Post #49 of 53 (713 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Statements like "find alternative ways to implement the same set of constructs" make me a little nervous.

Sounds like some people are setting up for an end run. WHEN the membership votes this thing down, will the whole idea of giving a monopoly on WS training to these few guys be dropped?

Or will these guys start the "US Wingsuit Association" and have their cheerleaders on the USPA BOD implement a BSR that requires anyone flying a wingsuit at a uspa dz to be a member of the "USWSA" or whatever they decide to call it?

Or am I just being a paranoid conspiracy theorist?

Yes you are paranoid.

An example of an alternative method is what Spaceland has done recently.
They have a WS waiver and some mandatory oversight of the WS training.

Elsinore has had a program for some time.

But not all DZs have a training program and some DZOs are not aware of all the issues involved in WSing.
One of the most overlooked issue in the WS flight path and how it may interfere with other jumpers, GA and/or ATC requirements.


FMI: http://parachutehistory.com/humor/2050.html

.


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Nov 15, 2012, 1:30 PM
Post #50 of 53 (676 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BOD members on WS Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes you are paranoid.

An example of an alternative method is what Spaceland has done recently.
They have a WS waiver and some mandatory oversight of the WS training.

Elsinore has had a program for some time.

But not all DZs have a training program and some DZOs are not aware of all the issues involved in WSing.
One of the most overlooked issue in the WS flight path and how it may interfere with other jumpers, GA and/or ATC requirements.


FMI: http://parachutehistory.com/humor/2050.html

Thanks Jan. You got my vote.

That was a great story! Who wrote that?


First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Archive : 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections

 


Search for (options)