Forums: Archive: 2005-2006 USPA BOD Elections:
Post deleted by MikeTJumps

 


MikeTJumps  (D 5957)

Sep 2, 2004, 5:59 PM
Post #1 of 13 (1446 views)
Shortcut
Post deleted by MikeTJumps

 


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Sep 14, 2004, 10:55 AM
Post #2 of 13 (1319 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MikeTJumps] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

I understand the point of saying one will 'work hard' and 'represent skydivers', but I'm always more sold on someone who has tangible and measurable goals for the position rather than vague reassurances - I'm getting that enough from the national political scene.

In other words, what accomplishments does a candidate want to make? I'd rather see each candidate establish a list of goals they intend to pursue and then I could vote for whoever has a list that most matches mine.

Example - you state you have a 'passion for safety'. I bet everyone thinks they do. I am sure you are passionate about it. But, the issue is in how each candidate defines what think is 'safety' - what rules do we not have that you want in place? what rules do you want to work to remove? Without that type of detail, how can I tell if your balance of new rules vs personal freedom most aligns with me or if I should support someone else.

If I can't pin down what a candidate really stands for (in other than vague, feel good terms) I don't bother voting at all.

(I'm not gulf region, but it applies very much to National Directors)

The only real platforms I've ever seen came from Roger and Mike a few years ago. Both presented their case in a list of bulletted goals - at least I knew where they stood and could decide if they represented me or not.


obsequious  (B License)

Sep 20, 2004, 5:19 PM
Post #3 of 13 (1260 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

I've seen lists of Mike Turoff's qualifications and he has been a benefit to the sport. Mike Turoff has astute knowledge of USPA, PIA and FAA's policies, procedures, and by-laws. Mike Turoff knows the current status of the USPA organization. He has been attending all USPA meetings for the past five years and will not spend most of the next year trying to learn what the USPA policies are. Mike Turoff can assiduously focus on USPA issues. He is affable person and would be a beneficent Gulf Regional Director!

Mike Turoff has earlier stated, "...if elected, I intend to create an e-mail listing of the region's membership and send out a monthly issues bulletin with requests for input back. In that way, I think the membership will have a more active role in their representation."

Mike Turoff is promoting the repack cycle (120 days to 180 days) He stated, "If we could create a uniform front position, we might have a better chance at getting this passed. We may also be better off asking for an exemption that would allow us to put the 180-day cycle into live-practice, then report on any observations of uses of reserves in the 120 180 day cycle period as well as full testing of equipment taken to the 180-day cycle."

I believe he is in support of higher demonstration jump qualifications, promotes the implementation of a Safety award for Safety day, supports the continuation of the performance award program, and would like to see Course Directors re-evaluating all instructors every few years.


(This post was edited by obsequious on Sep 20, 2004, 7:55 PM)


tspillers  (D 21601)

Sep 20, 2004, 7:44 PM
Post #4 of 13 (1249 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obsequious] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

Lana,

Yes, Mike is qualified. I am as well. I have been very active and I am very familiar with USPA and its policies. This year I have over 500 jumps, most of wich were with students, trained 6 new tandems intructors, several, coaches, and evaluated at 1 AFF course.

Mike and I have been very possitive. If you wish to promote Mike, I respect that. I know you are very fond of Mike. I caution you against turning this into a negative campain.

Oh, and Spell my name correctly please.

Todd Spillers


obsequious  (B License)

Sep 20, 2004, 7:54 PM
Post #5 of 13 (1246 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

I do respectfully apologize to you, Mr. Spillers, as it wasn't my intention to post an adverse posting and offend you. I have edited my posting. I'm sorry for any hurt feelings that I may have caused you. I stand corrected regarding your involvement and knowledge of USPA policies and issues. Please forgive me as I earnestly apologize to you. You have run a positive and constructive campaign.

Sincerely,
Lana Dorman


(This post was edited by obsequious on Sep 20, 2004, 8:02 PM)


MikeTJumps  (D 5957)

Sep 20, 2004, 8:39 PM
Post #6 of 13 (1233 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obsequious] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you for your glowing support note, but I would like to point out that I am not in favor of the course directors doing a renewal on the field instructors at this point in time. I've heard some inuendos about some people lacking proficiency, but to have a course director do that (expensive proposition) is not in the best interests of the instructional membership. There are other pathways such as designated examiners who could do that more efficiently and effectively. I will have to be greatly swayed to feel otherwise at this time.

Heck, there are some course directors out there who people have criticized relentlessly. That would be a very political hot-potato if they were the only ones who could do proficiency evaluations on existing ratings holders!

As to performance awards, if they are not being sought after, those programs need to be re-evaluated. I believe that HQ has a good handle on what is cost effective and in demand.

Mike.


tspillers  (D 21601)

Sep 21, 2004, 7:10 AM
Post #7 of 13 (1218 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MikeTJumps] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

Mike,

I think on the currency issue, there is a lot to be discussed. I agree that the course directors being the only ones doing a re-evalution presents many problems.

I think it should extend down to some of the other evaluators. I would also be curious how many current evaluators there are. There is a 1 course per yer currency for them. I am guessing, but bet that many of them haven't helped with a course recently.

There should be something to prevent a 'buddy' from getting his renewal without performing. It should also be set up to that the rating isn't taken away. For example, at time for renewal the instructor must make X satisfactory re-eval jumps with no limit on the number of jumps. This, in theory, would brush up the skills of anyone who hasn't been very active. It could tak 50 jumps to get the needed Sat jumps, but they can't exercise their rating until they have done so. I also think teaching techniques should come into play. This sport has and is continuing to evolve. The look right and you'll turn right method of teaching is not the most effective anymore.

Todd


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Sep 22, 2004, 8:24 AM
Post #8 of 13 (1179 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obsequious] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

Nice post and all, but not my point since you are replying to me.

The formal statements that are published are usually qualifications and statements of support (ratings and time in sport and very very general statements about what is good in the sport). Personally, I'd rather have their "to-do" list.

I'm more interested in their specific goals since the number of words are restricted. Character statements, general goals, etc are interesting, but second tier. Your note is a better example of that:

1 - create an e-mail listing
2 - send out a regular issues charter and solicit feedback
3 - change the repack cycle to 180 days
etc
and more

measurable and specific and what I think people are really interested in. Let each candidate write it up that way and I can really see who I want to represent me.


tspillers  (D 21601)

Sep 22, 2004, 10:23 AM
Post #9 of 13 (1169 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

I have been working on this since your last post about specifics. I believe the specifics should be realistic rather that what people want to hear.

As mentioned earlier in one of these threads. I already have the system in place for the email listservs.

One for info only to Gulf members (no posting from members)
One for S&TA's that would be for discussions (members can post)
One for members that would like to subscribe and all S&TA's for discussion

I would also like to have S&TA meetings. Realistically, this may have to be some electronic form since it may not be practical for everyone to make them in person.

As far as the repack cycle goes, I am very FOR changing it. The real place this effort needs to be is most likely through PIA. with USPA support. The FAA has to make the change. PIA has been working on it and are better suited to provide the data needed. USPA needs to also 'politic' this by lobbying.

With my instructional background, it should be no suprise that I want to be on the S&T committee. I feel that we need to address the inexperienced high wing loading issue. USPA has issued RECOMMENDATIONS in the new SIM. I would be in favor of a strong stand. My thoughts are to have a maximum wingloading based on licenses with some type of 'test out' option for the people who take the time and make the effort to be coached and develop canopy skills faster. This of course would be a minimum (or maximum wing loading) much like pull altitudes. There would still be people who are not ready to make that step and it would still need dz, intructor, and S&TA guidance. This falls into what I consider the biggest priority: FEWER FATALITIES.

I also think there should canopy skills added to each license requirement. They should be geared towards safety skills more than swooping skills.

I would also like to get an instructor recertification in place. I feel there should be a process ever 2-3 years. I think course directors, desiganted evaluators, and maybe even evaluators (must be current) could do the recertification jumps. Instructors should have an unlimited number of jumps to make X satisfactory jumps prior to exercising their rating. This would allow a not as current instructor to brush up on their skills (by unsat jumps) until they could perform satisfactory jumps. I would also like to see, at a minimum, a seminar for teaching to bring instructors up to speed on current methods and technique to teach skydiving.

I would like to see the group membership program become profitable. This will take some work and I don't know if I will be able to sit on that committe as well as the others. One thought I have is to take steps toward USPA in some way separate the GM program to function as a separate organization. Then the GM program could focus on the businesses and USPA could focus on the jumpers. I my mind, I don't know if this is a practical or realistic idea, but I would like to see it explored.

I would like to see the term for board members lengthened to 3 years. Many board members have expressed difficulty in seeing their efforts through in only 2 years (4 meetings).

If I was able to see these issues through in 1 term, I would feel I had accomplished something.

As always, their are many issues and they must be prioritized and dealt with 1 at a time.

I ask for everyone to vote for someone they feel will best represent them and work for skydivers. I am a DZO and I feel that USPA should represent the skydivers' best interest. If it is in the skydivers' best interest, then eventually it will be in the interest of the DZ. Looking out for the DZ first doesn't always translate to the best intersts of the skydivers.

Please, get out and vote. If you feel I will be the best representative for you, then please write-in Todd Spillers for Gulf Regional Director. If you feel someone else will better represent you, then please vote for them.

Todd Spillers


MikeTJumps  (D 5957)

Sep 23, 2004, 8:19 PM
Post #10 of 13 (1127 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

Excellent posting, Todd. If I weren't running, I'd vote for you!

As to the 3-year term, we need a quorum of the membership to either be present at a general membership meeting or vote in favor of a proxy issue allowing that item to be voted on. That's 10% of the membership and the last attempt fell drastically short of that effort. Perhaps a very specific proxy will help but alas, the malaise that the general membership has exhibited in the past seems to deter that from becoming a reality, but you and I can certainly try to get that issue "on the front lines" again.

Regardless of which one of us is elected, I know both of us will work towards the goals that you and I have stated. I do, however, fear the backlash that re-currency testing will bring. I've been to those meetings and let me tell you, it is not an easy sell. It is something that can be handled more subtely than a mandatory re-certification. Do you recall originally we were required to send in a report on all of our AFF jumps yearly for review by the S&T director? I do. That might be something easier to resurrect.

Your ideas on high performance canopy requirements will also present a problem because the USPA is not truly a "policing" agency. It can only take away that which it gives, and the right (privilege) to skydive is not one of those things it can terminate. It can just make it darned inconvenient to participate in the sport.

National standards and guidelines are "minimums" not absolutes. No matter how much we as individuals believe in something, we have 21 other directors to participate with in achieving our goals.

Let's both do our best so that we can both sleep easily.

Mike


AggieDave  (D License)

Sep 23, 2004, 9:38 PM
Post #11 of 13 (1124 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I am as well. I have been very active and I am very familiar with USPA and its policies. This year I have over 500 jumps, most of wich were with students, trained 6 new tandems intructors, several, coaches, and evaluated at 1 AFF course.

Todd,

You left off something important.

You're now an I/E as well.Smile


MikeTJumps  (D 5957)

Sep 24, 2004, 8:19 AM
Post #12 of 13 (1102 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

Congratulations go out to Todd for becoming an I/E. That is no easy task, and it brings back a second I/E to Texas. We've been losing them due to attrition in the sport and death.

The role of an I/E is somewhat thankless, but I'm glad Todd is one now as well.

Mike


obsequious  (B License)

Sep 24, 2004, 1:45 PM
Post #13 of 13 (1084 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MikeTJumps] Election Statements by Candidates [In reply to] Can't Post

Cool Congratulations!



Forums : Archive : 2005-2006 USPA BOD Elections

 


Search for (options)