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

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jan 25, 2012, 8:09 AM
Post #1 of 78 (3722 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 (3616 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 (3614 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 (3608 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 (3606 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 (3606 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 (3603 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 (3599 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)

Jan 25, 2012, 11:58 AM
Post #9 of 78 (3588 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 (3579 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)

Jan 25, 2012, 1:09 PM
Post #11 of 78 (3576 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 (3512 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 (3494 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


wmw999  (D 6296)

Jan 26, 2012, 9:14 AM
Post #14 of 78 (3479 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 (3476 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 (3472 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 (3444 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 (3420 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 (3375 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 (3361 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 (3355 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 (3318 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 (3254 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 (3077 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)

Feb 17, 2012, 9:12 AM
Post #25 of 78 (3005 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)


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Archive : 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections

 


Search for (options)