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

 

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

chuckakers  (D 10855)

Feb 21, 2012, 5:05 PM
Post #51 of 78 (1313 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 (1313 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 (1312 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 (1196 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 (1179 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 (1180 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 (1167 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 (1150 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 (1141 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 (1134 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 (1129 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 (1122 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 (1107 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 (1103 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 (1096 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 (1073 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 (1064 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 (1051 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 (1043 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 (975 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 (975 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 (975 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 (965 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 (964 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 (962 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


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

Forums : Archive : 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections

 


Search for (options)