2 2
baronn

BOD Meeting July 2018

Recommended Posts

Quote

But if you have complained and nothing happened, let us know the details. What did the S+TA say? The RD? Did you bring it up to the board?



You want me to disclose private conversations? You would ban me for posting private PM's without permission, yet now you DEMAND I disclose private emails?

Quote

I'm not going to take that seriously.



Not actually concerned about what you think. If you can't debate my POINTS without trying to play ME.... Well, it shows you have nothing of merit.

Quote

And if USPA was so bad, you'd quit and drive to a non-USPA DZ



Ah, so as a MEMBER I am not allowed to complain about the organization!

Didn't realize we were in Russia and I answered to you.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The S&TA is appointed by the RD, period. He is only as good as the RD requires. Some are very good, some are not. If you are concerned about safety and violations and the S&TA is not doing his job, then report it. If an RD is not doing his job and is appointing S&TAs that are not doing their job, then elect someone else.



So basically you admit that the USPA failed. The bonus is you try and blame ME for the organization's failure and not the leadership.

Quote

DZs are free to be a GM DZ or not



Yes, but if they decide to advertise on your (USPA) website as a GMDZ, then they have to mandate membership. And your list of reasons for individuals to be GM is pretty weak.

So weak, I notice WTS is not a GM DZ.

Quote

Why should any business or person risk their livelihood to allow someone to jump with NO LIABILITY INSURANCE



If the benefit is so great, why does the USPA make it a requirement?

Quote

they most likely will require you to have USPA membership for the insurance.



Great! Remove it from the GM program (Actually drop the GM program, it does NOTHING) and let the chips fall where they fall... You know, free market and all.

I NEVER said DZ's could not require membership, just that the USPA GM program does nothing and forcing individual memberships is nothing more than a ploy to boost membership.

Quote

First, there is the statute of limitations that USPA must abide by in disciplinary procedures, which is one year. This action actually started in 2014 and the violation was earlier than that. When a complaint is made to the FAA it does not necessarily mean that USPA hears about it. Next, typically is a case such as this the DZ simply blames the pilot and the pilot is often not a USPA member.



So they are a GM, they clearly violated the FARs (which they SWORE they would not do), they were found guilty.... Yet still a GM.

So the GM program did exactly NOTHING here in spite of an FAA violation.

So much for that pledge.

Quote

Yes, I agree it is a FAR. However, some DZOs argued that they were not paying their pilot and they did not need to use a commercial pilot. USPA wanted to make it crystal clear that it was required and that is why it is in the pledge.



And yet I have provided an example of a GMDZ using a pilot that was not rated anyway. And you think the USPA is going to carry more weight than the FAA?

Quote

The Chester Judy award:The USPA Safety & Training Advisor in consultation with the drop zone owner selects one individual from the drop zone to which the award is appointed..... If you do not like who got it, talk to the S&TA and the RD that appointed him. If the S&TA says someone gets the award, they get the reward, period.



So if the local guy says a guy that has 660K dollars in fines for not doing AC MX gets the award, they get it. So much for the USPA putting safety first!

And the GMDZ that had the pilot do MX that was outside of FAR 43 Appendix A(c). What does the USPA do about that?

Quote


The FAR's are quoted in the GM pledge to make it absolutely certain that the GM knows exactly what is required and gives no wiggle room for what may be their particular interpretation of the FAR



And yet, I can provide examples of GMDZ's flat out ignoring them.... So what good is the pledge?

Quote

You will most likely be required to be a USPA member at a very high percentage of all DZs. GM or non GM, doesn't matter.



So then remove the requirement and let DZ's make their own choice!

Maybe I am missing something..... So what does a GM need to do to be a GM? Does the USPA ever check to make sure the GM is following the "pledge"? Does the USPA ever audit a GM DZ? If the USPA is not going to act on a PROVEN FAR violation because the "Statute of limitations" has expired.... Yet I can't think of a single FAR violation that took less than a year... What good is putting following FAR's in the "pledge"?

I think I know the answers.... And the proof of GM DZ's violating not only the BSR's but FAR's is the evidence I need.

Basically, the GM program is a joke. The USPA does not hold the DZ's to the pledge. But the USPA does mandate individual memberships.... So the USPA is playing both sides and providing ZERO benefit to the individual members for having a GM program.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

***USPA is not requiring you to be a member, the DZ is.:




This is dishonest at best.

Remove the requirement from the GM pledge and let the chips fall where they may.

Just because no one has mentioned this yet. There IS a benefit to the individual members to requiring GM DZs to only allow USPA members to jump. If I go to a GM DZ I can be assured that anyone on the plane or in the air with me has at least a minimum of training and knows about some minimum safety requirements.
I find that quite reassuring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just because no one has mentioned this yet. There IS a benefit to the individual members to requiring GM DZs to only allow USPA members to jump. If I go to a GM DZ I can be assured that anyone on the plane or in the air with me has at least a minimum of training and knows about some minimum safety requirements.
I find that quite reassuring.



The DZ sets the level of training and safety requirements. USPA not requiring GM DZ's to require membership (If A=B and B=C, then A=C) will not change that. USPA does not enforce any standards.

Do you find it reassuring that USPA lowered the standards to become an AFFI to address the instructor shortage? This is instead of letting the market self correct. What did an AFFI make per jump in 2001? What do they make now? What does an AFFI with 5 AFF jumps make? What does an AFFI with 100 AFF jumps make?

I don't know if I would drop my membership if I could. Honestly, probably not for the reason Mr. Mullins points out, the insurance. As well as keeping my AFFI and PRO ratings.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>You want me to disclose private conversations?

Given how offended you have been that others have not disclosed discussions that led to disciplinary actions (or more importantly that did NOT lead to disciplinary actions) yes.

>You would ban me for posting private PM's without permission, yet now you DEMAND
>I disclose private emails?

I said nothing about "disclosing emails." I said that if you complained and nothing was done, tell us about it. Or more importantly, tell the BOD.

Or not. You can keep the whole thing a big secret. Then you don't get to complain when others do the same as you do.

>Ah, so as a MEMBER I am not allowed to complain about the organization!

I don't know if you noticed or not, but you complain loudly and regularly and no one is banning you. Your complaints might be taken seriously if there was any substance to them, or if you ever followed up on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Given how offended you have been that others have not disclosed discussions that led to disciplinary actions (or more importantly that did NOT lead to disciplinary actions) yes.



Communications about OFFICIAL BOD sanctions and actions about a group I am a member, as opposed to you personally just wanting my personal and private communications. While at the same time you banning others for disclosing that same type of information - Shows an astounding display of hypocrisy from you.

As a member I am entitled to know what my organization is and IS NOT doing. You as a person have ZERO right to another individuals private communications... You are not the NSA.

Quote

Then you don't get to complain



Oh, but I DO get to complain. Last I checked, you are not my boss. I see you can't debate the topic so you are trying to make this about me..... Don't, it shows weakness in your position and makes it look like you have a personal vendetta.

Quote

Your complaints might be taken seriously if there was any substance to them,



Once again, you are avoiding the TOPIC and trying to play me....

I see you just skipped over the USPA doing nothing about the FAA violating a GMDZ for busting clouds. I even provided the report from the FAA! So I have provided data, you just instead tried to play me and ignore the data.

Play the ball and not the player. You keep trying to play me and I'll start to ignore you like I did the last time.

To quote YOU: "If you want to keep talking about the issue, fine - but do not start with the personal stuff"
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Communications about OFFICIAL BOD sanctions and actions about a group I am a member, as opposed to you personally just wanting my personal and private communications.


You have this idea that there is some shadowy "OFFICIAL BOD SANCTION" process where secret communications result in decisions. It's not like that. That process is you talking to Mike, or Josh, or Gary.

If you don't want to do that, if all you want to do is complain on line, then you will never get anywhere. And if you are OK with that - complain away.

Personally I have had two serious issues with USPA. One was the lack of what I called "graduate training" - people graduated from AFF or SL and had nowhwere to go, other than DZ-specific coaching both formal and informal. At smaller DZ's especially there was no framework on what to do next, and often no one there with the experience at larger DZ's to understand how coach jumping, load organizing for newbies etc worked.

So I talked to BOD members. I wrote articles for PARACHUTIST and Skydiving. I wrote up my proposal for a graduate program.

And what they eventually came up with was the ISP, which contained most of what I wanted to see. It was certainly not "just me" that got that implemented - but my contributions helped the concept along.

The second was the lack of separation of high performance and standard-pattern landing areas, occurring after Bob Holler's death (and a few others.) Molly, Bob's girlfriend at the time, led the charge, and I supported her with several proposals to change the BSR's.

We emailed a lot of people on the board about it then went to a BOD meeting. And we talked with people during the meeting, but more importantly we talked with BOD members _after_ the meeting. No one wanted to change the BSR's, because (per them) BSR changes have to be very carefully considered and they wanted a lot more runway than one meeting to do it.

But we came up with a compromise; a change to the group member pledge that requires DZ's to provide separate areas, either physical or by time. That is now in the pledge.

And yes, we had to fly there and spend a few days talking to people. But often that's what you have to do if you want to be heard (and more importantly understood.)

I could have taken your path and just complained, then when pressed on it say "how dare you ask for my private thoughts and emails! How DARE you!" If I had done that, my efforts would not have been effective.

Quote

I'll start to ignore you like I did the last time.


Please do. If all you are going to do is complain, we can see that anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You have this idea that there is some shadowy "OFFICIAL BOD SANCTION" process where secret communications result in decisions. It's not like that. That process is you talking to Mike, or Josh, or Gary.



No, but tell me more of what you think I think.... It's exciting! Says more about your thinking than mine, however.

Quote

And what they eventually came up with was the ISP, which contained most of what I wanted to see. It was certainly not "just me" that got that implemented - but my contributions helped the concept along.



GREAT, now you might remember that a decade or so ago we both were signatories on a high performance canopy issue?

So your claim I have done nothing, well it is not supported in fact.

Quote

I could have taken your path and just complained, then when pressed on it say "how dare you ask for my private thoughts and emails! How DARE you!" If I had done that, my efforts would not have been effective.



There you go trying to play me again and ignoring the topic....

Quote

Please do. If all you are going to do is complain, we can see that anywhere.



What we have here is:
1. You making assumptions
2. You ignoring the data (still have not discussed the busting clouds issue I raised).
3. You trying to play me and not the topic.

Yeah, not worth trying to discuss anything with you if you are going to do the above.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The DZ sets the level of training and safety requirements. USPA not requiring GM DZ's to require membership (If A=B and B=C, then A=C) will not change that.


So, maybe I'm misunderstanding how this works then. The way I understand it is that if I jump at a GM DZ, I know that everyone is at least a licensed skydiver (or in rare cases they may be a student released for self-supervision, in which case they would only do solo jumps or be with a coach or instructor). If the GM DZ would not require USPA membership then theoretically anyone without any type of license could jump or the DZ could have whatever rule it wants to--which I would not be aware of. So it DOES matter, no?
Also: While I'm in the sport only for a couple years, I have yet to talk to ANYONE who has had a problem with having to acquire a USPA license in order to be able to jump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So, maybe I'm misunderstanding how this works then. The way I understand it is that if I jump at a GM DZ, I know that everyone is at least a licensed skydiver (or in rare cases they may be a student released for self-supervision, in which case they would only do solo jumps or be with a coach or instructor). If the GM DZ would not require USPA membership then theoretically anyone without any type of license could jump or the DZ could have whatever rule it wants to--which I would not be aware of. So it DOES matter, no?
Also: While I'm in the sport only for a couple years, I have yet to talk to ANYONE who has had a problem with having to acquire a USPA license in order to be able to jump.



Nope. Let's look at how things work now and then if the mandatory send your $ to USPA was dropped by USPA.

Now;

Drop Zones choose how much of USPA's BSR's and guidance to follow or not. If a DZ does not follow the BSR's, etc. there isn't really anything USPA can do to change that. They could suspend rating's and memberships, or even the DZ's GM, but they cannot force a DZ to follow the rules. USPA is motivated NOT remove GM because then the DZ would be released from the requirement that jumpers are USPA members. If USPA comes down too harshly on a DZ, they might piss off the DZO enough that they drop their GM and, again, drop the requirement for the jumpers to send USPA every year. This means less money to USPA. DZ's control USPA's revenue stream. It is a conflict of interest.

If USPA dropped the mandatory membership requirement;

Most DZ's would probably still require it, if for nothing else, the liability insurance. But some wouldn't bother and I would imagine USPA would seen a small decline in revenue. If an alternative insurance was found that was $6/year, that would meet the individual insurance requirement, I could see USPA having real financial troubles.

I think overall USPA is a good thing, but the system of DZ's controlling their revenue stream needs to change. Let them stand on their own. I jumpers feel they are getting $55/year of value, they will pay it. If not......

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

USPA is motivated NOT remove GM because then the DZ would be released from the requirement that jumpers are USPA members



Yes. But if someone isn't a USPA member that also means (s)he has no License. (Unless you are suggesting USPA gives out and manages the licensing process for free) I for one, do not want people on the plane who went through no training whatsoever, or have to figure out at each DZ what the specific DZ requires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peek

***... Some drop zones violate BSRs on every single load everyday. It's exceedingly common.




What dropzones are those that violate BSR(s) on every load?
Which BSRs?
What area of the country?


Does it matter? Most DZs do at least one thing is questionable. All drop zones have at least a few fun jumpers who dont take safety seriously. Some are better than others. Some care, others dont. I've seen TIs do 270s about 100 feet off the ground and swoop their 380 Icarus tandem in. I've seen HP landings a few from AFF student landings. I've seen half the load land north and half land south, all at the same time, in a small landing area. I've seen guys with several thousand jumps on a WL of over 2.0 yell at someone with 50 jumps because he 'got in the way' flying a standard pattern when the dude was trying to set up for a 720 HP landing. I've seen AFF-Is tell guys "you have your license now, you dont need to fly a pattern. That's AFF shit". Some DZs do this stuff all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Does it matter? Most DZs do at least one thing is questionable. All drop zones have at least a few fun jumpers who dont take safety seriously.


Well, but there is a difference between a DZ that violates FAR's and BSR's and jumpers who violate FAR's and BSR's. I agree; every DZ has jumpers who don't take safety as seriously as they should, and I've seen many of the examples of poor judgment that you've listed. But I haven't been to many (if any) USPA DZ's that violate BSR's as a matter of policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes. But if someone isn't a USPA member that also means (s)he has no License. (Unless you are suggesting USPA gives out and manages the licensing process for free) I for one, do not want people on the plane who went through no training whatsoever, or have to figure out at each DZ what the specific DZ requires.



The faith you are putting in the USPA to ensure that other jumpers meet certain standards is misplaced. They do not audit student programs. Some are very good, some are not. A USPA license is kinda like a USPA Group Member DZ. it doesn’t mean it is good or bad, it just means they sent the USPA a check.

I could give my dog an A license.....

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But if someone isn't a USPA member that also means (s)he has no License. (Unless you are suggesting USPA gives out and manages the licensing process for free) I for one, do not want people on the plane who went through no training whatsoever, or have to figure out at each DZ what the specific DZ requires.



OK, lets say the USPA drops the GM program and my local DZ drops the requirement. I have 7,500 jumps and 300 hours wind tunnel.... You claiming me not having a "license" because I drop my USPA membership means I am somehow not safe to jump with?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You claiming me not having a "license" because I drop my USPA membership means I am somehow not safe to jump with?


Of course not. But how would I know it's you? How would I know how many jumps you have? Right now, I'd still don't know it's you...but at least I know you have at minimum an A License.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They do not audit student programs. Some are very good, some are not.


So: You are asking for MORE stringent requirements and monitoring? From your previous posts, it seems like you asked for LESS!

There are clearly specific requirements for the licenses (after all that's how the whole post started and the people who did not agree with the BOD decisions wanted LESS, not MORE)
As I see it, the USPA may not audit individual student programs but does seem to be more active in monitoring Instructor Examiner ratings, which should make sure Instructors are taught correctly, which gives at least a decent chance that most students are taught correctly.
Better than NOTHING and, in my opinion, also better than TOO MUCH monitoring and too much oversight (again, I thought most here opposed to the rules were arguing for MORE FREEDOM after all)
I'd also assume that MORE oversight would mean more costs and therefore higher membership fees. No one here seemed to be wanting that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

but at least I know you have at minimum an A License.



Actually, I would *not* have an A license. My membership would be expired and I would have NO LICENSE at all.

In fact, I don't have an "A" license.... Nope, I skipped it. I also skipped the "B". And my "D"? Well it was only 200 jumps when I got it.

You are putting WAY too much faith in the USPA.

For example.... I have been an instructor (Actually jumpmaster) since 1994, been an AFFI over 15 years. Taught military, and thousands of Tandem students and easily hundreds of AFF students. I have coached teams that have won medals at nationals.... So if I dropped my USPA membership and lost ALL my ratings..... Who would you rather give your significant other to for training?

Me, or some newly minted USPA "approved" instructor?

Quote

But how would I know it's you?



How do you know the person actually earned their ratings and was not just given them?

These 140 people were running around with "USPA Instructor" cards in their pockets.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article99446487.html

Quote

How would I know how many jumps you have?



IDK, ask? I could easily lie and say I have USPA ratings.... You would never know.

You are giving WAY too much credit to the USPA. I also understand that. Years ago... OK over a decade ago there was a push to create a new organization.... I think it was called the "United States Skydiver Association".... It was created because they saw the USPA was more interested in representing gear manufacturers and Drop Zones.... I USED to think the guys were stupid.

Now 25 years later.... I wish the USSA had taken hold and created a free market that would put a check on the USPA. But alas, people like me didn't care.... In fact, I'd bet the vast majority have no clue about how the USPA runs or even what it does.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I have 7,500 jumps and 300 hours wind tunnel.... You claiming me not having a
>"license" because I drop my USPA membership means I am somehow not safe to jump
>with?

Of course not. But other people might not know that.

Let's say someone shows up at your DZ. You've never seen them before.

You say "how many jumps do you have?"
They say "ten thousand."
You say "who have you jumped with that I know?"
They say "not too many; I've been in Dubai a lot. I'm an instructor, you know."
You say "uh, OK. Do you have a license?"
They say "sure, here's my D license." You check it; he's also an AFF-I and has a PRO rating.

Five minutes later someone shows up at your DZ. You've never seen them before either.

You say "how many jumps do you have?"
They say "ten thousand."
You say "who have you jumped with that I know?"
They say "not too many; I've been in Kansas. I'm an instructor, you know."
You say "uh, OK. Do you have a license?"
They say "no, I've never needed one."


Which one are you more likely to think is competent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Which one are you more likely to think is competent?



As shown in the Lodi accident... Not sure I would trust a person that just had an instructor card.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article99446487.html

You know the TI had a USPA rating card... Right?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron

Quote

Which one are you more likely to think is competent?



As shown in the Lodi accident... Not sure I would trust a person that just had an instructor card.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article99446487.html

You know the TI had a USPA rating card... Right?



The person acting as a Tandem Instructor in the Lodi accident was not a USPA member, did not hold a USPA license, did not have a USPA Tandem Instructor rating, and did not have a manufacturers rating.

Mike Mullins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So: You are asking for MORE stringent requirements and monitoring? From your previous posts, it seems like you asked for LESS!



No, I am trying to explain that what you are relying on (USPA), to ensure that other people in the plane meet some sort of training standard, is a bad plan.

What do you put your faith in that the aircraft is maintained according to the FAR’s?

What do you put your faith in that the pilot is qualified and current?

What makes skydiver A with 30 skydives and no license safer than skydiver B with 30 skydives and an A license?

How do you know that the skydiver sitting next to you in the plane with 30-skydives has an A license or not?

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron, your logic is faulty.

You say you're an instructor and have ratings, and then say that ratings are irrelevant and should be dropped. Well, of course, if you are dropping your membership now and loose your ratings, you don't loose your skills (or my trust in you--EXCEPT: that I may have no way to verify your skills if I didn't already know you). But the point is you DID go through the training and ratings process.
Did you learn much more in other ways and are you much better than what's necessary to achieve these ratings? I bet you are! But none of that is an argument against the ratings.

And as for the free market: Correct me if I am wrong, but ANYONE can come along, create their own organization, get people to join it, get DZs certified and do everything the USPA does in order to compete with it. They can require the DZs to require jumpers to have membership in their organization, or not. It's completely up to them and I am certain there is no law preventing this and the USPA has no way to prevent it. Where is the market not FREE in this case?
If anything, you are complaining about the USPA having a de facto monopoly--just like companies like Amazon.com have--but this is exactly a feature of the FREE market, that this is possible and generally a likely outcome in most industries. It would require outside intervention into the market (from government rules, etc.) to prevent that.
Even if I had the same problem as you with the USPA requiring member DZs to require their jumpers to have USPA membership, the fact that they can do so is exactly a FEATURE of the FREE market. Just as Amazon.com requires me to be a Prime Member of their online service in order to get the cheapest prices at the Wholefoods stores they now own.

Yippikayeahh MFs!!! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2