2 2
baronn

BOD Meeting July 2018

Recommended Posts

As they said in AVATAR,
"It is hard to fill a cup that is already full." But hey, I'll take the bait. My main complaint with the Lodi incident was the fact that no tandem fatality had been handled like that before. Pulling the DZ owners personal membership was retaliatory and accomplished nothing. Once it was discovered that this instructor and other's had gone thru the course with the unrated T/E, I wouldn't have gone on TV. Sometimes silence is best. Instead of yanking all these folks livelihood (And attempting to cut Lodi's staff), I would have treated these victims as due paying members of MY organization and been there for them. Jay Stokes or Tom Noonan wude have been on a plane to correct whatever shortcomings they had experienced from this course. I wude have gotten them up to speed as fast as possible. Laid down some new rules for foreign jumpers so we can avoid a similar situation in the future. I've always felt that it's often best to inform vs penalize. Hell, even the FAA informed me that their new attitude is just this when they hit me for a ramp check. It was actually a pleasant experience and I feel I gained supporters for me and my business instead of another government entity to fear. All this squacking about "going after" and the different penalties is non productive. Forgive everything and total Kumbaya is not what I'm suggesting. If there are some bad apples, let's weed them out, try to straighten the situation or ask them to not do it anymore. If it continues, then take action. But, most of all, let's treat everyone on a level field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
baronn

I've always felt that it's often best to inform vs penalize. Hell, even the FAA informed me that their new attitude is just this when they hit me for a ramp check



yea but that does not work in real life because 'inform instead of penalize' translates to 'I can do whatever I want because I wont be held accountable.' It's one thing to inform vs penalize on something that the offender legitimately did not know and it would be reasonably expected that the person wouldent have known. However, if we're talking about a matter that the offender knows is against the rules/ law, or very well should know, then fines are the only way to handle the situation. Informing them doesent mean much when they already know they are breaking the rules/ law and they just dont care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
baronn

As they said in AVATAR,
"It is hard to fill a cup that is already full." But hey, I'll take the bait. My main complaint with the Lodi incident was the fact that no tandem fatality had been handled like that before. Pulling the DZ owners personal membership was retaliatory and accomplished nothing. Once it was discovered that this instructor and other's had gone thru the course with the unrated T/E, I wouldn't have gone on TV. Sometimes silence is best. Instead of yanking all these folks livelihood (And attempting to cut Lodi's staff), I would have treated these victims as due paying members of MY organization and been there for them. Jay Stokes or Tom Noonan wude have been on a plane to correct whatever shortcomings they had experienced from this course. I wude have gotten them up to speed as fast as possible. Laid down some new rules for foreign jumpers so we can avoid a similar situation in the future. I've always felt that it's often best to inform vs penalize. Hell, even the FAA informed me that their new attitude is just this when they hit me for a ramp check. It was actually a pleasant experience and I feel I gained supporters for me and my business instead of another government entity to fear. All this squacking about "going after" and the different penalties is non productive. Forgive everything and total Kumbaya is not what I'm suggesting. If there are some bad apples, let's weed them out, try to straighten the situation or ask them to not do it anymore. If it continues, then take action. But, most of all, let's treat everyone on a level field.



You are talking in circles. The USPA weeded out the bad apple and you think it was unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly.

On the one hand, you are saying that USPA should have been watching the revoked I/E more closely, and scrutinizing the new TI applications that came from the revoked I/E's home DZ.

OTOH, you seem to be also saying that Bill shouldn't have any responsibility for allowing a revoked I/E to hold classes at his DZ, and for hiring (at least) one of those TIs, who held no USPA licenses or ratings, nor did he hold a manufacturer's rating.

Really?

As a slight aside, I find it rather 'interesting' that there are at least 2 USPA exec board members who call Lodi their home DZ, yet the revoked I/E was able to train something like 140 TIs there. I'm just an 'every other weekend fun jumper', yet I know when courses are being held and who the I/E is for coach, AFFI & TI classes at my DZ.
Did they not know the classes were being held? Did they not hear the name of the I/E? Or was it something they just didn't worry about?
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe



As a slight aside, I find it rather 'interesting' that there are at least 2 USPA exec board members who call Lodi their home DZ, yet the revoked I/E was able to train something like 140 TIs there. I'm just an 'every other weekend fun jumper', yet I know when courses are being held and who the I/E is for coach, AFFI & TI classes at my DZ.
Did they not know the classes were being held? Did they not hear the name of the I/E? Or was it something they just didn't worry about?



Apparently, I was wrong about this. The first one is not on the BOD any more. The second one I thought was a Lodi regular was not.

Sorry about that.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
baronn

Soooooo, The BOD meeting in Wisconsin is now over. As per usual, they decided to pass out awards and the usual blah, blah, blah. An interesting note is the decision to donate 25K per yr for the next 5 yrs to the NSM. Seems every month in Parachutist we hear all about how tight money is and the USPA can't afford this or that. National teams need public support to compete at World meets. And these are the type of decisions they come up with. Does anyone else think this is NOT the best the USPA can do?



Your USPA BOD did indeed vote to donate $25,000 per year, for the next five years, to the International Skydiving Museum & Hall of Fame. I would suggest that all who are not familiar with their mission and the skydivers involved go to skydivingmuseum.org/ and educate yourself.

It was not a unanimous decision of the board, some would have liked a lessor donation per year, some may have not wanted to donate at all, I did support this donation as I am certain that this endeavor will benefit all skydivers. Most would agree that the more skydivers we have, the better skydiving will be for everyone. This ISMHF will be a first class, interactive facility, adjoining a wind tunnel in Sarasota, FL. There will be a lot of people who will see this and, hopefully, decide to try skydiving, or at least come away with a favorable image of skydiving.

I also believe it was important that USPA step up and make this donation as we are, by default, the host country. It would be a hard sell to get other countries skydiving associations to donate if we were not to donate.

Concerning the donation, how much would you as a USPA member be willing to donate to the ISMHF out of your dues? Would you donate an amount less than the price of a bottle of water or a coke?

There are 40,318 USPA Members. With the $25,000 donation that comes out to $0.62 per member. Plus, if the BOD determines that our money is not being used wisely we can cut the money off at any time for any reason with a simple majority vote of the BOD.

Again, I would highly recommend that each of you check out the ISMHF website, see what they are doing, and see who is involved. I believe that most will be impressed.

Mike Mullins
USPA National Director

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Saturday, March 28, 2015 - 21:01
The Skydiving Museum & Hall of Fame is pleased to announce it is collaborating with Skyventure iFly to co-locate the Skydiving Museum & Hall of Fame with a 16-foot iFly wind tunnel in North Orlando, Florida. The museum is currently working with a leading design firm to combine building space and functions and iFly is actively searching for a suitable piece of property as a venue for the combined facility. The co-venture is expected to open its doors in 2018.”

Quote

interactive facility, adjoining a wind tunnel in Sarasota, FL



When is the wind tunnel expected to open? I can tell you for sure it won’t be 2018.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USPA did donate from our dues the 25 grand per year and I sure as hell didn't vote on it! How many years have monetary donations been made to this paper musuem? Ottley had donated enough cash to build it in VA. After the BOD voted to sell the land it was touted as enough cash to start building it in Florida. It's time for this 501c Non-profit to be audited!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaelmullins

***Soooooo, The BOD meeting in Wisconsin is now over. As per usual, they decided to pass out awards and the usual blah, blah, blah. An interesting note is the decision to donate 25K per yr for the next 5 yrs to the NSM. Seems every month in Parachutist we hear all about how tight money is and the USPA can't afford this or that. National teams need public support to compete at World meets. And these are the type of decisions they come up with. Does anyone else think this is NOT the best the USPA can do?


Most would agree that the more skydivers we have, the better skydiving will be for everyone.



That's a very fine line to walk down. While greater numbers are good in some aspects, they are really bad in other aspects. Most high-risk sports are largely unregulated because they are fringe activities that the vast majority of the population will not participate in. Thus, with fewer numbers, the effects of our actions is less and therefore the government has other things to be concerned with. But as our numbers go up, so do incidents and other issues in parallel. If the numbers keep going up, without question we will eventually get big enough that the FAA will legitimately start looking to regulate us.

If we want to be a self-regulating sport, then it's to our benefit to minimize our footprint otherwise the government will become the new USPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jumpsracer

USPA did donate from our dues the 25 grand per year and I sure as hell didn't vote on it! How many years have monetary donations been made to this paper musuem? Ottley had donated enough cash to build it in VA. After the BOD voted to sell the land it was touted as enough cash to start building it in Florida. It's time for this 501c Non-profit to be audited!



USPA, like our federal government (just recite the pledge of allegiance) is a republic, as is every state government. You elect board members that then handle USPA business by vote.

I believe that this is the first monetary donation that USPA has made to the museum. However, USPA has made "in kind" donations by allowing the museum to use USPA office space.

You say "after the BOD voted to sell the land". I do not know what land you are talking about. The museum owns a plot of land next to USPA HQ, it was paid for by them, and they still own it. USPA did not donate any money for that land and it is up to the museum to sell it or keep it. USPA has the right of first refusal if the museum does sell the land.

In my opinion, the museum made the right choice by co-locating with a wind tunnel in FL. There is no way the museum could attract enough visitors in Fredericksburg, VA, to sustain it.

Bottom line, it is $0.62 per year per member, and, it can be terminated by USPA at any time for any reason.

Mike Mullins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Westerly

******Soooooo, The BOD meeting in Wisconsin is now over. As per usual, they decided to pass out awards and the usual blah, blah, blah. An interesting note is the decision to donate 25K per yr for the next 5 yrs to the NSM. Seems every month in Parachutist we hear all about how tight money is and the USPA can't afford this or that. National teams need public support to compete at World meets. And these are the type of decisions they come up with. Does anyone else think this is NOT the best the USPA can do?


Most would agree that the more skydivers we have, the better skydiving will be for everyone.



That's a very fine line to walk down. While greater numbers are good in some aspects, they are really bad in other aspects. Most high-risk sports are largely unregulated because they are fringe activities that the vast majority of the population will not participate in. Thus, with fewer numbers, the effects of our actions is less and therefore the government has other things to be concerned with. But as our numbers go up, so do incidents and other issues in parallel. If the numbers keep going up, without question we will eventually get big enough that the FAA will legitimately start looking to regulate us.

If we want to be a self-regulating sport, then it's to our benefit to minimize our footprint otherwise the government will become the new USPA.

We have fewer fatalities in absolute numbers than we had when our sport was far smaller and the percentage of fatalities per jump is far smaller than it has ever been.

Their is strength in numbers with the political clout and money that a large membership brings. For example, the recent drive to privatise ATC, which would have been a total disaster for the jump community and many more alphabet organizations. BTW, USPA voted to donate $25,000 to the cause to fight that.

The more USPA members, the merrier. Just think, if everyone was a USPA member we would have very few political or perception problems :)

Mike Mullins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grimmie,
Yeah he did: "If the DZ isn't a member of the USPA, you don't know what you're getting."

That line carries a connotation more than its words alone suggest.

The overtone of the entire clip was one of connecting the USPA and safety together - as if you couldn't have one without the other. What do you think about the correspondents' short conversation at the end of the clip about "safety" and "increased regulation?"

-JD-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Bottom line, it is $0.62 per year per member, and, it can be terminated by USPA at any time for any reason.

Mike Mullins "

The increased time between reserve I/Rs alone saves me more each year than my membership. And I have no illusion of that happening without the USPA's getting behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaelmullins

***USPA did donate from our dues the 25 grand per year and I sure as hell didn't vote on it! How many years have monetary donations been made to this paper musuem? Ottley had donated enough cash to build it in VA. After the BOD voted to sell the land it was touted as enough cash to start building it in Florida. It's time for this 501c Non-profit to be audited!



USPA, like our federal government (just recite the pledge of allegiance) is a republic, as is every state government. You elect board members that then handle USPA business by vote.

I believe that this is the first monetary donation that USPA has made to the museum. However, USPA has made "in kind" donations by allowing the museum to use USPA office space.

You say "after the BOD voted to sell the land". I do not know what land you are talking about. The museum owns a plot of land next to USPA HQ, it was paid for by them, and they still own it. USPA did not donate any money for that land and it is up to the museum to sell it or keep it. USPA has the right of first refusal if the museum does sell the land.

In my opinion, the museum made the right choice by co-locating with a wind tunnel in FL. There is no way the museum could attract enough visitors in Fredericksburg, VA, to sustain it.

Bottom line, it is $0.62 per year per member, and, it can be terminated by USPA at any time for any reason.

Mike Mullins


Call me unimaginative but I can't imagine not wanting a Skydiving museum and I can't imagine anyone but USPA doing it.
I just really really hope they use that article "The First 50" about night stacks from 1982 as the basis for a bronze plaque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your USPA BOD did indeed vote to donate $25,000 per year, for the next five years, to the International Skydiving Museum & Hall of Fame



And this was the same USPA that wanted to create a demo team to compete against its own members for demos to raise funds for the USA competition teams.

Yet, now they also give away 125K dollars to some other group.... Did the US competition teams get fully funded all of a sudden?

Quote

I would suggest that all who are not familiar with their mission and the skydivers involved go to skydivingmuseum.org/ and educate yourself.



Fully aware thanks. So you assume that people opposed to the BOD giving away membership money is because they are uneducated about the project? Maybe they just don't approve of giving away funds without ASKING the membership?
"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

I would suggest that all who are not familiar with their mission and the skydivers involved go to skydivingmuseum.org/ and educate yourself.



Quote

Fully aware thanks. So you assume that people opposed to the BOD giving away membership money is because they are uneducated about the project? Maybe they just don't approve of giving away funds without ASKING the membership?



I assumed no such thing. I was simply pointing those who did not know about the project, or those who wished additional information on the project, to a site that would explain it in detail. I am sure that there are those that know about it and oppose it, I am sure that there are those that know about it and are in favor, and I am sure that there are those that know nothing about it.

As far as asking the membership, as I have posted many times before, USPA operates like virtually all corporate Board of Directors do, you elect a board and they make the decisions.

Since you are so adamant against your $0.62 per year being spent on a donation to the museum, I was going to send a check to USPA, in your name, for the full 5 year, $3.10 donation to be spent on the program of your choice. However, since you are not a USPA member the point is moot and you can rest easy knowing that none of your dues has been spent on the project.

Mike Mullins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Since you are so adamant against your $0.62 per year being spent on a donation to the museum, I was going to send a check to USPA, in your name, for the full 5 year, $3.10 donation to be spent on the program of your choice. However, since you are not a USPA member the point is moot and you can rest easy knowing that none of your dues has been spent on the project.



I see you failed to answer my question... I guess the USA teams now have FULL sponsorship... You know since you think you can afford to give away 125K dollars of USPA funds to other pet projects... It is good to know that the mission of the PCA - USPA has finally been met!

And people might like to know that the "International" museum has, I think, only TWO people who are not from/in the United States on the governance board.... Does not seem so "International" to me.....

But one thing I will give you credit for... You willing to spend YOUR money on the same things you are willing to spend others money on!

As for me not being a member... When a supposed membership organization shows interest in supporting manufacturers and the industry over the membership, I have a hard time supporting it.

And if you support the DZ group membership program so much... Why is WTS not a group member?
"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

I guess the USA teams now have FULL sponsorship... You know since you think you can afford to give away 125K dollars of USPA funds to other pet projects...



USPA provides no funding to US Teams. The teams are funded by investment income from the US Parachute Team Trust Fund, which receives nothing from USPA.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2