Candidate for the USPA BOD

[ghost47 18]

Quote

USPA would need to be negligent to be sued.

I know nothing about how many times the USPA had been sued, successfully or otherwise. But the USPA need not be negligent to be sued, it needs to be found negligent to be liable. To be sued, all it need do is be accused of something that a judge will believe a reasonable jury could find negligent. Then litigation commences. Potentially very expensive litigation.

I also don't know anything factual about TIs and DUIs. But could a judge see granting a tandem rating to someone who has been convicted of a DUI as negligent, or at least enough of a question that the judge would refuse to immediately dismiss the case? I could definitely see that happening.

[DSE 3]

gowlerk

***Charlie, if there were a TI that had been convicted of a DUI, goes "straight" and has a few years of sobriety, and then goes out and harms a tandem student...USPA will likely be forced to pay out for that. Let's say it's a cheap payout at 100K$.

Who pays for that lawsuit and payout, if not the membership of USPA? It seems that in protecting the association, USPA rules protect the lay member, too. Do you disagree?

When was the last time USPA was successfully sued over the actions of a member? USPA would need to be negligent to be sued. Your position on DUI and TI's is over the top. People with DUI's on their record can become professional drivers. There is no room for being under the influence of alcohol for anyone in skydiving. We just don't do it. Even those with past DUIs. I just don't understand how you can think this way.

"Successfully sued?" Or "Settled?" A suit was settled quite recently.
Both cost a heap of cash, so it makes sense to weigh the cost of settling vs attorney's fees.

Relevant to Charlie's agenda; More than 100 tandem examiners said they have no problem with the medical requirement and support the current rule. If Charlie were the "voice of the skydiver," then perhaps he'd have spoken directly to the more than 100 examiners to determine what they wanted, vs promoting a personal agenda in the "voice of skydivers." Had the 100+ examiners agreed with Charlie, that the rule would have changed.

There are some sorts of mistakes that can be forgiven in society. Restoring full rights in skydiving (or any other high-risk activity involving others) to someone with multiple DUI's isn't one of them, IMO.

I cannot fathom the motivations of a DZO who would fight so hard for the right to hire someone who has been convicted of multiple DUI's.

[tred 0]

can anyone vote, and how and when does that happen?

[ufk22 32]

DSE

******Charlie, if there were a TI that had been convicted of a DUI, goes "straight" and has a few years of sobriety, and then goes out and harms a tandem student...USPA will likely be forced to pay out for that. Let's say it's a cheap payout at 100K$.

Who pays for that lawsuit and payout, if not the membership of USPA? It seems that in protecting the association, USPA rules protect the lay member, too. Do you disagree?

When was the last time USPA was successfully sued over the actions of a member? USPA would need to be negligent to be sued. Your position on DUI and TI's is over the top. People with DUI's on their record can become professional drivers. There is no room for being under the influence of alcohol for anyone in skydiving. We just don't do it. Even those with past DUIs. I just don't understand how you can think this way.

"Successfully sued?" Or "Settled?" A suit was settled quite recently.
Both cost a heap of cash, so it makes sense to weigh the cost of settling vs attorney's fees.

Relevant to Charlie's agenda; More than 100 tandem examiners spoke against changing the medical requirement; they have no problem with it and support the current rule. If Charlie were the "voice of the skydiver," then perhaps he'd have spoken directly to the more than 100 examiners to determine what they wanted, vs promoting a personal agenda in the "voice of skydivers." Had the 100+ examiners agreed with Charlie, that the rule would have changed.

There are some sorts of mistakes that can be forgiven in society. Restoring full rights in skydiving (or any other high-risk activity involving others) to someone with multiple DUI's isn't one of them, IMO.

I cannot fathom the motivations of a DZO who would fight so hard for the right to hire someone who has been convicted of multiple DUI's. In reality, single or even multiple DUI's do not disqualify someone for a medical. I know more than one tandem-I that has had them in their past. The big thing seems to be how long ago. Time since with no more seems to be the key (proof that it's no longer a problem).

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[nolhtairt 0]

tred

can anyone vote, and how and when does that happen?

If you're a USPA member, you get Parachutist every month. You'll know when it's time to vote and how.

[fencebuster 7]

DSE: I suppose the answer is I am not small-minded enough to accept at face value a stereotype. I spent 24 years as a Marine officer evaluating character. I'd rather trust my judgment in evaluating a person's character than on a stereotype or a "one-size fits all" rule. I lost the BSR issue. I accept that.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[catfishhunter 1]

I am with Spot on this one. Charlie your decision to try and change the rules to suit YOU leave your decision making suspect. I, like Spot, cannot fathom why you would go to the lengths you have for someone that has proved they cannot be trusted with the publics safety.

The only reason that made any sense to me was you needed him because for some reason you couldn't find another capable TI. That does not show your capable of making the RIGHT choice instead of the choice that benefits you.

There are consequences to ones actions. The TI knew this and made the choice anyway. His choice effected your business and you got mad and tried to change the rule so you were not effected by his choices. You lost so now your trying to extract some sort of revenge from the inside.

This is how it looks to me. I could be totally wrong, wouldn't be the first time, but I would be willing to bet you are not running out of the goodness of your heart but because your ego doesn't like loosing and have anyone telling you what you can or cant do.That is NOT qualities that we need on the BOD. We need people that can make the HARD and RIGHT choices and you have already proved you can't do that.

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[fencebuster 7]

Thanks for your comment. Since you don't know me, you are making pretty big assumptions about me. That is your choice, but see my above response to DSE. I am running because I see that I can make a contribution to the organization. I had planned to run before the BSR issue I raised and told many people exactly that. You may or may not agree with me, and you may not vote for me, but you have to accept that I presented my case to the Board and followed the procedures of the organization in doing so. I suspect if you actually knew me you might have a different view of my motivations.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[DSE 3]

fencebuster

DSE: I suppose the answer is I am not small-minded enough to accept at face value a stereotype. I spent 24 years as a Marine officer evaluating character. I'd rather trust my judgment in evaluating a person's character than on a stereotype or a "one-size fits all" rule. I lost the BSR issue. I accept that.

I appreciate your candor, Charlie. And in one-one situations, I'd tend to agree with you.

Do/did you have a way of proposing that you personally get to evaluate every single person with multiple DUI's that wants a TI rating?

An organization like USPA is all about dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator while protecting its own, right? If that makes USPA small-minded, then I guess that's what they are from your perspective.

I'd like to think of USPA looking at the larger picture, rather than being small-minded.

[fencebuster 7]

I am certainly not suggesting that anyone be personally involved in evaluating a TI on behalf of USPA. The fact of the matter is that USPA does not do so either. If you have a medical, a recommendation from an IE and you completed the rating course you are approved by USPA. There is no "evaluation" at all by USPA. What I am saying is that if you want to say the FAA medical is required for medical fitness that is not what it is being used for now. It was very clearly explained to me that the purpose is to track DUIs for USPA, which I do not believe is a valid "medical" issue and should be the responsibility of the DZO who is employing the person. I employed the system to try to change the BSR and failed, just like happened to the Wingsuit Instructor issue that you supported before the board in the meeting in 2013.

You know, it is a ground for termination of a USPA membership that a member is convicted of a felony. How often does that get enforced? I know numerous members, TIs and other instructors who have been convicted of felonies. Not a peep from USPA. I guess the bottom line is that I am against hypocrisy.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[Unstable 8]

Quote

I appreciate your candor, Charlie. And in one-one situations, I'd tend to agree with you.

Request for the Peanut Gallery: I've been following this thread carefully, and it's clear that the issue of the effect of a DUI on a Class-3 medical became center stage, based on an incident or event. Would you DSE, be so kind as to post a link to a thread regarding the original issue or perhaps something to give us a better background regarding the discussion?

=========Shaun ==========

[tred 0]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4713676;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

[DSE 3]

fencebuster

There is no "evaluation" at all by USPA.

So...you don't feel that rated Tandem Examiners represent the USPA either?

As an examiner in my own right, I'd like to believe that my action, the training I present, and the goals to which I endeavor represent the USPA. Perhaps I'm alone in that belief?

[catfishhunter 1]

First thank you for your service. I as an American can never repay the debt I/we as a nation owe you for that service.

Second I am sure you are a good man that is loyal to his friends and family. If there was a fight id want you on my side.

Last just because you will fight doesn't make it right. Your decision to fight against a very JUST and FAIR rule for someone you employee is like the parents of the kid that gets arrested and blames the police saying he's a good kid the cops should have let him go with a warning. This is the problem. Your blaming others for the punishment of this persons decisions and that I do not understand nor could I condone voting for someone into a position of authority that excuses extremely bad and DANGEROUS behavior.

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[fencebuster 7]

I am not "blaming" anyone. I was doing something I believed in. The instructor in question never did anything to enagage in dangerous behavior with a student or while skydiving.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[fencebuster 7]

No disagreement. If you make the recommendation, nothing else happens at USPA to review your judgment. That was my point. But I also think that if you had a non-skydiving evaluation reason not to recommend someone, I expect you would tell them that before you took their money for the course, right?

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[normiss 619]

I'm unclear why we seem to be having a mindset of making people pay for mistakes made in the their life, for the rest of their life.

People change, they learn, hopefully they improve.
I'd like to think we try to give people a chance to do right.

I clearly do not know the details in this issue though.

[fencebuster 7]

I could not agree more. And I had/have all the facts.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[catfishhunter 1]

Normiss that is NOT what anyone is saying. There is a road to redemption. People have already explained that. there is no "death penalty" for first or ever a second offense. Which makes me wonder what really transpired. No one is losing their ticket over 1 DUI or even 2.


I am sure Charlie would like to move on to what he started this thread about and that was why we should vote for him for the BOD. While this issue is a HUGE stumbling block for him I am sure it doesn't define him. Charlie WHY should we vote for you? If this isn't why your running then why are you running and what would you hope to accomplish if you were elected?

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[fencebuster 7]

Good God, thank you for asking the question. I am running because for years I see a lack of intellectual honesty on the Board and no one speaking up for the little mom and pop DZs that are the frigging backbone of skydiving. Everything I see is focused on manufacturers and large turbine DZs. I started a DZ with my entire life savings. There are many other DZOs just like me, but they get short shrift from the Board because they are not on the USPA radar and they "don't matter." I'd like to change that; I'd like to provide a mouthpiece for the DZs that are the backbone of this sport, but are virtually ignored because the big DZs have the big footptrint and suck the air out of the room.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[skyjumpenfool 2]

fencebuster

Good God, thank you for asking the question. I am running because for years I see a lack of intellectual honesty on the Board and no one speaking up for the little mom and pop DZs that are the frigging backbone of skydiving. Everything I see is focused on manufacturers and large turbine DZs. I started a DZ with my entire life savings. There are many other DZOs just like me, but they get short shrift from the Board because they are not on the USPA radar and they "don't matter." I'd like to change that; I'd like to provide a mouthpiece for the DZs that are the backbone of this sport, but are virtually ignored because the big DZs have the big footptrint and suck the air out of the room.

I'm not sure I can even vote for you, but, I like that you come here to debate.

However, I think this is where you loose my vote. I think the USPA should be an organization for skydivers run by skydivers. I am not a fan of it also trying to represent DZ's or Manufacturers, regardless of the size. That, IMHO, is a conflict of interest. But, I'm guessing that ship has sailed.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[peek 20]

skyjumpenfool

***... and no one speaking up for the little mom and pop DZs that are the frigging backbone of skydiving. Everything I see is focused on manufacturers and large turbine DZs. ...

... I think the USPA should be an organization for skydivers run by skydivers. I am not a fan of it also trying to represent DZ's or Manufacturers, regardless of the size. ...

I think that Charlie, by saying "and no one speaking up for the little mom and pop DZs", perhaps made you think that he does not care so much for regular USPA members, but I'm quite sure he does, having spoken with him many times.

His initiative to change USPA's policy on aviation medicals for tandem instructors would benefit many members.

I too am not a fan of USPA trying to represent DZ's and Manufacturers, but USPA is lobbied by them during many meetings, and it has been working.

[jlmiracle 7]

Like Skyjumpinfool, I would like a little clarification on your stand. Do you think the USPA should be there for the group members or individual members. From what I have seen over the years, it favors group members over the individual members. You cannot serve 2 masters.

How do you feel about how the USPA handles the "rule breakers". Such as how and who hands out the "punishments" and the lack of published rules and their appropriate punishments that the S&TA's should follow. Yes, I have read the governance manual, so much I have found every typo and grammatical error. Everything listed is very general and open to interpretation.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[Unstable 8]

Quote

Like Skyjumpinfool, I would like a little clarification on your stand. Do you think the USPA should be there for the group members or individual members. From what I have seen over the years, it favors group members over the individual members. You cannot serve 2 masters.

How do you feel about how the USPA handles the "rule breakers". Such as how and who hands out the "punishments" and the lack of published rules and their appropriate punishments that the S&TA's should follow. Yes, I have read the governance manual, so much I have found every typo and grammatical error. Everything listed is very general and open to interpretation.

Judy

I really like this question, but I think it may be too broad and allow a candidate (any candidate) to answer by saying nothing. Can I make a suggestion? What are some very specific examples where a BOD member would need to choose between the individual members vs the group members, and where specifically, does Fencebuster stand on those issues?

So far I have only seen one issue, and that is the TM's and DUI's. Where else could a BOD member have to choose between two masters?

=========Shaun ==========

[jlmiracle 7]

Unstable

Quote

Like Skyjumpinfool, I would like a little clarification on your stand. Do you think the USPA should be there for the group members or individual members. From what I have seen over the years, it favors group members over the individual members. You cannot serve 2 masters.

How do you feel about how the USPA handles the "rule breakers". Such as how and who hands out the "punishments" and the lack of published rules and their appropriate punishments that the S&TA's should follow. Yes, I have read the governance manual, so much I have found every typo and grammatical error. Everything listed is very general and open to interpretation.

Judy

I really like this question, but I think it may be too broad and allow a candidate (any candidate) to answer by saying nothing. Can I make a suggestion? What are some very specific examples where a BOD member would need to choose between the individual members vs the group members, and where specifically, does Fencebuster stand on those issues?

So far I have only seen one issue, and that is the TM's and DUI's. Where else could a BOD member have to choose between two masters?

One thing, in particular that really bothered me was ratings courses. The USPA would have a rating course at a non-GM dz and they would charge a fee because they were not a group member. Those ratings courses are for the individuals benefit, not the dropzones.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.