0
MikeTJumps

Sunday's report: USPA BOD meeting

Recommended Posts

Sunday, August 05, 2012 Plenary Session:
Continuing the report out of the S&T Committee, a motion was put forward to include a request for an opinion poll to the entire skydiving community as part of the election ballot as to whether or not we should adopt a Wingsuit Rating Program. Naturally, there was some resistance to the language of the proposal but the intent was to provide full disclosure of what was being intended. The question of whether it should be a USPA administered program or should it be an independently administered program is part of the discussion. There was still much divisiveness amongst the BOD members on this issue. However, after much further discussion, the vote was 10 in favor, 8 opposed and 2 abstained in the vote for putting a poll out to the general membership with a link to the program proposed by Douglas Spotted Eagle to determine if the USPA should adopt the attached Wingsuit training program.
There will be a retroactive change to the governance manual such that to be considered as a candidate for being placed on the election ballot, the membership requirement will be for a two year period rather than continuous membership.
Regional Directors: There is still concern on the part of HQ that incident reports are not being submitted for all incidents and sometimes not even for fatalities. These reports are destroyed once they are summarized for educational information and group member dropzones will be encouraged to implement a process where incident reports are submitted and their original copies are destroyed in an appropriate timeframe.
Nominations for various awards were made. The gallery was not allowed to sit in on this discussion. That is all that I have as I had to leave to catch an airline flight.
Mike Turoff
Instructor Examiner, USPA
Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


There will be a retroactive change to the governance manual such that to be considered as a candidate for being placed on the election ballot, the membership requirement will be for a two year period rather than continuous membership.



I'm confused about this. Does this mean the candidates who missed the ballot because of issues w/ continuous membership will now be placed on the ballot?

Thanks for all your reports.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The wingsuit instructor proposal that was put before the Board is very professional and widely respected in our community. But some believe there is a more fundamental question that should be asked of the membership prior to implementing such a program. That is something like; "do you want the USPA to implement mandatory instructor rating programs for advanced skydiving disciplines?"

Some see a logical extension of the current initiative is for USPA to look at implementing ratings for other experienced skydiver activities such as "bigway instructors", 'swoop instructors", "camera instructors", "down sizing instructors", "CRW instructors", "freefly instructors", etc. To be fair, I don't believe there are any efforts in that direction currently but perhaps the broader question put to the membership would help guide the Board on whether or not USPA should persue this course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

a motion was put forward to include a request for an opinion poll to the entire skydiving community as part of the election ballot as to whether or not we should adopt a Wingsuit Rating Program



Put out suggestions but don't create a rating. There are MUCH more important issues that the USPA should fix before trying to expand the organization.... Such as canopy deaths.

Quote

Regional Directors: There is still concern on the part of HQ that incident reports are not being submitted for all incidents and sometimes not even for fatalities



At least once in the past the USPA gave 'privileged' information to an attorney to use in a lawsuit against a member. Only an idiot would give information to someone who did that once already.
"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

Some see a logical extension of the current initiative is for USPA to look at implementing ratings for other experienced skydiver activities such as "bigway instructors", 'swoop instructors", "camera instructors", "down sizing instructors", "CRW instructors", "freefly instructors", etc. To be fair, I don't believe there are any efforts in that direction currently but perhaps the broader question put to the membership would help guide the Board on whether or not USPA should persue this course.



And if they create this bureaucratic mess of instructors, what are they going to do with them then? Will jumpers be required to make X number of jumps with such instructors before being allowed to participate in such activities? Will there by type-rating cards to fill out? Will they charge extra money for that "training"?

At some point, you've just got to trust the community of skydivers to take care of each other, just because we care. We train other jumpers informally as they progress, and as they express interest in different disciplines. And that has been working just fine for decades. You can't legislate everything.

But if you can have instructors for everything, then I want to be the official flat-packing instructor. No one will be allowed to flat pack without getting my approval first! I'll charge $20 per lesson, and I'll make millions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


At least once in the past the USPA gave 'privileged' information to an attorney to use in a lawsuit against a member. Only an idiot would give information to someone who did that once already.



My question is, if they're receiving info on injuries/fatalities and they destroy it, wouldn't that be obstruction of justice? Wouldn't advising the GM's to destroy it be them telling the GM's to commit the obstruction?


Quote


But if you can have instructors for everything, then I want to be the official flat-packing instructor. No one will be allowed to flat pack without getting my approval first! I'll charge $20 per lesson, and I'll make millions!



I call dibs on being the pro packing I. Nobody does that flat pack shit anymore :P
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

To be fair, I don't believe there are any efforts in that direction currently but perhaps the broader question put to the membership would help guide the Board on whether or not USPA should persue this course.



There's been an outcry to get some form of canopy related instruction/rating program in place for years now. How many noobs have died or injured themselves flying a wingsuit before 200 jumps? How many noobs have died or injured themselves flying a canopy that is beyond their ability to safely land in less than ideal conditions?

And yet it's wingsuits that get the attention. What happened to "education not regulation"? Oh, that only applies to canopies....

One more indication of how screwed up USPA is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.uspa.org/NewsEvents/News/tabid/59/Default.aspx#29084
Quote

Beginning January 1, 2013, the stamped A-license proficiency and progression cards will no longer be considered valid licenses beyond 60 days. They can still be used to apply for an A-license beyond this time frame.

Also beginning January 1, 2013, all USPA instructional rating applications require a valid USPA license, in lieu of the FAI equivalent.



Those both sound like ways to get more money. There was already a point brought up somewhere on here (can't find the post off hand) that if they want to verify license applications are filled out correctly, they could do a courtesy check on it without issuing a license number.

Why not allow FAI licenses for USPA ratings?
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At some point, you've just got to trust the community of skydivers to take care of each other, just because we care.

We train other jumpers informally as they progress, and as they express interest in different disciplines.

And that has been working just fine for decades.

Quote



Two words~ Coach Rating.

Informal mentoring worked decades ago, but the need was obviously seen to legislate who & how even that is done.

I believe the uniform dissemination of pertinent information is the coming wave of the sport, and maybe not all that bad of a direction considering relatively recent history of the improper use of easily obtainable complex / high performance equipment.

I mean...you might have 10,000 hrs in a Cub, but additional training IS recommended prior to space-flight. ;)











~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

http://www.uspa.org/NewsEvents/News/tabid/59/Default.aspx#29084

Quote

Beginning January 1, 2013, the stamped A-license proficiency and progression cards will no longer be considered valid licenses beyond 60 days. They can still be used to apply for an A-license beyond this time frame.

Also beginning January 1, 2013, all USPA instructional rating applications require a valid USPA license, in lieu of the FAI equivalent.



Those both sound like ways to get more money. There was already a point brought up somewhere on here (can't find the post off hand) that if they want to verify license applications are filled out correctly, they could do a courtesy check on it without issuing a license number.

Why not allow FAI licenses for USPA ratings?



Absolutely. If a jumper has a stamped card and a current membership, then that should get to be their license for as long as they please.

Where is the issue here, other than USPA not getting more $$$.

My first license with a number was my B.
"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, Ive been watching this wingsuit debate for awhile now, and saw a post on facebook on Taya Weiss's wall that pointed out salaries and budgets for the USPA, and the post disappeared before I could copy it, and was very interested to review what she posted. Did anyone happen to copy that post before it was deleted? thank you!


Concerned Jumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

But if you can have instructors for everything, then I want to be the official flat-packing instructor. No one will be allowed to flat pack without getting my approval first! I'll charge $20 per lesson, and I'll make millions!



I call dibs on being the pro packing I. Nobody does that flat pack shit anymore :P



Yeah, but since everyone pro-packs, once they require mandatory and costly training for that, the jumpers will figure they'll start flat-packing to get around the new bureacracy. And that's where I come in - I'll have that loophole plugged tight by being the only USPA certified flat-packing instructor. And then they'll all have to pay ME if they want to continue to jump. I'm tellin' ya, this is a great get-rich quick scheme. Who cares if it kills everyone's enthusiasm to jump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not believe your statement is correct, however I have been wrong before. I only know of two that were put back on ballot eligibility and I stress the word eligibility. They must still submit a bio, a photo, and a $50 payment to be on the ballot.
Mike Turoff
Instructor Examiner, USPA
Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike,
At the end of the meeting BJ brought forth an amendment to make the new definition retroactive making all four eligible to proceed with the election process. I am positive it is four candidates.
You may have left or not been in the room, it was late on Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it was late on Sunday, you are probably correct in that they would be eligible for listing on the ballot. I had to leave at 1:20 for the shuttle. As always, the final formal secretary's minutes will be the factual answer.
Mike Turoff
Instructor Examiner, USPA
Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike, you missed a motion that BJ created to actually change the rules. (even after all his lamenting about not changing rules midstream)

End result is that 2 more of the 4 candidates that were previously flagged on 'current membership' issues are on the list of candidates.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay on that. As I stated, they would be eligible to be listed if they complied with all of the other requirements. Isn't it amazing that he made that proposal? He is the last person I thought would do that but then again, one can always surprise us with a change of heart. It should be an interesting election.
Mike Turoff
Instructor Examiner, USPA
Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

To be fair, I don't believe there are any efforts in that direction currently but perhaps the broader question put to the membership would help guide the Board on whether or not USPA should persue this course.



There's been an outcry to get some form of canopy related instruction/rating program in place for years now. How many noobs have died or injured themselves flying a wingsuit before 200 jumps? How many noobs have died or injured themselves flying a canopy that is beyond their ability to safely land in less than ideal conditions?

And yet it's wingsuits that get the attention. What happened to "education not regulation"? Oh, that only applies to canopies....

One more indication of how screwed up USPA is.



Well, yes and no. It's easier to pick on the wingsuit community because there are so few of them compared to the "canopy community," which by definition includes everyone.

The political and operational dynamics of what's happening here is remarkably like what happened in the Third Reich: Hitler targeted Jews not so much because he hated Jews but because there were too many Catholics and not enough communists.

USPA never went after the skysurfing community because there weren't enough of them, and they don't go after the canopy community because there are too many of them. The wingsuit community, though, is just about right.

And if the Third Reich analogy's too politically incorrect, then go with Goldilocks and the Three Bears: Canopy community too big, skysurf community too small, wingsuit community just right. Chomp!

Same situation, though; a bureaucracy always chooses the path of greatest (perceived) benefit for the least amount of effort.

All this blah-blah aside, however, I'm witchoo 'bytch: USPA should focus more on the still-festering, significant and growing problem of hot canopies + unschooled pilots instead of bothering a small subset of its membership that is not causing much of a problem.

Unfortunately, this will never happen as long as USPA maintains its ongoing primary training focus on freefall FUN skills instead of parachute SURVIVAL skills -- especially when, once again, we have a Designated Skygod Expert driving a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist for reasons that relate only peripherally to safety.

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

LOL. You guys are funny. If USPA tried to implement some kind of program at the beginning of the HP canopy epidemic, people would have done nothing but complain. Now they try to get out in front of a potential issue, and they are Nazi's. I love skydivers!

WS is gay anyway:P



Probably the most intelligent post I've read in a long time.

That said...Hitler has become a close personal friend

And he's doing incredible things in a Ghost 3 wingsuit, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

LOL. You guys are funny. If USPA tried to implement some kind of program at the beginning of the HP canopy epidemic, people would have done nothing but complain. Now they try to get out in front of a potential issue, and they are Nazi's. I love skydivers!

WS is gay anyway:P



Probably the most intelligent post I've read in a long time.

That said...Hitler has become a close personal friend

And he's doing incredible things in a Ghost 3 wingsuit, too.



Probably the most revealing post I've read in a long time.

Of course you would think it was intelligent, DWE... you're the guy who will most benefit from the imposition of your new bureaucracy.

But really, how intelligent can it be to "get out in front of a potential issue?"

You know, potential -- as in something that doesn't exist but might at some statistically unquantifiable point in the future?

Oh wait, never mind... you think Hitler is still alive and that you're his close personal friend.

Who else do you count among your close personal friends: the Easter Bunny and honest politicians?

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>But really, how intelligent can it be to "get out in front of a potential issue?"

I know! It's like quitting smoking before you get lung cancer, or training people to fly their canopies before they kill someone else. Totally idiotic.

>Oh wait, never mind... you think Hitler is still alive . . .

That whoosing noise you just heard was not Hitler swooping . . .

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.

0