Slyde 0
Recommended Posts
Slyde 0
Here's another snippet that USPA does not like. This lends itself to a reason I'm a better friend than enemy. USPA is making an enemy of me, I believe.
(yeah, yeah, yeah. I hear you. self inflicted. I know.)
When the first instance occured where I was able to challenge FAA on their unauthorized reversal of TSA Waiver conditions regarding jump pilots who will not penetrate, I initiated the challenge by placing myself in BOTH places on the application - PILOT AND JUMPER. As expected, TSA rejected the application and I called instantly. "It's NOT US. It's FAA. Here's the number."
I called the number. It is available to you in an earlier post. Kerry Flemming will answer.
When I called that number, the first question I got was: "How did you get this number? You're not suposed to have this number." tee hee
Well I got my ass chewed by Kerry Flemming and next by his boss Brian Throop. But I stoon my ground.
As their voices escalated in amplitude, mine did too.
Next thing I know, I am being investigated as a terrorist. Strange vehicles are passing my secluded home and unmarked aircraft are making 90 degree banks taking pictures above my house at 400 feet.
My 16th performance at Bristol Motor Speedway was recently denied by FAA citing "security concerns." tee hee I might be a giant flagit, but I'm no terrorist. Waving the flag for a living has been recently disallowed by your loving leaders in Washington. USPA is on their side. Way to go boyz!
I was contacted by Special Agent Jon Santee and asked to rendezvous in Dallas and sign a sworn statement regarding emails I had been sending to Brian Throop. Here is that statement.
STATEMENT
I, Mark Schlatter, make the following statement freely and voluntarily to Jon SANTEE, who has identified himself to me as Special Agent of the Federal Aviation Administration. No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used against me. I make this statement with full knowledge that it may be used against me in any administrative proceeding.
This statement is being provided at the request of Agent SANTEE. It is an accurate representation of answers to questions he posed regarding an investigation he is conducting. I am self employed as a Skydiving Entertainer. I was born on September 19, 1954, in Watseka, IL. My address is 3904 County Road 4040, Whitewright, TX 75491. I hold FAA Certificates as a Private Pilot, Mechanic and Master Parachute Rigger. My certificate number is xxxxxxxxx. I am also a Designated Parachute Rigger Examiner for the FAA.
I have routinely made skydiving appearances at public sporting events, such as the races at the Texas Motor Speedway and average about 60 performances per year since 1988. In addition to that, when I jump at certain events, I am required to apply for a Certificate of Authorization from the appropriate FSDO, using a FAA form 7711-2. On that form I am required to provide the name, address and certificate number of the Pilot that is flying the plane that I am skydiving from. The FSDO then authorizes a Certificate of Authorization in accordance with Part 105.21, which covers jumps into congested areas or open-air assemblies of persons. In addition to that, I am required to complete an application for a waiver to enter the Temporary Restricted Airspace that exists over certain outdoor events. This waiver is applied for using a website that is operated by the TSA. One of my issues is that the website is a BETA website. The fact that it's a BETA website means it can be changed to fix easy problems. The website requires me to provide the name and certificate number and sensitive personal data of the pilot. My issue is that the pilot is not flying into the the restricted airspace. He is flying far above it. I am the one skydiving into the restricted airspace. In the past, I dealt with two employees at TSA and explained to them that there was no need for me to provide the pilot's name if he was not going to be entering the restricted airspace. The restricted ceiling is 3000 feet. The pilot takes me up to 4500 feet for me to make the jump. The TSA employees agreed with me, however the process has since been transferred over to the FAA for final vetting of the process. I submitted a waiver request and put myself as both the pilot and skydiver because I was unable to exit the system without pilot data being included. The waiver request was rejected and as a result I had a lengthy conversation with Brian THROOP of the FAA. He barked at me and said "I AM THE FAA."
I tried to explain to him that he didn't need to know the pilot's name and there was no need to conduct a background check on a pilot who was not going to fly into the restricted airspace. I have not been provided with any source or regulation that requires the FAA or TSA to ask for this information nor do I see or understand that there would be a need. I have sent several emails from my email address [email protected] to Brian THROOP, and included members of the US Parachute Association as courtesy copies on some of those emails. I never intended to threaten anybody with those emails, and have since sent an email to Brian apologizing to him for any misinterpretations which may have been perceived as threats. I don't have any intention of causing any harm to anybody in this process. The last time I called the TSA, they gave me the number to the FAA and told me "they are handling it." This is why I called Brian THROOP. He got testy with me on the phone and that is why I raised my voice to him. I am angry over this issue but am not going to cause any harm to anybody. My only reason for sending the emails was to have my voice heard regarding this issue. I don't feel that the USPA employee, Randy OTTINGER, who is the Director of Government Relations is responding to my concerns. I have expressed my concerns over this issue to him but he has ignored my pleas and concerns. The emails I sent were only intended to express my frustration over the requirement to provide the pilot's name and other sensitive data when I do not feel it is necessary. The website needs to be changed so that I am not required to list the pilot's information.
================================
Lilly Tomlin as Edith Ann:
" ... and that's the truth. tthptthptthptth!"
(yeah, yeah, yeah. I hear you. self inflicted. I know.)
When the first instance occured where I was able to challenge FAA on their unauthorized reversal of TSA Waiver conditions regarding jump pilots who will not penetrate, I initiated the challenge by placing myself in BOTH places on the application - PILOT AND JUMPER. As expected, TSA rejected the application and I called instantly. "It's NOT US. It's FAA. Here's the number."
I called the number. It is available to you in an earlier post. Kerry Flemming will answer.
When I called that number, the first question I got was: "How did you get this number? You're not suposed to have this number." tee hee
Well I got my ass chewed by Kerry Flemming and next by his boss Brian Throop. But I stoon my ground.
As their voices escalated in amplitude, mine did too.
Next thing I know, I am being investigated as a terrorist. Strange vehicles are passing my secluded home and unmarked aircraft are making 90 degree banks taking pictures above my house at 400 feet.
My 16th performance at Bristol Motor Speedway was recently denied by FAA citing "security concerns." tee hee I might be a giant flagit, but I'm no terrorist. Waving the flag for a living has been recently disallowed by your loving leaders in Washington. USPA is on their side. Way to go boyz!
I was contacted by Special Agent Jon Santee and asked to rendezvous in Dallas and sign a sworn statement regarding emails I had been sending to Brian Throop. Here is that statement.
STATEMENT
I, Mark Schlatter, make the following statement freely and voluntarily to Jon SANTEE, who has identified himself to me as Special Agent of the Federal Aviation Administration. No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used against me. I make this statement with full knowledge that it may be used against me in any administrative proceeding.
This statement is being provided at the request of Agent SANTEE. It is an accurate representation of answers to questions he posed regarding an investigation he is conducting. I am self employed as a Skydiving Entertainer. I was born on September 19, 1954, in Watseka, IL. My address is 3904 County Road 4040, Whitewright, TX 75491. I hold FAA Certificates as a Private Pilot, Mechanic and Master Parachute Rigger. My certificate number is xxxxxxxxx. I am also a Designated Parachute Rigger Examiner for the FAA.
I have routinely made skydiving appearances at public sporting events, such as the races at the Texas Motor Speedway and average about 60 performances per year since 1988. In addition to that, when I jump at certain events, I am required to apply for a Certificate of Authorization from the appropriate FSDO, using a FAA form 7711-2. On that form I am required to provide the name, address and certificate number of the Pilot that is flying the plane that I am skydiving from. The FSDO then authorizes a Certificate of Authorization in accordance with Part 105.21, which covers jumps into congested areas or open-air assemblies of persons. In addition to that, I am required to complete an application for a waiver to enter the Temporary Restricted Airspace that exists over certain outdoor events. This waiver is applied for using a website that is operated by the TSA. One of my issues is that the website is a BETA website. The fact that it's a BETA website means it can be changed to fix easy problems. The website requires me to provide the name and certificate number and sensitive personal data of the pilot. My issue is that the pilot is not flying into the the restricted airspace. He is flying far above it. I am the one skydiving into the restricted airspace. In the past, I dealt with two employees at TSA and explained to them that there was no need for me to provide the pilot's name if he was not going to be entering the restricted airspace. The restricted ceiling is 3000 feet. The pilot takes me up to 4500 feet for me to make the jump. The TSA employees agreed with me, however the process has since been transferred over to the FAA for final vetting of the process. I submitted a waiver request and put myself as both the pilot and skydiver because I was unable to exit the system without pilot data being included. The waiver request was rejected and as a result I had a lengthy conversation with Brian THROOP of the FAA. He barked at me and said "I AM THE FAA."
I tried to explain to him that he didn't need to know the pilot's name and there was no need to conduct a background check on a pilot who was not going to fly into the restricted airspace. I have not been provided with any source or regulation that requires the FAA or TSA to ask for this information nor do I see or understand that there would be a need. I have sent several emails from my email address [email protected]
================================
Lilly Tomlin as Edith Ann:
" ... and that's the truth. tthptthptthptth!"
A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike!
Now you're talking.
I'm willing to bet that unleashing a phone and e-mail campaign, which appears to contain threats and inflamatory language, against members of the USPA staff and the FAA to the degree that you were investigated as a terrorist, might fall under the heading 'conduct unbecoming'.
Now my question is, who wrote the sworn statement? You or the FAA guy?
I only ask becasue if it was you, this whole mess could have been avoided if you had used the same language and tone from the statement to conduct ALL of your business with the TSA, FAA, and the USPA.
In regards to your issue, have you considered that it would be easier for the FAA to just change the language so the pilot of a demo ship WAS required to have a background check for dropping into a TFR?
I'm willing to bet that unleashing a phone and e-mail campaign, which appears to contain threats and inflamatory language, against members of the USPA staff and the FAA to the degree that you were investigated as a terrorist, might fall under the heading 'conduct unbecoming'.
Now my question is, who wrote the sworn statement? You or the FAA guy?
I only ask becasue if it was you, this whole mess could have been avoided if you had used the same language and tone from the statement to conduct ALL of your business with the TSA, FAA, and the USPA.
In regards to your issue, have you considered that it would be easier for the FAA to just change the language so the pilot of a demo ship WAS required to have a background check for dropping into a TFR?
Slyde 0
Quote
Now you're talking.
I'm willing to bet that unleashing a phone and e-mail campaign, which appears to contain threats and inflamatory language, against members of the USPA staff and the FAA to the degree that you were investigated as a terrorist, might fall under the heading 'conduct unbecoming'.
True. It might. Can you think of other headings?
Semi-civil-disobedience perhaps? When you want to make somethin happen, put it in writing. Appearances can be misleading and interpretations revealing.
Now my question is, who wrote the sworn statement? You or the FAA guy?
He wrote it. We all edited together, the 4 of us. Then they gave me GREAT advice on how to proceed in Washington. Then I raised my right hand. Then I signed it.
I only ask because if it was you, this whole mess could have been avoided if you had used the same language and tone from the statement to conduct ALL of your business with the TSA, FAA, and the USPA.
Screaming pissed is as screaming pissed does.
In regards to your issue, have you considered that it would be easier for the FAA to just change the language so the pilot of a demo ship WAS required to have a background check for dropping into a TFR?
We are working on the full disclosure of that language as we speak. For Bush's John Q Public - THERE IS NO LANGUAGE. It's "not your need to know, citizen." Are you beginning to sprout a clue here? To "change" what is secret and enforced without opportunity for challenge ... well, do you think Randy knows how to do that. Ed? The board? Do you think they even have the courage to try? Do you think they even have the vision to see why it is imprtant?
if we only had a brain great Wizards?
Speak carefully, grasshopper. Dropping? Dropping WHAT? Are you more than a dropping, son? Or are you comfortable where USPA squats?
A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike!
DSE 3
you may or may not have a point in all of this, but the point is entirely obscured in rhetoric, coded wordplay, insults, gest, and lack of cohesion.
*If* the FAA, USPA, and skydivers in general are as dumb as you assert, clear and clean language are likely to communicate your concerns much better than using (by your own admission) "insider talk that no one but a 'Nam grunt understands."
I read about half of the volumnous 'information' you sent and grasped the position of the USPA within the first two pages.
*If* the FAA, USPA, and skydivers in general are as dumb as you assert, clear and clean language are likely to communicate your concerns much better than using (by your own admission) "insider talk that no one but a 'Nam grunt understands."
I read about half of the volumnous 'information' you sent and grasped the position of the USPA within the first two pages.
First off, I'm not a grasshopper and I'm not your son. I can't stress enough that you would get much better results if you used some clear, plain language to make your point.
Beyond that, I don't see the requirement for a demo pilot to have a backgroud check, or even the FAA calling a jumper a 'dropping' as an assult against the skydiving community.
What I see is the FAA trying to implement a policy, and that it appears to be fullfilling it's intended purpose for 95% of the people using it. As a small subset of a small group of people, it's unfortunate that the system doesn't work to your own personal satisfaction, but at some point the system has to be deemed 'good enough' and put into service.
Let's remember that the point of government is to serve the needs of the majority.
Let's take that concept to the USPA - employees of the USPA should be putting the majority of their time into work that serves the majority of the membership. I don't see your issue as being relevant to most of the membership, and as such it recieved an appropriate amount of effort from the staff.
Beyond that, I don't see the requirement for a demo pilot to have a backgroud check, or even the FAA calling a jumper a 'dropping' as an assult against the skydiving community.
What I see is the FAA trying to implement a policy, and that it appears to be fullfilling it's intended purpose for 95% of the people using it. As a small subset of a small group of people, it's unfortunate that the system doesn't work to your own personal satisfaction, but at some point the system has to be deemed 'good enough' and put into service.
Let's remember that the point of government is to serve the needs of the majority.
Let's take that concept to the USPA - employees of the USPA should be putting the majority of their time into work that serves the majority of the membership. I don't see your issue as being relevant to most of the membership, and as such it recieved an appropriate amount of effort from the staff.
billvon 2,396
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Are you more than a dropping, son?
Your one warning. Rage against the machine all you like but don't go after people here like that, or we may ask you to "step away from the bonfire" for a little bit.
Your one warning. Rage against the machine all you like but don't go after people here like that, or we may ask you to "step away from the bonfire" for a little bit.
Slyde 0
Quote
First off, I'm not a grasshopper and I'm not your son. I can't stress enough that you would get much better results if you used some clear, plain language to make your point.
Bwooaahhahaha!
Now you are talking too. Thank you sir, may I have another.
Listen son. You most certainly ARE a grasshopper in some sense of the word. And you ABSOLUTELY are a son if dave can be used for the assumption I make here.
Of "mine" ... mister you are thus far fuggin near nothing at all.
Beyond that, I don't see the requirement for a demo pilot to have a backgroud check, or even the FAA calling a jumper a 'dropping' as an assult against the skydiving community.
Thank you sir. May I have another.
What I see is the FAA trying to implement a policy, and that it appears to be fullfilling it's intended purpose for 95% of the people using it.
And where do you find such vision, sir? In print? Published? Accessible? WRONG OH, buddy boy. And the percentage? It's one helluva lot closer to 99.9999 percent, Einstein.
As a small subset of a small group of people, it's unfortunate that the system doesn't work to your own personal satisfaction, but at some point the system has to be deemed 'good enough' and put into service.
Thank you USPA MEMBERS may I have another. Good enough! Way to go citizens.
Let's remember that the point of government is to serve the needs of the majority.
Bwooahhhahahaha!! Does this active participant even warrant a resopnse?
Let's take that concept to the USPA - employees of the USPA should be putting the majority of their time into work that serves the majority of the membership. I don't see your issue as being relevant to most of the membership, and as such it recieved an appropriate amount of effort from the staff.
Sheeer profundity! I'm speechless. Thank you your activist highness. You make the world go ... well ... uh ... good enuff around.
You should send your resume to Mr. Ed. Of Course.
I'm speechless.
It's Dog Fish Head time.
See ya tomorrow ...
me tok prety one day
A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike!
tombuch 0
I kinda understand your point. That is that a pilot who is overflying the security area shouldn't need a security clearance, just as a pilot who is overflying class bravo airspace doesn't need to meet most of the class B requirements. You want the computer program to recognize that a flight plan above a certain altitude over a specific temporary block of airspace shouldn't require pilot information, but that a flight plan within that temporary block of airspace should.
That does make sense, but when I put myself in the FAA's shoes I wonder what would happen if that pilot descended by a thousand feet and is now in the security area. For example, suppose the ceiling came down and the pilot needed a lower altitude, or ATC needed to get the jump plane in a bit lower for traffic management. Then what? How would ATC know the pilot was OK above the security zone, but not OK within the security zone? Should ATC and TSA even need to worry about such things? It seems from a traffic management standpoint it makes sense to standardize the requirements. That way ATC and TSA know that the aircraft and all of the jumpers are authorized over or into the security area, and it reduces confusion. Sure, the requirement for pilot information locks you into a specific pilot, and some pilots probably don't want to put their detail on file, but flying over a stadium or secure area isn't a constitutional right, it's an extension of the privilege of flight.
I know that's not what you want to hear, but it's a reasonable way to approach the issue. The FAA or TSA aren't necessarily being nasty just because they don't see it your way. And USPA isn't being belligerent and unhelpful just because they don't view the issue in black and white, or because they consider it an issue that might take more effort on USPA's and FAA's part to redefine, and the time/energy would be better spent on other matters. Or perhaps USPA, TSA, or FAA just didn't understand the way you were explaining the issue.
Be nice and friendly, allow lots of time for changes to be worked through, and know the system is much bigger than you and me. It's a giant playground up there, and the sky offers plenty of space for us all, but we still gotta get along.
As for being ejected from USPA. Please understand that FAA expended lots of effort dealing with you and your hostile/threatening approach. USPA is trying very hard to build a relationship with FAA and TSA based on professionalism and trust. Your tantrum sounds like it ripped through multi-layers of FAA bureaucracy, and probably destroyed years of effort to get officials to recognize us as professionals. I can just imagine the back channel communications that went on between USPA and FAA to regain control of this issue. You probably burned your own bridge, but I hope the efforts of USPA to put out the fire you started have saved the bridge the rest of us need every day.
That does make sense, but when I put myself in the FAA's shoes I wonder what would happen if that pilot descended by a thousand feet and is now in the security area. For example, suppose the ceiling came down and the pilot needed a lower altitude, or ATC needed to get the jump plane in a bit lower for traffic management. Then what? How would ATC know the pilot was OK above the security zone, but not OK within the security zone? Should ATC and TSA even need to worry about such things? It seems from a traffic management standpoint it makes sense to standardize the requirements. That way ATC and TSA know that the aircraft and all of the jumpers are authorized over or into the security area, and it reduces confusion. Sure, the requirement for pilot information locks you into a specific pilot, and some pilots probably don't want to put their detail on file, but flying over a stadium or secure area isn't a constitutional right, it's an extension of the privilege of flight.
I know that's not what you want to hear, but it's a reasonable way to approach the issue. The FAA or TSA aren't necessarily being nasty just because they don't see it your way. And USPA isn't being belligerent and unhelpful just because they don't view the issue in black and white, or because they consider it an issue that might take more effort on USPA's and FAA's part to redefine, and the time/energy would be better spent on other matters. Or perhaps USPA, TSA, or FAA just didn't understand the way you were explaining the issue.
Be nice and friendly, allow lots of time for changes to be worked through, and know the system is much bigger than you and me. It's a giant playground up there, and the sky offers plenty of space for us all, but we still gotta get along.
As for being ejected from USPA. Please understand that FAA expended lots of effort dealing with you and your hostile/threatening approach. USPA is trying very hard to build a relationship with FAA and TSA based on professionalism and trust. Your tantrum sounds like it ripped through multi-layers of FAA bureaucracy, and probably destroyed years of effort to get officials to recognize us as professionals. I can just imagine the back channel communications that went on between USPA and FAA to regain control of this issue. You probably burned your own bridge, but I hope the efforts of USPA to put out the fire you started have saved the bridge the rest of us need every day.
Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy
MakeItHappen 15
QuoteFor example, suppose the ceiling came down and the pilot needed a lower altitude, or ATC needed to get the jump plane in a bit lower for traffic management. Then what? How would ATC know the pilot was OK above the security zone, but not OK within the security zone? Should ATC and TSA even need to worry about such things? It seems from a traffic management standpoint it makes sense to standardize the requirements. That way ATC and TSA know that the aircraft and all of the jumpers are authorized over or into the security area, and it reduces confusion. Sure, the requirement for pilot information locks you into a specific pilot, and some pilots probably don't want to put their detail on file, but flying over a stadium or secure area isn't a constitutional right, it's an extension of the privilege of flight.
What are these rules and where are they?
What I don't understand is where the rule is that says pilot A needs a background check under these circumstances.
If Pilot A is only overflying the TFR, does he need a check?
If Pilot A is penetrating the TFR, does he need a check?
I do not know where these rules are written. If you can find these rules, please let me know.
If these rules do not exist, then what Mark claims is a legitimate claim.
.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker
QuoteYou probably burned your own bridge, but I hope the efforts of USPA to put out the fire you started have saved the bridge the rest of us need every day.
great quote...very true. I have been following this thread and i seems like the OP's anger and venom are greatly due to a lack of an immediate response and "correction" of the perceived issue. I think a tempered response and willingness to work with the system instead of raging against it may have produced better results.
tdog 0
QuoteI will suggest, tdog that you avoid witness stands and lawyers.
Maybe you should also heed your own advice, then.
Quote
At my own peril, I will add the irony (knowing you probably will misunderstand as usual.)
You are right, I misunderstand everything...
QuoteIf Pilot A is only overflying the TFR, does he need a check?
If Pilot A is penetrating the TFR, does he need a check?
I do not know where these rules are written. If you can find these rules, please let me know.
If these rules do not exist, then what Mark claims is a legitimate claim.
A legitimate claim, yes, but did he persue it in the proper manner? All signs point to 'no'.
Furthermore, it's no secret that the 'rules' are changing, with the Dept. of Homeland Security, the TSA and the FAA all looking at general aviation operations, and any precieved risks it might be creating.
Just because a demo AC is only going to overfly the TFR, the skydiver inside will penetrate the TFR, making the entire purpose of the flight one which invovles penetrating the TFR. It's not a far reach to assume that a pilot in that situation might end up subject to a background check.
Even if the TSA did originally agree that the check was needed, they did hand the reigns over to the FAA, and they seem hold a different opinion.
It appears that the demo pilots were not considered at all during the inception of this program. There was no language either allowing or dis-allowing them to release jumpers into a TFR with or without a background check. I could understand the OPs 'outrage' if there was language specifically allowing the flights without a background check, and now they were not follwing their own written word, but the original omission of the subject alltogether leads me to believe that the issue wasn't even a though to the TSA or FAA in the begining.
Even if he recieved a verbal approval early on from the TSA, it's the FAA's ball now, and my bet is that they will put it in writing, and that they will require demo pilots to a have a background check before dropping into a TFR.
QuoteQuoteFor example, suppose the ceiling came down and the pilot needed a lower altitude, or ATC needed to get the jump plane in a bit lower for traffic management. Then what? How would ATC know the pilot was OK above the security zone, but not OK within the security zone? Should ATC and TSA even need to worry about such things? It seems from a traffic management standpoint it makes sense to standardize the requirements. That way ATC and TSA know that the aircraft and all of the jumpers are authorized over or into the security area, and it reduces confusion. Sure, the requirement for pilot information locks you into a specific pilot, and some pilots probably don't want to put their detail on file, but flying over a stadium or secure area isn't a constitutional right, it's an extension of the privilege of flight.
What are these rules and where are they?
What I don't understand is where the rule is that says pilot A needs a background check under these circumstances.
If Pilot A is only overflying the TFR, does he need a check?
If Pilot A is penetrating the TFR, does he need a check?
I do not know where these rules are written. If you can find these rules, please let me know.
If these rules do not exist, then what Mark claims is a legitimate claim.
.
Jan, he's not overflying. That would be one continuous transit of space. He's dropping skydivers through a TFR. I can see the FAAs point of view on this. Plus, getting pissy with them is NOT going to get you anywhere. If I had gotten emails like the ones I saw here I would have ignored him too. Randy is not an f'n verbal punching bag and neither is the rest of the BOD. I believe you were given an apology at the last BOD meeting for language used against you correct? Maybe that's a lesson you can give to Slyde.
Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125
I just felt compelled to post, given that I've read through this whole thread trying to sift through the OP's rhetoric to better understand where he's coming from, and I STILL don't quite 'get it'.
QuoteQuoteYou probably burned your own bridge, but I hope the efforts of USPA to put out the fire you started have saved the bridge the rest of us need every day.
great quote...very true. I have been following this thread and i seems like the OP's anger and venom are greatly due to a lack of an immediate response and "correction" of the perceived issue.
...the "perceived issue" that was never communicated to the USPA in a clear manner (or so it seems). In spite of repeated requests for a simple explanation of 'So what's the problem, in plain English?'.
If I speak Farsi to someone who only speaks common English, it's a little ridiculous for me to get mad at THEM for not understanding me (and asking for clarification).
QuoteI think a tempered response and willingness to work with the system instead of raging against it may have produced better results.
+1
Signatures are the new black.
Andy9o8 0
The OP's posts in this thread remind my of Ted Kaczynski's manifesto. Definitely gives me the heebie-jeebies. And yes, I'm serious.
Slyde 0
Thanks to you all,
The new BETA site went online abruptly in March of 2008. There were encourging aspects. It is very user friendly, and for the first time, skydivers existed in the system. (Previously, you had to enter yourself as a pilot and explain in the comment section that you were a different life form.)
But now when you click the submit button, you get a pop-up that says "must include at least one pilot."
I got their attention by putting myself in BOTH places. TSA knew I would call and were waiting for me. "HOW"D YOU GET THIS NUMBER??!!" Was the first question out of Kerry Flemming's mouth at FAA Security.
To paraphrase the famous movie line I cannot cite from memory; I'M MAD AS HELL and I'm NOT going to take it any more.
All that needs to change is to allow the "submit" button to operate for a skydiver alone.
Pilots must comply as pilots must comply. I have no problem with that and have assisted many HUNDREDS of pilots to stay legal within the system.
Folks, if we continue to behave like the maniacs we are perceived to be by ... ordinary people ... we deserve to expect our sport to reside where it has stagnated for decades. All pilots are swimmers and EVEN ordinary people are assholes.
The Sphincter Brothers are on the air. Let's kick a little ass and get some dad-blamed-respect.
Let's start with a panty-waist who cannot conjuer the professional courtesy to say "Hey. You might be onto something but I'm a little busy here." Pick up the fuggin telephone Randy you peck-of-pickled-pepper-picking-peter-piping-pussy!
Shit happens. We could imagine a veritable plethora of scenarios for how pilots screw up and violate controlled airspace. They are all irrelevent here. Help Randy fix his ... uh submit button ... or get somebody else. I firmly believe that Mr. Ed should get somebody else for I do not forsee Randy ever being less than the Randy I met 30 years ago ... and prolly not much more either. Sorry, Frosty.
TSA's Reggie Rhodes and Ada Johnson have been delightful for many years and many events to work with.
Kerry Flemming and Brian Throop are first class Big Brother gustapo pricks as far as I'm concerned. They should be Chevy Chase's dog in Family Vacation when he accidentally left the pet leashed to the back bumper and drove off to Jellystone. "I AM FAA!" Throop barked in my ear.
There's a big mouthful! Thank you!!
USPA is being USPA JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T VIEW THE ISSUE
They have spent all their time and YOUR ELEVATED DUSE money TRYING to shoot the messenger.
DING DING DING HELLLLLLLOOOOO Randy.
"I don't think there's anybody back there."
"Where's the beef!!!"
pork r
BETA generally means deadlines. Nice and friendly? You want nice and friendly? I'll SHOW you nice and friendly. YOU CAN"T HANDLE nice and friendly.
Boy & Girls ... er, well boys. Randy & Ed are ... uh, nice & friendly. Unless you send 'em stuff that resembles work. Then they're nice and invisible. Then they shoot the messenger ... in the back.
Maybe I should try that ... again someday down the road. Right now: "I'm screaming pissed."
QuoteYou want the computer program to recognize that a flight plan above a certain altitude over a specific temporary block of airspace shouldn't require pilot information, but that a flight plan within that temporary block of airspace should.
The new BETA site went online abruptly in March of 2008. There were encourging aspects. It is very user friendly, and for the first time, skydivers existed in the system. (Previously, you had to enter yourself as a pilot and explain in the comment section that you were a different life form.)
But now when you click the submit button, you get a pop-up that says "must include at least one pilot."
I got their attention by putting myself in BOTH places. TSA knew I would call and were waiting for me. "HOW"D YOU GET THIS NUMBER??!!" Was the first question out of Kerry Flemming's mouth at FAA Security.
To paraphrase the famous movie line I cannot cite from memory; I'M MAD AS HELL and I'm NOT going to take it any more.
All that needs to change is to allow the "submit" button to operate for a skydiver alone.
Pilots must comply as pilots must comply. I have no problem with that and have assisted many HUNDREDS of pilots to stay legal within the system.
Folks, if we continue to behave like the maniacs we are perceived to be by ... ordinary people ... we deserve to expect our sport to reside where it has stagnated for decades. All pilots are swimmers and EVEN ordinary people are assholes.
The Sphincter Brothers are on the air. Let's kick a little ass and get some dad-blamed-respect.
Let's start with a panty-waist who cannot conjuer the professional courtesy to say "Hey. You might be onto something but I'm a little busy here." Pick up the fuggin telephone Randy you peck-of-pickled-pepper-picking-peter-piping-pussy!
QuoteThat does make sense, but when I put myself in the FAA's shoes I wonder what would happen if that pilot descended by a thousand feet and is now in the security area.
Shit happens. We could imagine a veritable plethora of scenarios for how pilots screw up and violate controlled airspace. They are all irrelevent here. Help Randy fix his ... uh submit button ... or get somebody else. I firmly believe that Mr. Ed should get somebody else for I do not forsee Randy ever being less than the Randy I met 30 years ago ... and prolly not much more either. Sorry, Frosty.
QuoteThe FAA or TSA aren't necessarily being nasty just because they don't see it your way.
TSA's Reggie Rhodes and Ada Johnson have been delightful for many years and many events to work with.
Kerry Flemming and Brian Throop are first class Big Brother gustapo pricks as far as I'm concerned. They should be Chevy Chase's dog in Family Vacation when he accidentally left the pet leashed to the back bumper and drove off to Jellystone. "I AM FAA!" Throop barked in my ear.
QuoteAnd USPA isn't being belligerent and unhelpful just because they don't view the issue in black and white,
There's a big mouthful! Thank you!!
USPA is being USPA JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T VIEW THE ISSUE
They have spent all their time and YOUR ELEVATED DUSE money TRYING to shoot the messenger.
DING DING DING HELLLLLLLOOOOO Randy.
"I don't think there's anybody back there."
"Where's the beef!!!"
pork r
QuoteBe nice and friendly, allow lots of time for changes to be worked through, and know the system is much bigger than you and me.
BETA generally means deadlines. Nice and friendly? You want nice and friendly? I'll SHOW you nice and friendly. YOU CAN"T HANDLE nice and friendly.
Boy & Girls ... er, well boys. Randy & Ed are ... uh, nice & friendly. Unless you send 'em stuff that resembles work. Then they're nice and invisible. Then they shoot the messenger ... in the back.
QuotePlease understand
Maybe I should try that ... again someday down the road. Right now: "I'm screaming pissed."
A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike!
Slyde 0
Quoteyou may or may not have a point in all of this, but the point is entirely obscured in rhetoric, coded wordplay, insults, gest, and lack of cohesion.
The Sphincter Brothers had a minister of Silver, Snow and Cohesion. J Paul was his name.
We see what we want to see and we hear what we want to hear. We must be careful what we wish for.
Quote*If* the FAA, USPA, and skydivers in general are as dumb as you assert, clear and clean language are likely to communicate your concerns much better than using (by your own admission) "insider talk that no one but a 'Nam grunt understands."
If the student didn't learn, the teacher didn't teach.
***I read about half of the volumnous 'information' you sent and grasped the position of the USPA within the first two pages./quote]
Thank you for your stamina, soldier. Good luck on your next swim across ...
A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike!
Slyde 0
Quote>Are you more than a dropping, son?
Your one warning. Rage against the machine all you like but don't go after people here like that, or we may ask you to "step away from the bonfire" for a little bit.
It wasn't an attack, Bill. It is part of the message that we are perceived as low lifes by too many aviation leaders and too many ordinary people.
Bird shit and fools? Droppings? I don't poop where I eat? All pilots are swimmers? Get the fuck out?
We can make an attack of almost any characterization, San Diego boy. But it ain't necessarily so. We are all in this together. So let's stay off the high-horse and just get on down the trail.
Sticks and stones will break my bones.
Share your crayons.
Read Robert Fulgum.
All we really need to know, we learned in kindergarten.
Sorry if I struck a nerve, I generally only aim for the head and heart. It's easy to envision an apple on the Directors' heads, I must admit. But I'd prolly miss and hit randy in the knee.
Away from the bonfire? Where's the keg?
Thanks Bill. You do good work ... for the most part.
A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike!
Slyde 0
QuoteQuoteYou probably burned your own bridge, but I hope the efforts of USPA to put out the fire you started have saved the bridge the rest of us need every day.
great quote...very true. I have been following this thread and i seems like the OP's anger and venom are greatly due to a lack of an immediate response and "correction" of the perceived issue. I think a tempered response and willingness to work with the system instead of raging against it may have produced better results.
... uh, gee Wally, ... work within the system ... uh, I wonder what THAT's like? Let's go ask dad!
Good idea, beeve
A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike!
Slyde 0
QuoteThe OP's posts in this thread remind my of Ted Kaczynski's manifesto. Definitely gives me the heebie-jeebies. And yes, I'm serious.
You are a VERY lucky person. I wish EVERYBODY could feel those. Oh sure. Most Americans have their own version of the heebes. But then ... when you think about it, doesn't everybody? Even the bugs?
Do you see dead people?
This is nice. Thank you. Would you be surprised to learn that I wrote several pages for the jumpers here in Texas and have been characterising that document as my unabumbermanifesto?
Yup. Sure enough. Most of 'em haven't seen it yet.
"Screamin pissed is as screamin pissed does." (m~, today)
It's generally discouraged in our society because rage can be such a dangerous thing. But rage is perfectly normal. It's how we DEAL with rage that gets us in trouble.
Yup. I'm in trouble cuz I'm screamin pissed. But you needn't look under your bed for explosives. It's OK to get angry and you don't need a pill. Long as you remember the rules from kindergarten.
Share your crayons.
Don't hit girls.
Raise your hand ...
the pen is mightier than the sword ... or seretonin inhibitors.
Write, rite, write right. Right, Orville? Wilbur? Can you hear me Wilbur? Willllllburrrr?!! Roll over Ottley. Randy's gotcher back.
ted musta became a Democrat or sumpin
he gets free meals for life
ta daaa
m2
A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike!
Slyde 0
QuoteRandy is not an f'n verbal punching bag and neither is the rest of the BOD.
READ MY LIPS: O S A R!!!
say it out LOUD!!
brevity is the soul of wit
shake your spear
thank you willy bill
A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike!
QuoteFolks, if we continue to behave like the maniacs we are perceived to be by ... ordinary people ... we deserve to expect our sport to reside where it has stagnated for decades. All pilots are swimmers and EVEN ordinary people are assholes.
Maybe you should take your own advice and calm down. YOU are the maniac in this situation with your tantrum and are making us all look bad. And basicly I view this whole thread as nothing more as a personal attack on Randy Ottinger and should be locked or removed.
Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites