rickanderson 0 #76 December 18, 2008 QuoteMembers of the BOD and especially the executive committee have expresses extreme distain for this site and the people that post here. (Atleast that is what I was told by people that attended the BOD meeting in Orlando told me). I doubt they would support using this medium for communications. why not? i know bonfire is pretty crazy but there can be a serious area too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #77 December 18, 2008 >why not? 1) Only a small fraction of skydivers read it 2) There are people who put a lot of energy into screwing with other people here 3) It would take a huge amount of time to answer everyone's posts - and that time might be better spent answering emails. That being said, it's a good forum for announcements and such. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #78 December 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteMembers of the BOD and especially the executive committee have expresses extreme distain for this site and the people that post here. (Atleast that is what I was told by people that attended the BOD meeting in Orlando told me). I doubt they would support using this medium for communications. why not? i know bonfire is pretty crazy but there can be a serious area too. The biggest reason is it is privately held and cannot be controlled by those that seek power. That is my opinion. also weekend jumpers that pay for their own jump tickets can say whatever they want on here. The current BOD and even the future BOD has no use for us. Again just opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #79 December 18, 2008 I think BillVon's answer makes much more sense then your conspiricy theory bull shit. You seem to think the BOD and USPA is full of power hungry people. If they really were that power hungry I submit that there are much better bigger Associations to be a part of that would offer more for their efforts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Communications 0 #80 December 18, 2008 Quote Quote While we can’t address every comment about USPA on dropzone.com, we will respond to every PM or call directly to USPA. I am a bit pressed for time so this is all I'm responding to. I think this is what many including myself have a problem with. Why do most communication have to be private and or behind closed doors? It makes no sense to me. Of all the communications I have had with BOD members most have been by PM with the addition of being asked either not to reveal either content or who responded to me. I don't get it. Quote If there is a social networking site or service that USPA should be using, let us know by e-mailing [email protected]. Why not use Dropzone.com? This probably the single largest gathering on skydivers on the internet.If nothing else mirror the content from the USPA that you are looking for input on and provide a link. We're a bit pressed for time, too. That's why we can't respond to EVERY post about USPA on here - we never said we'll not respond to ANY post. We also never said to keep all communication quiet - for example, post a comment on our blog. That's very public and very transparent, and only one of the many public and transparent ways we're trying to get people to communicate with us. Private messages and phone calls indicate an actual desire to have a problem addressed, and will be responded to as such. If you had a problem with your canopy, would you really post it here first without contacting the manufacturer? We've set up communication channels that easily and quickly notify us when there's activity. The only way we know if someone has a question for us on dz.com is to come here and check it at least once a day - and some people would say several times a day. We do not have that kind of time. As for the topical concerns about the Solo Challenge, we are taking them into consideration and there will be a public response to all the suggestions. With that said, I can't see much more that we can contribute to this thread. Lara [email protected] ps - And Dave, it's a tough call whether I'd rather go back to talking about Neptunes. Ask me when this thread dies www.uspa.org Read the USPA blog! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RPC1117 0 #81 December 18, 2008 QuoteNice job though... don't know who is responsible, but USPA is really putting in the effort here. I'll give you all the credit. Dave I agree Dave. I’m glad to see USPA trying new ideas to get new jumpers. This program may not be perfect…but at least it is something. I think that this program seems to be a step in the right direction. I don't understand why so many people think that this is such a bad thing? USPA is sending an email to someone (who has voluntarily given them their name and email), saying thanks for going on your first skydive and letting them know that there is more out there than crossing of an item on the life to-do list. As a first time jumper, wouldn't you appreciate getting an email saying "Thank you for making your first skydive. It is an experience that you will remember forever. But it doesn't have to stop with that jump....imagine being a future national champion skydiver, or being a part of a new state/national formation record, or simply making new friends that share the thrill and excitement that skydiving has to offer." etc. I know that I would certainly have appreciated something like that after my first jump. I probably would have gotten into the sport earlier than I did. When you are able to make a person think about themselves in a scenario, you make it personal to them and are more likely to get a repeat customer. Most DZOs don't have the time and resources available to send a note to every one of their first time jumpers from the previous weekend. I would think that most DZs would appreciate USPA taking this on for them. In essence, it is another level of customer service in my opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #82 December 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteMost DZOs don't have the time and resources available to send a note to every one of their first time jumpers from the previous weekend. I would think that most DZs would appreciate USPA taking this on for them. In essence, it is another level of customer service in my opinion. I thought this thread was about USPA. I must be wrong, because USPA's role is to support skydivers, not for-profit businesses. This must be a thread about the DZOA, the Drop Zone Operators Association. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the DZOA does that. Couldn't be the USPA. That would be spending membership money to advance private businesses, and that would be wrong. For sure it must be the DZOA you refer to, right?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #83 December 18, 2008 Come on! Do you have a blind fold on??! This is of interest to both Skydivers and DZO. This is something that the USPA should be looking at. We need more USPA members. We need more Skydivers and DZO's want more customers! Pull your head out of the sand! I have donated my time and hard work to helping out my dropzone not for the DZO, but to see more skydivers or potential skydivers at my dropzone. Yes this does help the DZO, but we have a shared interest in this. I want to see more people at the dropzone so they can run the big planes and I can get lots of jumps in and have people to jump with. I want to see the USPA reaching out to more people. This is a good thing for all skydivers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,391 #84 December 18, 2008 > I must be wrong, because USPA's role is to support skydivers, not for-profit >businesses. It's to do both. Without DZ's there are no skydivers, and without training programs there are no new skydivers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #85 December 18, 2008 QuoteCome on! Do you have a blind fold on??! This is of interest to both Skydivers and DZO. This is something that the USPA should be looking at. We need more USPA members. We need more Skydivers and DZO's want more customers! Pull your head out of the sand! I have donated my time and hard work to helping out my dropzone not for the DZO, but to see more skydivers or potential skydivers at my dropzone. Yes this does help the DZO, but we have a shared interest in this. I want to see more people at the dropzone so they can run the big planes and I can get lots of jumps in and have people to jump with. I want to see the USPA reaching out to more people. This is a good thing for all skydivers. I am not at all convinced that we need more skydivers. Most of the people who make their one and only tandem should do that - make a tandem. Most of them are not well suited to become regular skydivers. The ones who really want to become skydivers will. A thank you note isn't going to make or break the skydiving experience for these people. I take a look at the packing floor and I am distressed at how many of the current jumpers really have no clue. I catch rigging errors all the time that would have turned into accidents. The people for whom I do this are grateful, sure, but they didn't care enough to know enough about their gear to keep themselves safe. How is that going to be good for the sport in the long run? Then I read the posts here about waiting for the AAD when shit happens, or freeflying gear that is not suited to the task. These are just 2 of the things I could mention. There are many more. There are already too many accidents waiting to happen. I don't see that having a bunch more is going to be good for the sport. Still, I would have less of a problem with the TC thing if it didn't imply that those without a TC aren't suitable places to get training. That's been my biggest complaint since this whole program started. As far as supporting the sport and making the big planes available. Tandem skydiving does that just fine right now. Having a few more poorly suited up-jumpers isn't going to change that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 370 #86 December 18, 2008 Quote > I must be wrong, because USPA's role is to support skydivers, not for-profit >businesses. It's to do both. Without DZ's there are no skydivers, and without training programs there are no new skydivers. Thanks for stating the obvious, but you didn't catch my point. I don't think it's USPA place to spend membership money on a program that is clearly aimed at assisting DZs (the vast majority of which are profit ventures) in their marketing efforts. Unless something has changed, USPA's charter doesn't call for such activities on the members nickel. Using your logic, USPA can spend whatever they want doing whatever they want, as long as it might put new faces on the DZ - at your expense. I'm not worried about the dollars, though. It's the stepping over the intended line of authority and responsibility that bothers me. What's next? Oh, I know - an increase in dues.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CSpenceFLY 1 #87 December 18, 2008 Not really responding to you Chuck. I'm not really worried about whether this is done to help jumpers or DZOs. I'm worried about making a distinction between DZs with criteria that has yet to be established in a program that is already being implemented.Kind od ass backwards way to do things. i would urge you to talk to your DZO and dissuade they from participation until the details of the program are ironed out. In addition to the other concerns I have already stated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #88 December 18, 2008 Sounds more like a training issue rather than the number of new skydivers. I can't really speak to any training issues. I have no ratings at all and don't want any. I skydive for fun and don't want to make it my work. That may change one day, but not right away. When I can I jump with new freefliers so that I can help them with their skills. The last couple of years I have spent most of my time training for and competing at Nationals. I would like to make the podium one day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 370 #89 December 18, 2008 QuoteCome on! Do you have a blind fold on??! This is of interest to both Skydivers and DZO. This is something that the USPA should be looking at. We need more USPA members. We need more Skydivers and DZO's want more customers! Pull your head out of the sand! I have donated my time and hard work to helping out my dropzone not for the DZO, but to see more skydivers or potential skydivers at my dropzone. Yes this does help the DZO, but we have a shared interest in this. I want to see more people at the dropzone so they can run the big planes and I can get lots of jumps in and have people to jump with. I want to see the USPA reaching out to more people. This is a good thing for all skydivers. I'm not wearing blinders. I've been jumping for a long time, and I've seen more than one of USPA's ideas in action. That's one reason why I think this is a bad idea. I too have donated a lot of time to the drop zone. I too want to see more (safe, qualified) skydivers and big (safe, properly flown) planes. However, this is not USPA's place. Under this program, USPA will spend members money to assist private businesses advance their for-profit activities. The fact that you will (maybe) have a few more people to jump with is a byproduct. The (doubtful) success of the program will benefit commercial entities the most ($$$) while being funded primarily with individuals membership dues, and that's not right. Many USPA members have been and are concerned that USPA has become an organization representing DZs more than individual jumpers, which is not what the organization was founded for. This program seems to be an example of that. Take off your blinders and look at the makeup of the board.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 370 #90 December 18, 2008 Quote Not really responding to you Chuck. I'm not really worried about whether this is done to help jumpers or DZOs. I'm worried about making a distinction between DZs with criteria that has yet to be established in a program that is already being implemented.Kind od ass backwards way to do things. i would urge you to talk to your DZO and dissuade they from participation until the details of the program are ironed out. In addition to the other concerns I have already stated. I agree that - as usual - the headshed is implimenting before thinking it through. Or worse yet, maybe they did think it through and this is what we get.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #91 December 18, 2008 How do you propose the USPA should work to increase their membership with out promoting dropzones? Your reasoning doesn't really make sense. There isn't any way to promote skydiving or bring in new members with out benefiting dropzones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #92 December 18, 2008 QuoteSounds more like a training issue rather than the number of new skydivers. Sure, it is a training issue. We don't always insist that the new jumpers are trained as well as they should be. If we really insisted, many of these jumpers would not stick around. The whole thing about expanding the skydiving membership presupposes that all these people should be skydving in the first place. It presupposes that we are somehow failing to keep the people who would make good skydivers. I think that this supposition is invalid. I think that the people who don't continue don't want to continue. The people who want to continue, do continue. It has always been that way. When you first started, were you on the fence? I wasn't. I knew I wanted to do it, and I knew I would have to work hard at it. If a little nudge from USPA makes them stay, are these really the people we need or want? Selling it to them harder doesn't mean they are any better suited to it, though you might convince them to continue a bit longer. Maybe they continue until they get hurt. That's a great way to help the sport. I don't want USPA to be the snake-oil salesman for the 21st century. I don't want USPA to sell skydiving to people who don't need or want it. So what if the USPA membership rolls shrink some? As I said, it is the one-time tandems that are paying for the big aircraft and the fancy dropzones, not the up-jumpers. If USPA is having a hard time making ends meet, there are other ways to fix things besides swelling the membership rolls. I suggested to HQ that they could consider bi-annual renewals to lighten the load on the membership staff, for instance. Then we might not need more staff that have to be supported by more jumpers. So, you tell me. What benefit do we realize by getting more skydivers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckakers 370 #93 December 18, 2008 QuoteHow do you propose the USPA should work to increase their membership with out promoting dropzones? Your reasoning doesn't really make sense. There isn't any way to promote skydiving or bring in new members with out benefiting dropzones. From USPA.org... "The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs; to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system, and to promote competition and record-setting programs." Pretty much spells it out.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #94 December 18, 2008 QuoteHow do you propose the USPA should work to increase their membership with out promoting dropzones? Your reasoning doesn't really make sense. There isn't any way to promote skydiving or bring in new members with out benefiting dropzones. Why do so many people think that more skydivers is a good thing? Look at Chuck's post. It isn't in the goals of USPA to make more skydivers. So, please, tell me why more skydivers is better. What's the benefit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #95 December 18, 2008 I did my first five jumps in '96 and then didn't get my AFF and license completed till '98 due to a car accident and money issues. I like you was never on the fence. But, it was just luck that I happened to drive by a dropzone and saw that there was any such thing as sport skydiving. I think there are a lot of people out there that have no idea what skydiving is all about that would be well suited to skydiving. We need to attract those people. This post card may not be the best idea, but it is an effort. I do think it is the business of the USPA to increase our membership. With greater membership we will be able to exert more influence on the FAA. We don't want more Gov regulations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #96 December 18, 2008 QuoteSo, please, tell me why more skydivers is better. What's the benefit? Some believe that more jumpers mean more money coming through and into the sport. More money means more stuff, bigger (better?) DZs, planes, gear, etc. Also means more commercialization in the general public and more outside money coming into the sport. It also means that a champion 4-way flier would be a sports star and make the news (instead of for an outstanding warrant). Then there might be some "real" money involved in competition results, etc. Its not necessarily a good thing, there are some advantages and some disadvantages to that dream of some becoming a reality. Although I would love to see more money in competitions, I don't want to see the baggage that comes with a large commercialized popular past time (think lawyers).--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #97 December 18, 2008 "to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system" This is the part that really requires more membership. With out a substantial membership it will be hard to keep the Gov regulations at a minimum and reasonable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #98 December 18, 2008 Quote"to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system" This is the part that really requires more membership. With out a substantial membership it will be hard to keep the Gov regulations at a minimum and reasonable. Actually, the FAA already guarantees our place at federally funded airports. Yes, USPA calls on the FAA to enforce their own rules. But that has nothing to do with the number of members. We had access when there were fewer members. More members didn't make more access. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #99 December 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo, please, tell me why more skydivers is better. What's the benefit? Some believe that more jumpers mean more money coming through and into the sport. More money means more stuff, bigger (better?) DZs, planes, gear, etc. Also means more commercialization in the general public and more outside money coming into the sport. It also means that a champion 4-way flier would be a sports star and make the news (instead of for an outstanding warrant). Then there might be some "real" money involved in competition results, etc. Its not necessarily a good thing, there are some advantages and some disadvantages to that dream of some becoming a reality. Although I would love to see more money in competitions, I don't want to see the baggage that comes with a large commercialized popular past time (think lawyers). I realize that you aren't really saying bigger is better; that you are expressing the ideas some have about why more jumperes is better. But, you wrote the list, so my response is "attached" to your post. More tandems is what funds our sport. Not more up-jumpers. The DZs have better airplanes because of tandems. The up-jumpers will never pay those costs. We want lower jump ticket prices. Even with more jumpers, there won't be enough money coming from up-jumpers to make that happen. If it weren't for tandems, we would still be jumping out of Cessnas at little dropzones. The big profit margin of tandems is what funds most of what's been mentioned. Up-jumpers are not a big profit margin. So, let's stop fooling ourselves about that. Okay, I'll grant you that getting big ticket sponsors would make competitions have bigger purses. But most of us are not competitors. Most of us will never see any benefit from RedBull or GoFast or whatever. I am happy for the competitors that will see that money, but it will not include most of us. The competitions don't make bigger better dropzones. Bigger better dropzones make better competitions, and bigger better dropzones are funded by tandems. Go ask your DZO. Where does the money come from? He will tell you it comes from tandems. More skydivers doesn't really create more tandems. Up-jumpers don't bring in that many tandems. If they did, we'd see more encouragement from DZOs. The small inducements to bring in tandem customers are because the up-jumpers don't make DZOs any money in the first place. If the Solo Challenge would mean more money for the DZOs, why aren't more of them jumping on that bandwagon. My original objection was that only a relatively few dropzones are getting the benefit of the "TC" designation, while there are many many more who are falsely labeled as not having a training program. If the Solo Challengs was so good, why aren't more dropzones joining? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #100 December 18, 2008 QuoteQuote"to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system" This is the part that really requires more membership. With out a substantial membership it will be hard to keep the Gov regulations at a minimum and reasonable. Actually, the FAA already guarantees our place at federally funded airports. Yes, USPA calls on the FAA to enforce their own rules. But that has nothing to do with the number of members. We had access when there were fewer members. More members didn't make more access. There are no guarantees of anything. We need our membership to keep our voice heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
beowulf 1 #83 December 18, 2008 Come on! Do you have a blind fold on??! This is of interest to both Skydivers and DZO. This is something that the USPA should be looking at. We need more USPA members. We need more Skydivers and DZO's want more customers! Pull your head out of the sand! I have donated my time and hard work to helping out my dropzone not for the DZO, but to see more skydivers or potential skydivers at my dropzone. Yes this does help the DZO, but we have a shared interest in this. I want to see more people at the dropzone so they can run the big planes and I can get lots of jumps in and have people to jump with. I want to see the USPA reaching out to more people. This is a good thing for all skydivers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #84 December 18, 2008 > I must be wrong, because USPA's role is to support skydivers, not for-profit >businesses. It's to do both. Without DZ's there are no skydivers, and without training programs there are no new skydivers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #85 December 18, 2008 QuoteCome on! Do you have a blind fold on??! This is of interest to both Skydivers and DZO. This is something that the USPA should be looking at. We need more USPA members. We need more Skydivers and DZO's want more customers! Pull your head out of the sand! I have donated my time and hard work to helping out my dropzone not for the DZO, but to see more skydivers or potential skydivers at my dropzone. Yes this does help the DZO, but we have a shared interest in this. I want to see more people at the dropzone so they can run the big planes and I can get lots of jumps in and have people to jump with. I want to see the USPA reaching out to more people. This is a good thing for all skydivers. I am not at all convinced that we need more skydivers. Most of the people who make their one and only tandem should do that - make a tandem. Most of them are not well suited to become regular skydivers. The ones who really want to become skydivers will. A thank you note isn't going to make or break the skydiving experience for these people. I take a look at the packing floor and I am distressed at how many of the current jumpers really have no clue. I catch rigging errors all the time that would have turned into accidents. The people for whom I do this are grateful, sure, but they didn't care enough to know enough about their gear to keep themselves safe. How is that going to be good for the sport in the long run? Then I read the posts here about waiting for the AAD when shit happens, or freeflying gear that is not suited to the task. These are just 2 of the things I could mention. There are many more. There are already too many accidents waiting to happen. I don't see that having a bunch more is going to be good for the sport. Still, I would have less of a problem with the TC thing if it didn't imply that those without a TC aren't suitable places to get training. That's been my biggest complaint since this whole program started. As far as supporting the sport and making the big planes available. Tandem skydiving does that just fine right now. Having a few more poorly suited up-jumpers isn't going to change that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #86 December 18, 2008 Quote > I must be wrong, because USPA's role is to support skydivers, not for-profit >businesses. It's to do both. Without DZ's there are no skydivers, and without training programs there are no new skydivers. Thanks for stating the obvious, but you didn't catch my point. I don't think it's USPA place to spend membership money on a program that is clearly aimed at assisting DZs (the vast majority of which are profit ventures) in their marketing efforts. Unless something has changed, USPA's charter doesn't call for such activities on the members nickel. Using your logic, USPA can spend whatever they want doing whatever they want, as long as it might put new faces on the DZ - at your expense. I'm not worried about the dollars, though. It's the stepping over the intended line of authority and responsibility that bothers me. What's next? Oh, I know - an increase in dues.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #87 December 18, 2008 Not really responding to you Chuck. I'm not really worried about whether this is done to help jumpers or DZOs. I'm worried about making a distinction between DZs with criteria that has yet to be established in a program that is already being implemented.Kind od ass backwards way to do things. i would urge you to talk to your DZO and dissuade they from participation until the details of the program are ironed out. In addition to the other concerns I have already stated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #88 December 18, 2008 Sounds more like a training issue rather than the number of new skydivers. I can't really speak to any training issues. I have no ratings at all and don't want any. I skydive for fun and don't want to make it my work. That may change one day, but not right away. When I can I jump with new freefliers so that I can help them with their skills. The last couple of years I have spent most of my time training for and competing at Nationals. I would like to make the podium one day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #89 December 18, 2008 QuoteCome on! Do you have a blind fold on??! This is of interest to both Skydivers and DZO. This is something that the USPA should be looking at. We need more USPA members. We need more Skydivers and DZO's want more customers! Pull your head out of the sand! I have donated my time and hard work to helping out my dropzone not for the DZO, but to see more skydivers or potential skydivers at my dropzone. Yes this does help the DZO, but we have a shared interest in this. I want to see more people at the dropzone so they can run the big planes and I can get lots of jumps in and have people to jump with. I want to see the USPA reaching out to more people. This is a good thing for all skydivers. I'm not wearing blinders. I've been jumping for a long time, and I've seen more than one of USPA's ideas in action. That's one reason why I think this is a bad idea. I too have donated a lot of time to the drop zone. I too want to see more (safe, qualified) skydivers and big (safe, properly flown) planes. However, this is not USPA's place. Under this program, USPA will spend members money to assist private businesses advance their for-profit activities. The fact that you will (maybe) have a few more people to jump with is a byproduct. The (doubtful) success of the program will benefit commercial entities the most ($$$) while being funded primarily with individuals membership dues, and that's not right. Many USPA members have been and are concerned that USPA has become an organization representing DZs more than individual jumpers, which is not what the organization was founded for. This program seems to be an example of that. Take off your blinders and look at the makeup of the board.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #90 December 18, 2008 Quote Not really responding to you Chuck. I'm not really worried about whether this is done to help jumpers or DZOs. I'm worried about making a distinction between DZs with criteria that has yet to be established in a program that is already being implemented.Kind od ass backwards way to do things. i would urge you to talk to your DZO and dissuade they from participation until the details of the program are ironed out. In addition to the other concerns I have already stated. I agree that - as usual - the headshed is implimenting before thinking it through. Or worse yet, maybe they did think it through and this is what we get.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #91 December 18, 2008 How do you propose the USPA should work to increase their membership with out promoting dropzones? Your reasoning doesn't really make sense. There isn't any way to promote skydiving or bring in new members with out benefiting dropzones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #92 December 18, 2008 QuoteSounds more like a training issue rather than the number of new skydivers. Sure, it is a training issue. We don't always insist that the new jumpers are trained as well as they should be. If we really insisted, many of these jumpers would not stick around. The whole thing about expanding the skydiving membership presupposes that all these people should be skydving in the first place. It presupposes that we are somehow failing to keep the people who would make good skydivers. I think that this supposition is invalid. I think that the people who don't continue don't want to continue. The people who want to continue, do continue. It has always been that way. When you first started, were you on the fence? I wasn't. I knew I wanted to do it, and I knew I would have to work hard at it. If a little nudge from USPA makes them stay, are these really the people we need or want? Selling it to them harder doesn't mean they are any better suited to it, though you might convince them to continue a bit longer. Maybe they continue until they get hurt. That's a great way to help the sport. I don't want USPA to be the snake-oil salesman for the 21st century. I don't want USPA to sell skydiving to people who don't need or want it. So what if the USPA membership rolls shrink some? As I said, it is the one-time tandems that are paying for the big aircraft and the fancy dropzones, not the up-jumpers. If USPA is having a hard time making ends meet, there are other ways to fix things besides swelling the membership rolls. I suggested to HQ that they could consider bi-annual renewals to lighten the load on the membership staff, for instance. Then we might not need more staff that have to be supported by more jumpers. So, you tell me. What benefit do we realize by getting more skydivers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #93 December 18, 2008 QuoteHow do you propose the USPA should work to increase their membership with out promoting dropzones? Your reasoning doesn't really make sense. There isn't any way to promote skydiving or bring in new members with out benefiting dropzones. From USPA.org... "The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs; to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system, and to promote competition and record-setting programs." Pretty much spells it out.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #94 December 18, 2008 QuoteHow do you propose the USPA should work to increase their membership with out promoting dropzones? Your reasoning doesn't really make sense. There isn't any way to promote skydiving or bring in new members with out benefiting dropzones. Why do so many people think that more skydivers is a good thing? Look at Chuck's post. It isn't in the goals of USPA to make more skydivers. So, please, tell me why more skydivers is better. What's the benefit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #95 December 18, 2008 I did my first five jumps in '96 and then didn't get my AFF and license completed till '98 due to a car accident and money issues. I like you was never on the fence. But, it was just luck that I happened to drive by a dropzone and saw that there was any such thing as sport skydiving. I think there are a lot of people out there that have no idea what skydiving is all about that would be well suited to skydiving. We need to attract those people. This post card may not be the best idea, but it is an effort. I do think it is the business of the USPA to increase our membership. With greater membership we will be able to exert more influence on the FAA. We don't want more Gov regulations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #96 December 18, 2008 QuoteSo, please, tell me why more skydivers is better. What's the benefit? Some believe that more jumpers mean more money coming through and into the sport. More money means more stuff, bigger (better?) DZs, planes, gear, etc. Also means more commercialization in the general public and more outside money coming into the sport. It also means that a champion 4-way flier would be a sports star and make the news (instead of for an outstanding warrant). Then there might be some "real" money involved in competition results, etc. Its not necessarily a good thing, there are some advantages and some disadvantages to that dream of some becoming a reality. Although I would love to see more money in competitions, I don't want to see the baggage that comes with a large commercialized popular past time (think lawyers).--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #97 December 18, 2008 "to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system" This is the part that really requires more membership. With out a substantial membership it will be hard to keep the Gov regulations at a minimum and reasonable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #98 December 18, 2008 Quote"to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system" This is the part that really requires more membership. With out a substantial membership it will be hard to keep the Gov regulations at a minimum and reasonable. Actually, the FAA already guarantees our place at federally funded airports. Yes, USPA calls on the FAA to enforce their own rules. But that has nothing to do with the number of members. We had access when there were fewer members. More members didn't make more access. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #99 December 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo, please, tell me why more skydivers is better. What's the benefit? Some believe that more jumpers mean more money coming through and into the sport. More money means more stuff, bigger (better?) DZs, planes, gear, etc. Also means more commercialization in the general public and more outside money coming into the sport. It also means that a champion 4-way flier would be a sports star and make the news (instead of for an outstanding warrant). Then there might be some "real" money involved in competition results, etc. Its not necessarily a good thing, there are some advantages and some disadvantages to that dream of some becoming a reality. Although I would love to see more money in competitions, I don't want to see the baggage that comes with a large commercialized popular past time (think lawyers). I realize that you aren't really saying bigger is better; that you are expressing the ideas some have about why more jumperes is better. But, you wrote the list, so my response is "attached" to your post. More tandems is what funds our sport. Not more up-jumpers. The DZs have better airplanes because of tandems. The up-jumpers will never pay those costs. We want lower jump ticket prices. Even with more jumpers, there won't be enough money coming from up-jumpers to make that happen. If it weren't for tandems, we would still be jumping out of Cessnas at little dropzones. The big profit margin of tandems is what funds most of what's been mentioned. Up-jumpers are not a big profit margin. So, let's stop fooling ourselves about that. Okay, I'll grant you that getting big ticket sponsors would make competitions have bigger purses. But most of us are not competitors. Most of us will never see any benefit from RedBull or GoFast or whatever. I am happy for the competitors that will see that money, but it will not include most of us. The competitions don't make bigger better dropzones. Bigger better dropzones make better competitions, and bigger better dropzones are funded by tandems. Go ask your DZO. Where does the money come from? He will tell you it comes from tandems. More skydivers doesn't really create more tandems. Up-jumpers don't bring in that many tandems. If they did, we'd see more encouragement from DZOs. The small inducements to bring in tandem customers are because the up-jumpers don't make DZOs any money in the first place. If the Solo Challenge would mean more money for the DZOs, why aren't more of them jumping on that bandwagon. My original objection was that only a relatively few dropzones are getting the benefit of the "TC" designation, while there are many many more who are falsely labeled as not having a training program. If the Solo Challengs was so good, why aren't more dropzones joining? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #100 December 18, 2008 QuoteQuote"to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system" This is the part that really requires more membership. With out a substantial membership it will be hard to keep the Gov regulations at a minimum and reasonable. Actually, the FAA already guarantees our place at federally funded airports. Yes, USPA calls on the FAA to enforce their own rules. But that has nothing to do with the number of members. We had access when there were fewer members. More members didn't make more access. There are no guarantees of anything. We need our membership to keep our voice heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
