save Canadian Skydivers...

[smiles 0]

quote from cspa chat

Quote

Good Day Fellow Skydivers,

Regulation is on our door step, the NPA 99 148 will be printed in Gazette
On Saturday March 15th 2008. This proposed regulation will likely change
Skydiving as we know it in Canada. If this proposed regulation passes
Skydiving will be regulation by Transport Canada who has absolutely no
expertise in Skydiving. Just ask the operator of your center what impact
this regulation will have on their operation.

Once the regulation is published, we will have at least 30 days and possible
60 day to object to the proposed regulation. Unfortunately, Transport
Canada will not provide us with the wording of the NPA in advance, so we can
not formulate the wording of our objection until the Gazette is published.
Once the Government has an opportunity to review the objections they can
chose to stop the proposed regulation, amend the proposed regulation or
Publish it in Gazette Two making it law. So you can see how important it is
that we react to this immediately.

It is very important that we all object to this regulation to protect our
sport. Once we know what the wording is, our Lawyer will draft a letter on
behalf of our members. The office will print up two letters for each
member; one objecting to the proposed regulation and one to your MP asking
for their support. These letters will be sent to each active member along
with two addressed stamped envelopes. All you will have to do is sign both
letters, put them in the envelopes and drop them in the mail. We will post
a copy of both letters on the CSPA web site so that you can down load
electronic copies, you should try and get everyone you know to send in
these letters of objection. This is very very important, DO NOT RELY ON
SOMEONE ELSE TO TAKE CARE OF THIS FOR YOU, YOU MUST SEND THE LETTERS IN AND
ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO AS WELL!!!

This is our opportunity to stop this proposed regulation so get involved.

Sincerely,

Tim Grech

SMiles

[IanHarrop 37]

A reminder to sign the petition against this legislation:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NPA99148/index.html

On this site after you sign the petition there will be a page asking for a donation. Any donation made does not go to support skydiving in anyway, it goes to the owners of the site. There is no need to make a donation, you can simply close the page.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[pchapman 261]

Link to previous discussion on NPA 99-148:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3123567;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

[chuteless 1]

TIM: I will send a couple of letters regarding this legislation ( and other things). I am confident I can do " something", believe me.

I will " look after it". I have many friends in the MOT.

Bill Cole D-41

TIM: Are you so unethical that you stole my D-41 licence.?????

[camamel 0]

Thanks Tim

I will use everything I have here to promote the signature of that letter.
Do you think we can ask Yves Pelchat to translate your post it in the French forum?
In order to reach as many people as possible I think it's a must.

Richard

When you think you're good...this is when you become dangerous.

[Ktownbret 0]

Hi Tim,

You have the support of Okanagan Skydive Adventures. I will print out a bunch of copys and make sure they get sighned and mailed.

Bret Chalmers

www.okanaganskydive.com

[smiles 0]

I quoted Tim Grech- I am not Tim Grech...
Tims message is to spread the word.

Quote

TIM: Are you so unethical that you stole my D-41 licence.?????

When filling in you profile info here, licence # is on separate line than organization.

SMiles

[174fps 1]

Bill Cole D-41

TIM: Are you so unethical that you stole my D-41 licence.?????

Your D41 is CSPA
Smiles D41 is CAPS

[smiles 0]

Quote

Your D41 is CSPA
Smiles D41 is CAPS

SMiles (Karen) is to have her D41 CAPs from Skydive Vancouver B.C.
http://www.vancouver-skydiving.bc.ca/
also CSPA C-1855 supporting both organizations in Canada fighting NPA 99 148.

SMiles

[packerboy 3]

What is this Gazette you speak of? I'm not extremely current on my Canadian politics, but I don't remember hearing about our processes change such that printing something in a "Gazette" twice makes a law.

I'm not trying to be a dink and I am genuinely concerned with regards to the topic at hand, but I know a bit about how our Parliament works and I have never heard of the Gazette.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[pchapman 261]

Quote

What is this Gazette you speak of? .

Edited from good old wikipedia:

Quote

The Canada Gazette is an official publication by the government of Canada that publishes all laws and Orders-in-Council issued by the government. It also contains other information on things such as hearing and tribunals, proposed changes and any thing else the government feels should be told to the public in the time period stated in the Statutory Instruments Regulations .

It is published in three parts. One issue is published each Saturday containing the less important matters such as all government appointments, public notices, and proposals. Part II is published every second Wednesday and it contains changes to regulations.Part III is published with the text of any new laws immediately after they have received Royal Assent.

Part II ('the second publishing') puts regulations into law. Part III is the same for the bigger stuff, actual acts of parliament.

The government Gazette page states:

Quote

It is through Part I that the Government includes Canadians in the regulatory process. All Canadians have a chance to submit their comments to the government departments and agencies responsible for the proposed regulations before these are enacted and then published in Part II of the Canada Gazette. This is called the consultation process. The name and contact information of the person responsible for a text of regulations is found at the end of each regulatory impact analysis statement that accompanies the proposed regulations, under “Contact.”

So for us in Canada, when dealing with aviation, it is generally like US pilots & skydivers dealing with an FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. You get a very limited period in which to make comments on the proposed rules.

[riggerrob 558]

Okay.
I just sent a lengthy e-mail to my local Member of Parliament.
I started by reminding him of how I helped vote him into office and asked him to oppose NPA 99 148.

[Ktownbret 0]

I just did the same Rob.

Has anyone been in contact with Ken Summerfied? Being that he has ties to law and politics might make him a good guy to have on board for this.

I am attending the Kamloops club meeting today. I will do what I can to get him and all other members of the Kamloops skydivers involved.

Bret

www.okanaganskydive.com

[chuteless 1]

Then why doesnt she say CAPS after her licence. It is misleading....is that the intention?


Bill Cole D-41 CSPA Licence.

[michalm21 0]

Quote

Then why doesnt she say CAPS after her licence. It is misleading....is that the intention?


Bill Cole D-41 CSPA Licence.

Is it really that important?

[AndyMan 7]

The CSPA vs CAPS bullshit is exactly why the feds are getting involved.

It's a shame, really.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

quote from cspa chat

Quote

Good Day Fellow Skydivers,

Regulation is on our door step, the NPA 99 148 will be printed in Gazette
On Saturday March 15th 2008. This proposed regulation will likely change
Skydiving as we know it in Canada. If this proposed regulation passes
Skydiving will be regulation by Transport Canada who has absolutely no
expertise in Skydiving. Just ask the operator of your center what impact
this regulation will have on their operation.
...

SMiles

I'm afraid I've only received one response thus far to my contacting political candidates about this issue--from the Rhinoceros (!) party. Here is the response I got:

---------------------

i'm the director of the laboratory for the science of democracy in the
neorhino.ca party.

I can confirm you that the party neorhino.ca had no intention to regulate
the skydiving.

But now that we have been made aware of the situation, we will include this
in our programme, of course !

Those measures of Transport Canada to control everything are shocking and we
do not intend to let this happen without saying our word !

Until next time, like we say in the party: stay horny !

--
Jean-Patrick Berthiaume
_____________________
Directeur
Laboratoire des Sciences de la Démocratie
parti Neorhino.ca

---------------------

Not sure if this is beneficial or detrimental to our goal. On the one hand, everything the Rhinoceros party does--needless to say--is completely tongue in cheek. On the other hand, "opposing government regulation of skydiving" almost sounds like a Rhinoceros party platform--it might actually serve to underscore how farcical the whole idea of NPA 99-148 is--and might actually help our position. What do you think?

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[pchapman 261]

Quote

Then why doesnt she say CAPS after her licence. It is misleading....is that the intention?

Bill Cole D-41 CSPA Licence.

Bill:
She does say it is CAPS. That's in her profile. It's just that in the mini profile next to our posts, not everything is shown.

So no need to get bent out of shape.

Profiles aren't perfect. They don't, for example, show how many times one has been banned from an organization.

[smiles 0]

Quote

The CSPA vs CAPS bullshit is exactly why the feds are getting involved.

It's a shame, really.

_Am

Could you reply with your knowledge regarding CSPA vs CAPs bullshit /why the feds are getting involved?

Are you suggesting that the sole reason for fatalities is due a CAPs operated dz or the actual operators?

I do not understand your reasoning as CSPA operated dz's also have fatalities, There is more than 1 CAPs operated dz in Canada. If one dz has fatalities regarding training first jump students does that mean all CAPs dz's are having fatalities due to them being CAPs operated?

I am aware a CAPs dz Skydive Ranch in Calgary, Canada -was training high number of students (over 60,000- largest trainer of 1st. jump students in the country) had fatalities leading to Coroners Inquest/ Criminal Court. CSPA dz's have also had fatalities that have no where near the number of first jump students trained.

Skydive Vancouver is a CAPs operated dz in BC for over 10 years and they separated from CSPA due to the fact CSPA at the time was not against government regulation. Do you feel that due to being CAPs operated that this dz is causing feds to be getting involved?

DZ operator Gerald Harper (Skydive Vancouver) was present at the Parachute Training Risk Assessment Committee at the request of Manzur Huq – Director, General Aviation (Transport Canada) regarding NPA 99-148, and and recommended against enacting this regulation.

I understand the procedure in the case of violent accidental death is the same in every province in Canada. Also that CSPA dz's have also had fatalities leading to Coroners Inquest/ Criminal Court.

The Medical Examiner can refer file to the Chief Medical Examiner/ call an inquest (fact finding courtroom held in front of Provincial Court Judge)
The presiding judge at the inquest has responsibility to: #1 sift the evidence presented to his court and make final statement of the FACTS that aggregated, define the death. #2 to make constructive suggestions to relevant agencies if he feels that he sees something that might prevent similar deaths.

No part of the inquest process is allowed to be a means for anyone to voice opinion regarding the death, or to determine culpability with respect to the death. He is not suppose to make any recommendations that could be read as undermining the authority of any governing body (TC, CSPA, CAPs) That is the responsibility of the press, police, and if there is enough probable cause- a criminal court.

SMiles

[brettski74 0]

Quote

A reminder to sign the petition against this legislation:

Actually, forget the petition. Paper and ink petitions are never as effective as people think they are. Electronic petitions are even less effective as there is usually no way to verify the identity or even existence of the people named on them. The last time I looked at this online petition, it was filled with duplicate names and anonymous entries. I also know that there are at least some names on there that are not Canadians. We're better off not circulating ineffective devices of opposition to this proposal. People who might have otherwise written letters or made calls to their MP or to Transport Canada may figure that they've done their bit by placing their name on this website and be less likely to do something else that would have been more likely to have an impact.

If you're serious about opposing this regulation. Write a letter or make a phone call to your MP, to Transport Canada or to whoever else is involved in this process. There are a lot of people who've put thoughtful responses on the petition. Go the extra step. Print it on some paper, sign it, and mail it to you member of parliament.

Everyone will have to figure out their local MPs contact details, but can someone post details of where else such objections should be sent? I'm assuming that there would be one Transport Canada address for everyone where such objections should/could also be sent.

[Beatnik 2]

Quote

I am aware a CAPs dz Skydive Ranch in Calgary, Canada -was training high number of students (over 60,000- largest trainer of 1st. jump students in the country) had fatalities leading to Coroners Inquest/ Criminal Court. CSPA dz's have also had fatalities that have no where near the number of first jump students trained.

CSPA dropzones had similar thigns happen to them. One issue that comes to mind that is not helping the situation but CSPA would love for its membership to forget is a situation that occurred in Manitoba.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2001/02/15/mb_skydive150201.html

The details of the incident are quite alarming and are not outlined in the media coverage. But this is something that is always avoided and blame is pushed elsewhere.

Quote

Skydive Vancouver is a CAPs operated dz in BC for over 10 years and they separated from CSPA due to the fact CSPA at the time was not against government regulation. Do you feel that due to being CAPs operated that this dz is causing feds to be getting involved?

DZ operator Gerald Harper (Skydive Vancouver) was present at the Parachute Training Risk Assessment Committee at the request of Manzur Huq – Director, General Aviation (Transport Canada) regarding NPA 99-148, and and recommended against enacting this regulation.

I am aware of the CSPA individuals at the meeting and I know one was for it because of belief that the regulations would shut down smaller dropzones and drive more business his way (regarding commercially operated aircraft). Now this same individual and business partner (which somehow weaseled his way into a power position in CSPA) are against it because they are seeing it detrimental to their pocket books.

People really need to stop flinging these rumors if they have no idea what is going on. The things you hear are only what is wanted to be said and win you over to their side. I got to see a lot of it when I was a CSPA BoD member. This same situation is happening now and because it wasn't opposed at the beginning, ten years ago, it is making this fight so much more difficult. Unfortunately, if we win this battle, one of the people that was trying to get this inplace will most likely be portrayed as the person that is responsible for winning this and will then be able to continue manipulating the association for his personal gain instead of bettering the sport, the association, and most importantly the membership.

Before making comments regarding the CSPA and CAPS situation or any that is faced in sport parachuting in Canada. The jumpers should ask questions, don't take things on face value, get involved and learn the facts. People will tell you what they want you to hear so that you will side with them, do yourself a big favor and educate yourselves.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

CSPA dropzones had similar thigns happen to them. One issue that comes to mind that is not helping the situation but CSPA would love for its membership to forget is a situation that occurred in Manitoba.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2001/02/15/mb_skydive150201.html

The details of the incident are quite alarming and are not outlined in the media coverage. But this is something that is always avoided and blame is pushed elsewhere.

The blame for Randy's death lies with one and only one person- Randy. He was a B licensed skydiver who neglected to open his parachute.

Quote

Quote

DZ operator Gerald Harper (Skydive Vancouver) was present at the Parachute Training Risk Assessment Committee at the request of Manzur Huq – Director, General Aviation (Transport Canada) regarding NPA 99-148, and and recommended against enacting this regulation.

I am aware of the CSPA individuals at the meeting and I know one was for it because of belief that the regulations would shut down smaller dropzones and drive more business his way (regarding commercially operated aircraft).

Actually you don't seem aware of much. There was only one CSPA individual at the meeting so clearly your knowledge of the meetings is flawed. More importantly there was nothing at the meetings in question regarding aircraft; these meetings happened about ten years after commercial operating certificates became required for skydiving operations.
The meetings you are thinking of were the CSPA Transport Canada committee meetings in the early nineties. Have you been skydiving that long? Ian Flanagan, the individual you have decided to trash without naming, was in fact, on record as being against fighting transport on this issue. If you were around the sport back then you would no doubt remember his statements at the time that he thought it was a lost cause and that we would be better off insuring that Transport kept their noses out of the parachuting side of things. At the Annual meeting in Pitt Meadows BC around that time (I can't remember the exact year) there were two motions on the floor. One was to express support for Transport's efforts to regulate the sport and one to resist their efforts; the one to oppose Transport was motioned by Pacific Skydivers as articulated by Ian Flanagan. So your theory about him changing his spots is in fact wrong.
There is no doubt that he pissed a lot of DZOs off with his position on the commercial OC and I know it had a lot to do with the drop zone in Gananoque leaving CSPA (at least that's what the DZO told me some years later). Whether that is what convinced Gerry Harper at Vancouver Skydiving I am not sure; Smiles would know better than either of us. I have also heard the argument that he did it as part of his evil scheme to take over skydiving in Canada. Since Vancouver Skydiving was then and is now bigger than Ian's place I doubt that is an argument coming out of Harper's mouth. I wonder if you mean the other DZ in the area, the one that, when they lost both planes to accidents within two weeks, had their evil competitor supply them with a plane for the rest of the season.

Quote

Now this same individual and business partner (which somehow weaseled his way into a power position in CSPA) are against it because they are seeing it detrimental to their pocket books

Well, I think the way he weaseled his way into power was by volunteering on the Coaching Working Committee for six years including several as the chair, running unnopposed for the regional rep slot and getting elected president by the board. I am not sure why you call it weaselly since anyone who was paying attention knew he was doing it at least a year beforehand.

Quote

People really need to stop flinging these rumors if they have no idea what is going on. The things you hear are only what is wanted to be said and win you over to their side. I got to see a lot of it when I was a CSPA BoD member. This same situation is happening now and because it wasn't opposed at the beginning, ten years ago, it is making this fight so much more difficult. Unfortunately, if we win this battle, one of the people that was trying to get this in place will most likely be portrayed as the person that is responsible for winning this and will then be able to continue manipulating the association for his personal gain instead of bettering the sport, the association, and most importantly the membership.

It seems to me that you are the one who is rumour mongering, you are the one who is ill informed. Your experience with CSPA as far as I can tell consisted of one year on a very disfunctional board. Since you consisted 20% of that board I think you can wear some of the blame for that.

[Beatnik 2]

Quote

The blame for Randy's death lies with one and only one person- Randy. He was a B licensed skydiver who neglected to open his parachute.

You clearly don't know the entire details of the incident. If you really knew exactly what went on you might think differently. He was at fault but I don't think it was entirely his.

Quote

Actually you don't seem aware of much. There was only one CSPA individual at the meeting so clearly your knowledge of the meetings is flawed.

There was more than one individual at the meeting. The whole committee for NPA 99-148 which I was one of the original people had the individuals at the meeting.

Quote

Well, I think the way he weaseled his way into power was by volunteering on the Coaching Working Committee for six years including several as the chair, running unnopposed for the regional rep slot and getting elected president by the board. I am not sure why you call it weaselly since anyone who was paying attention knew he was doing it at least a year beforehand.

You don't know the internals of the situation. I was there and present for the whole thing and didn't see you anywhere in any of the meetings.

Quote

It seems to me that you are the one who is rumour mongering, you are the one who is ill informed. Your experience with CSPA as far as I can tell consisted of one year on a very disfunctional board. Since you consisted 20% of that board I think you can wear some of the blame for that.

I have a little more experience with what is going on than you are giving me credit for. The BoD wasn't as dyfunctional as people would like to believe. If you want to continue this stuff outside the forums please do but this is not the place to discuss this stuff. There is a lot more information than what is being made to the general membership.

I am just trying to speak the truth something that you aren't allowed to do when you are on the BoD all the time. I wasn't bringing peoples names into things for a reason, if you want to do so be my guest but I won't respond to those things as I have no intention of bashing anyone. Call me what you like but you really need to dig a little deeper. Still trying to figure out how myself equals 20% when there were six of us.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I think you are confused. The meetings Smiles was referring to took place in Vancouver several years ago and Ian Flanagan was the sole CSPA rep. The meetings took place over two days in Vancouver.
If you had remained on the board you could have voted for whomever you wanted for president. Since you elected not to remain I hardly think you have a beef with how your successor voted.
Just because you don't mention someone by name when you liable them does not mean you didn't do it. That is the lesson we learned in 1988 with Mercier. The reason I named names is because if you are telling the truth you should stand up and say things aloud. You weren't around the sport when majority of the things you were talking about happened so I think you should be more careful about passing third hand stories off as the inside scoop.

[Beatnik 2]

Quote

If you had remained on the board you could have voted for whomever you wanted for president. Since you elected not to remain I hardly think you have a beef with how your successor voted.

I didn't remain on the BoD because I am moving out of the region. One of the little hassles with being an officer in the Canadian Forces. The issues happened at the AGM when I was drawn in because there wasn't a quorum because of one of the current directors not making it there on time because of the weather and another didn't attend. The whole thing wasn't exactly as it would normally go.

Quote

Just because you don't mention someone by name when you liable them does not mean you didn't do it. That is the lesson we learned in 1988 with Mercier.

I choose not to throw peoples names out there for respect to them as I don't know if they want there names out there. Maybe I am used to a different form of privacy. If people are interested in what is going on they can gather the information and put the pieces together to form their on conclusion rather than try and pass on what they should think. I am not doing anything illegalin anyway that I am aware of so for what I would be liable for I am not sure. I am not going to touch the Mercier stuff as there is a lot that went on with him and a lot more that doesn't even need to be mentioned other than one thing. Sometimes, a lot of things can be resolved with just an apology.

Quote

The reason I named names is because if you are telling the truth you should stand up and say things aloud. You weren't around the sport when majority of the things you were talking about happened so I think you should be more careful about passing third hand stories off as the inside scoop.

I have done and am doing a lot of history documents and projects for CSPA and have a lot more information that you are giving me credit for. I have files that date back to 1962. My claims are not entirely based on the inside scoop it is also information I have uncovered in my research.

Don't read into the years in my profile, they aren't the most accurate. Granted Andrew I don't know much about you, but please don't make assumptions about me. I was the only BoD member to complete all of their tasks and do the job. Everyone else had outstanding tasks. When I visited all the dropzones in my region, it was mentioned that I was the first person in over 15 years to visit them.

I have said what I want to say on the subject and that is it. I don't want to get into a shit flinging match here. But these aren't exactly third hand stories and I have done my research. Maybe yours has uncovered other information and that is great, my research has uncovered what I have posted. Again, I am not trying to bash or spread any guile information, this is the stuff that I have uncovered and if it is incorrect, I would like to see the additional information on it and then I will reevaluate my stand on it.