I'm tired of hearing complaints about USPA

[Krip 2]

***I flew to San Francisco and was heard at a full board meeting. Everyone else there, DZO's included, did exactly the same thing. You can do exactly the same thing.***

Quote

Hi Bill

Your point is valid as long as everyone lives in cali and has the same amount of resorces as your family does.

The are lots of other oprions for USPA members to have their concerns heard besides taking off from work jumping on a jet renting a car hotel room to attend a BS Mtg.

Attending mtgs are great for people who are getting paid have nothing to do but look busy and give the impression that their accomplishing something.

This is a new age we've got more cost effective resources available to us to voice our concerns on a national level. It's called the internet.

Expecting a RD to communicate our concerns to the BOD can be a exercise in futility, We need to communicate directly with the BOD with suspense dates and a paper trail.

Sorry I can't help you right now I have a important meeting to attend

Have a Great day

[billvon 2,404]

>Your point is valid as long as everyone lives in cali and has the
>same amount of resorces as your family does.

Nope. My point is valid as long as everyone has to travel the same distance that the BOD and the RD's do. At the last meeting, most of the people there representing the working group were NOT from California. Yet somehow they made it there. It was important enough to them to make the time to go.

If they can do it, you can do it too.

>The are lots of other oprions for USPA members to have their
>concerns heard besides taking off from work jumping on a jet renting
>a car hotel room to attend a BS Mtg.

So go see your RD. Or go see a BOD member. Or call them. Or email them. Or write them. Or go to USPA headquarters.

If all those are BS, too - then you'll get the kind of leadership you deserve.

>This is a new age we've got more cost effective resources available to
>us to voice our concerns on a national level. It's called the internet.

If by "the internet" you mean groups like this, then it is not effective at all. Often it more resembles a bunch of squabbling children than any sort of coherent forum to air one's concerns. Six vocal people who rarely jump will get a bug up their butts and completely dominate a given discussion, leading to a very skewed impression of people's positions on the issues - one that does not even come close to reality.

I can easily see why it gets ignored.

[zipplewrath 1]

Quote

I flew to San Francisco and was heard at a full board meeting. Everyone else there, DZO's included, did exactly the same thing. You can do exactly the same thing.

Or people can sit at home and bitch on the internet. One will get you results, one won't. You decide which works and which doesn't.

Well, you are indulging in the false dicotomy. Thre are other ways to conduct the business of such an organization. My business doesn't conduct meetings the same way today that we did 20 years ago. They have their pluses and minuses but they do encourage wider participation by a greater number of elements.

Quote

Those who participate a lot are heard a lot. Those who write a lot of letters, who call their RD's and talk to them when they have a problem, get heard. Those who don't care, and decide to spend their time at boogies and at DZ parties, get heard less. That's the way it should be, IMO.

I'll avoid the moralizing. The structure of the organization encourages the participation by the narrowest group of members. That's fine if folks thinks that's the way it "should be". But folks shouldn't get to proud of the fact that they participate and others don't when the structure is intended to encourage their participation, and not that of others. Everyone has to prioritize their lives. But those who can and do participate might want to consider for just a moment that they are the vast minority and the majority isn't necessarily thrilled to be excluded, except for their money of course.

[billvon 2,404]

>Thre are other ways to conduct the business of such an organization.

I agree; there are many ways. What way would be "fairer?"

>The structure of the organization encourages the participation by
>the narrowest group of members.

I'd change that to the "most involved" group of members.

But how would you change it?

>But those who can and do participate might want to consider for
>just a moment that they are the vast minority and the majority isn't
>necessarily thrilled to be excluded, except for their money of course.

How are you excluded? What would "include" you more?

I look at it like Nationals. We all pay for Nationals; it's one of USPA's primary functions, setting up a national competititon. Yet not everyone competes, and very few people stand on the podiums at the end of the event.

The reason we all support it is that anyone CAN compete if they so choose, and that's good for the sport. Does holding it in Eloy "exclude" the people in Florida? You might see it that way - but people make the trip from Florida, and often they're standing up on the podium at the end of the event.

Does the fact that 4-way started out belly mean that freeflyers were excluded from sequential events? Again, you might think that way, and many did for a long time. Then a few teams just went to nationals and did 4-way as a head down event - and USPA accommodated them.

I have way more respect for the people who get together, make the trip and just do it than all the people who just complained they were excluded.

[Auryn 0]

Quote

Quote

>>Does not cover damage done to other USPA members property?
That's because back in the day jumpers would land on each other's cars in order to score new paint jobs . . .

NickD

Hi Nick

Is this the exclusion for USPA member liability still valid ?

Did USPA ever raise the policy limits?, I'm guessing it used to be something like $20-$50K . Barely enough back in the day to pay for damage to some DZ property. Like a old cessna 180.

***USPA third-party liability insurance
Third-party liability insurance comes with membership. All USPA individual members, regular or temporary, have coverage for property damage and bodily injury liability insurance. The third-party liability insurance does not cover medical benefits to the member. This insurance is valid for skydives made in accordance with USPA's Basic Safety Requirements and the Federal Aviation Regulations. Most drop zones assure that jumpers have this type of insurance by requiring current USPA membership to jump there. All claims must be brought in the U.S. or Canada. To report a claim, call (866) 585-4590.

R.I.P.

you're 100 percent right. All I've ever seen from their insurance is 3rd party liability claims. Such as when a cutaway baglock goes through somone's windshield that was driving down the road. Or when a lost altimeter goes through their house. Or when I go in through their house. It's all 3rd party, it does not benefit me DIRECTLY. However, it does save me from the liability of a lawsuit. Hence the term LIABILITY insurance.. It's just like liability insurance on your car. Neither you nor the other driver sees the money (third party) but the damages get fixed.

[Auryn 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>>Does not cover damage done to other USPA members property?
That's because back in the day jumpers would land on each other's cars in order to score new paint jobs . . .

NickD

Hi Nick

Is this the exclusion for USPA member liability still valid ?

Did USPA ever raise the policy limits?, I'm guessing it used to be something like $20-$50K . Barely enough back in the day to pay for damage to some DZ property. Like a old cessna 180.

***USPA third-party liability insurance
Third-party liability insurance comes with membership. All USPA individual members, regular or temporary, have coverage for property damage and bodily injury liability insurance. The third-party liability insurance does not cover medical benefits to the member. This insurance is valid for skydives made in accordance with USPA's Basic Safety Requirements and the Federal Aviation Regulations. Most drop zones assure that jumpers have this type of insurance by requiring current USPA membership to jump there. All claims must be brought in the U.S. or Canada. To report a claim, call (866) 585-4590.

[Krip 2]

Quote

However, it does save me from the liability of a lawsuit. Hence the term LIABILITY insurance.. It's just like liability insurance on your car. Neither you nor the other driver sees the money (third party) but the damages get fixed.

I'm not a lawyer or insurance agent but I think the USPA policy (if they pay) is only going to cover your liability up to the policy limit. What ever that is

If the damages exceed the amount that USPA insurance pays the balance may be your responsiabilty unless you don't own anything or the DZO volunteers to pay it.

Think homeowners insurance with a umbrella policy but talk to your insurance agent first, or do whatever floats your boat

[zipplewrath 1]

Quote

What way would be "fairer?"

Oh, I don't claim to be an expert in these things. I'd bet though if I was paid 100+K a year to run such an organization, I could probably find people to advise me on how to help increase participation.

I've seen, and participated in systems where "projects" are formed from amongst a group. Almost anyone can start one, and solicit assistance. Information is collected and redistributed as needed by those involved. Involvement can be controlled by a "gate keeper". The projects "move forward' as certain criteria are met. The important part is that projects get certain kinds of attention based upon various pre-established criteria. Towards the end, projects can't move forward without the acceptance of a large portion of the organization. "Votes" can be solicited at regular intervals to see if there is wide support or acceptance.

And all of this goes on without anyone ever having to leave home. Mail can be used, but I suspect that a large number of people these days could participate through various electronic means.

Quote

>The structure of the organization encourages the participation by
>the narrowest group of members.

I'd change that to the "most involved" group of members.

I understand your point of view, and there is no small amount of semantics in this discussion. However, there is a circular nature to your conclusion. The most involved are favored because the favored are most involved.

Quote

I look at it like Nationals. We all pay for Nationals; it's one of USPA's primary functions, setting up a national competititon. Yet not everyone competes, and very few people stand on the podiums at the end of the event.

I think there is an alternative view of this example however. Nationals used to be held in Oklahoma every year. The rational was that it was "central for everyone". Nice and democratic. But those furthest away "bitched and complained" about the fact that it was always so far away. The sad part was that the complaints were ultimately addressed because the DZO's wanted in on the Nationals action and so the decision was made to move it around. Part of the reasoning was that then folks from various coasts and other parts of the country could participate when it was held nearer to them. I can't help believe it was also that the DZO's go the political clout to "get the money".

Those currently participating and running things are the least likely to "bitch and complain" because it favors them. It also serves them to characterize those who don't favor the current situation as "bitching and complaining". To do almost anything else would mean they'd have to acknowledge that something needed to change.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

What way would be "fairer?"

Oh, I don't claim to be an expert in these things. I'd bet though if I was paid 100+K a year to run such an organization, I could probably find people to advise me on how to help increase participation.

Not that it's relevant, but 100k a year, particularly in the DC area, ain't squat. For 100K a year, you can't afford to find anyone to advise you on the color of coffee cups one should use.

Quote

The most involved are favored because the favored are most involved.

Isn't that how democracy works?

[Krip 2]

Hi DSE

I think Zipple has some good points.

As far as the new executive directorThe gut was in charge of the the very succesful USPA GMDZO program So he gets a pass to the head f the line based on what the peter principal?

Af far as the cost of living in the DC metroplex the only move the new director is going to have to make is from one desk to another. Different position SOS except more $$$.


What me worry

Don't like to read about people complaining about USPA no problemo just "Keep on trucking" dude.

[billvon 2,404]

> I've seen, and participated in systems where "projects" are formed
>from amongst a group. Almost anyone can start one, and solicit
>assistance. Information is collected and redistributed as needed by those
>involved. Involvement can be controlled by a "gate keeper". The projects
>"move forward' as certain criteria are met. The important part is that
>projects get certain kinds of attention based upon various pre-established
>criteria.

Sounds like you just described the landing-pattern BSR working group we set up! It was done 99% via email.

>The most involved are favored because the favored are most involved.

Agreed. And you are free to become the "favored" by being more involved.

>I think there is an alternative view of this example however. Nationals
>used to be held in Oklahoma every year. The rational was that it was
>"central for everyone". Nice and democratic. But those furthest away
>"bitched and complained" about the fact that it was always so far away.

Well, and because of the weather.

>The sad part was that the complaints were ultimately addressed
>because the DZO's wanted in on the Nationals action and so the
>decision was made to move it around. Part of the reasoning was that
>then folks from various coasts and other parts of the country could
>participate when it was held nearer to them. I can't help believe it was
>also that the DZO's go the political clout to "get the money".

It was probably both. A win-win situation so to speak.

>Those currently participating and running things are the least likely to
>"bitch and complain" because it favors them.

?? There is a LOT of bitching and complaining going on within USPA! We did a lot of bitching about canopy patterns. You need only attend any USPA meeting to hear the complaining.

>It also serves them to characterize those who don't favor the current
>situation as "bitching and complaining".

Well, let's put it this way. People who confine their bitching and complaining to dropzone.com will not make any headway changing USPA. That should come as no suprise; if you complained about DZ.com at USPA meetings, they wouldn't do much either, because they have little to do with DZ.com.

[zipplewrath 1]

Quote

Sounds like you just described the landing-pattern BSR working group we set up! It was done 99% via email.

Well, you might be confusing the tool with the process. Unless you had these "gatekeepers" and there was wide distribution of your work which also had "benchmarks" which had to be achieved for support and concurrence, as well as participation in general, it might not be the same thing.

Quote

>The most involved are favored because the favored are most involved.

Agreed. And you are free to become the "favored" by being more involved.

Unfortnately no, it doesn't work that way. The overall process "favors" those with the time and resources to participate in the manner which the process allows. If you aren't one of them, then you will be excluded.

Almost everyone will acknowledge that participation in USPA is relatively low. Some folks like it that way, some make it the fault of the majority of the members. I think all I'm suggesting is that it is due to the structure of the organization itself. Although I understand that some folks think that this is the way it "should be".

[billvon 2,404]

> Well, you might be confusing the tool with the process. Unless you had
>these "gatekeepers" and there was wide distribution of your work which
>also had "benchmarks" which had to be achieved for support and
>concurrence, as well as participation in general, it might not be the same
>thing.

Well, let's see.

I'm not sure we had gatekeepers. We just had us. We did a lot of talking to USPA people, Bryan Burke, Brian Germain etc. I don't know if that makes them "gatekeepers." I didn't notice any gates.

We had wide distribution of our work. We posted it here and emailed it to the above people for feedback. As a result we changed our approach a bit.

We had pretty general participation. I forget how many hundreds of emails and posts we got on the subject, but there was a lot of em.

Not everyone could attend the meeting, so we represented the ones who could not.

>The overall process "favors" those with the time and resources
>to participate in the manner which the process allows. If you aren't one
>of them, then you will be excluded.

That's a tautology. It's like saying that skydiving excludes those who do not have the time or money to skydive. Which it does, but that isn't that startling a conclusion.

Now, you can have ad programs to entice people to skydive, and you can have specials where you pay only $249 for an AFF level 1 if you can get 10 other people or whatever. But at a basic level you cannot make it free and you cannot create the time for them.

Likewise, we can always provide more channels to communicate with USPA, or have a "no jumping, talk to USPA instead" Saturday nationwide. But we cannot make it take zero effort. So the process will always "favor those with the time and resources to participate in the manner which the process allows. And if you aren't one of them, then you will be excluded." No matter how much we change it.

It's not just USPA either. Don't want to take the time to vote in an election? You will be excluded from the democratic process here. Don't want to vote in a shareholder election for a company you have stock in? They will exclude you too. Even though you gave them money.

>Almost everyone will acknowledge that participation in USPA is
>relatively low. Some folks like it that way, some make it the fault of the
>majority of the members. I think all I'm suggesting is that it is due to
>the structure of the organization itself.

Then suggest changes. Again, complaining that you're 'excluded' but making no effort to be included (or even to change the organization to allow you be included) is pointless. Heck, take the time you were going to take to write your next 10 replies here, and call your regional director instead.

[DSE 3]

Quote

The overall process "favors" those with the time and resources to participate in the manner which the process allows. If you aren't one of them, then you will be excluded.

Democracy works the same way; if you don't have time to get off work and vote...then of course those that do have the time are 'favored.'

Quote

Almost everyone will acknowledge that participation in USPA is relatively low. Some folks like it that way, some make it the fault of the majority of the members. I think all I'm suggesting is that it is due to the structure of the organization itself. Although I understand that some folks think that this is the way it "should be".

How would you restructure the organization so that everyone from the smallest DZ to the largest, most active DZ in the world has an equal voice?
Seems everyone has a comment on what's broke, a few have solid comments on how to "fix it." and fewer still make any kind of commentary at all, thus assuring status quo.
Little Red Hen?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

How would you restructure the organization so that everyone from the smallest DZ to the largest, most active DZ in the world has an equal voice?

We are living in the 21st century.... anyone ever heard of the INTERNET


It would be very easy to use technology for a wired USPA meeting with each region holding a regional meeting locally tied into the national meeting. With video conferencing this would get more people involved, and have their voices actually heard....MEMBERS.. not DZO's who write off the trips as a business meeting.

[DSE 3]

I don't disagree....to a point.
>I really couldn't care less about a DZO writing off a trip as a business expense, it's *his* expense, not mine, yours, or USPA's.

>No way could USPA afford to have a mult-point video conference with a camera at every DZ, let alone major DZ's feeing in. Not to mention the latent chaos. I can see a multi-user text input with a streamed cam from a BOD meeting, and agree that something of the sort would be most beneficial. I'm a big proponent of streaming media, but also am aware of the costs associated. Who pays those costs? (BTW, it's already been proposed that the BOD meetings are streamed unidirectionally on a multicast.)

My regional rep is in Colorado. Who pays the costs associated with a few of us traveling to Colorado for our region? Right back to the point of "those who can afford to be involved are involved, those who can't afford it are excluded." Easy for those that live near their regional headquarters, not so easy for those of us that are 12 hours away. Since skydiving isn't my profession, I can't even write off the costs of attending. So it still ain't democracy at it's finest, internet or not.

Just out of curiosity, how many letters have *you* sent to the USPA advocating a position/change?

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Quote

How would you restructure the organization so that everyone from the smallest DZ to the largest, most active DZ in the world has an equal voice?

We are living in the 21st century.... anyone ever heard of the INTERNET


It would be very easy to use technology for a wired USPA meeting with each region holding a regional meeting locally tied into the national meeting. With video conferencing this would get more people involved, and have their voices actually heard....MEMBERS.. not DZO's who write off the trips as a business meeting.

The cost of getting a working system at a BOD mtg would be 'a LOT'.
I am currently building a streaming system for another client and - it ain't cheap or easy to do.
It is doable, but it does cost a lot to do it.

Short of that - maybe USPA members can create emails or YouTube vids to be read/shown at the mtg and have the BOD answer those questions. If CNN can go this way for Presidential debates, maybe USPA can too?

The real problem is that most USPA members do NOT contact the BOD members directly. They may send emails to a HQ addy, but that rarely gets forwarded to the FB, unless its 100% praise on the job HQ is doing or the sender specifically requests that it gets forwarded to the BOD.

Here's what I'll offer to do. I'll bring my video camera and record the GMM. And I'll DL selected youtube or other vids sent to me to run at the GMM to ask the FB or other plenary sections of the BOD mtg. The local vids can be played easily and cheaply.
Live streaming is expensive.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[Krip 2]

Thanks Jan

Love your can do attitude

Thats why we voted for you as a write in on the USPA ballet for BOD. BTW I think I first heard about you and mullins running as write in canidates for the BOD back in the day at that adult only skydiving websight.

Damn thing about new technology, where would we be without Al Gore

You go girl set the bar higher for the nay sayers

Is this the first time anyone at USPA has volunteered to provide this service via the internet

[Zing 2]

Make sure you get the BOD's reaction to the presence of your video camera at the meeting ... before they make you shut it off and use the tape to reapply that gag in your avatar.

Zing Lurks

[Krip 2]

Quote

Make sure you get the BOD's reaction to the presence of your video camera at the meeting ... before they make you shut it off and use the tape to reapply that gag in your avatar.

Zing wheres your faith USPA wouldn't do that.

Of course now that the cats out of the bag a sign will be posted outside the meeting room that all recording devices will have to be left outside before members are allowed to enter.

[Zing 2]

My faith in the USPA expired 33 years ago ... about the same time as my lifetime membership.

Zing Lurks

[DSE 3]

Quote

The cost of getting a working system at a BOD mtg would be 'a LOT'.
I am currently building a streaming system for another client and - it ain't cheap or easy to do.
It is doable, but it does cost a lot to do it.
.

I beg to differ. Getting a multicast stream from a single camera isn't remotely close to "a lot." I could tell you how to do it over the phone. The problem isn't getting the feed to the people, it's getting the "people" feed to the BOD in real time.
That *could* be accomplished by having a specific text forum that would allow up to XXX subscribers to input questions and responses in real-time, and the BOD would need to have a text wrangler to weed the crap from the relevant messages in the text forum.
You have a DV camcorder, you probably have a laptop, I'm certain they have a network connection that is at least 512Kpbs. That's *all* you need to stream it live, aside from a fixed domain presence, which can be temporarily used free of charge from places such as no-ip.com or dyndns.com.

Edited to add: Jan, I own a couple of Play systems and a Tricaster with switcher. I'd be happy to send one of them to you. All you'd need is your camera and network connection, it's a one-two setup. And the Tricaster can set up a chat room for up to 100 participants.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Quote

The cost of getting a working system at a BOD mtg would be 'a LOT'.
I am currently building a streaming system for another client and - it ain't cheap or easy to do.
It is doable, but it does cost a lot to do it.
.

I beg to differ. Getting a multicast stream from a single camera isn't remotely close to "a lot." I could tell you how to do it over the phone. The problem isn't getting the feed to the people, it's getting the "people" feed to the BOD in real time.
That *could* be accomplished by having a specific text forum that would allow up to XXX subscribers to input questions and responses in real-time, and the BOD would need to have a text wrangler to weed the crap from the relevant messages in the text forum.
You have a DV camcorder, you probably have a laptop, I'm certain they have a network connection that is at least 512Kpbs. That's *all* you need to stream it live, aside from a fixed domain presence, which can be temporarily used free of charge from places such as no-ip.com or dyndns.com.

Edited to add: Jan, I own a couple of Play systems and a Tricaster with switcher. I'd be happy to send one of them to you. All you'd need is your camera and network connection, it's a one-two setup. And the Tricaster can set up a chat room for up to 100 participants.

Call me and let me know the specifics.
I sure ain't gonna promise live if I don't know how to do it now or have the equipment.
I can promise delayed broadcast and 'select the most common Qs from members' now.
Under promise and over deliver - that's what they told me.

My other client has a lot more requirements than a simple USPA mtg.

The other thing that I hope I'm proved wrong on is that most members won't do a damn thing.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[zipplewrath 1]

Quote

I'm not sure we had gatekeepers. We just had us. We did a lot of talking to USPA people, Bryan Burke, Brian Germain etc. I don't know if that makes them "gatekeepers." I didn't notice any gates.

No, that wouldn't really count. The system is designed to avoid the "squeaky wheel" phenomenon. Issues and activities are prioritized by the level of participation they can generate. Truth is, priorities are established by a form of participation. "Gate keepers" are the folks that ensure that various disciplines or sectors are involved. They involve reviews to ensure that standard criteria for elevation are met. Certain things wouldn't even be brought to a vote without meeting some criteria of participation and distribution.

Quote

Likewise, we can always provide more channels to communicate with USPA, or have a "no jumping, talk to USPA instead" Saturday nationwide. But we cannot make it take zero effort. So the process will always "favor those with the time and resources to participate in the manner which the process allows. And if you aren't one of them, then you will be excluded." No matter how much we change it.

Well the point however is that the current system makes no incentive for generating wide consensus, nor for large participation. Quite the opposite, there is a significant incentive to "fly under the radar". You collect a group of like minded people, including a few folks on key committees and move forward without much notice to anyone at all. You get votes scheduled "strategically" including delaying them to another meeting if it will help exclude a number of people who may vote "against" your position. Any suggestions for modification can be met with "it's a bit late for these now, you should have been involved earlier". Of course there was no obligation to GET these people invovled earlier.

A modified system would encourage and demand wider participation. Efforts couldn't move forward nor be brought up for votes unless a wide participation could be established. Ultimately this means that the organization would remain focused upon those issues of wide concern and interest.

Quote

Again, complaining that you're 'excluded' but making no effort to be included (or even to change the organization to allow you be included) is pointless. Heck, take the time you were going to take to write your next 10 replies here, and call your regional director instead.

Building consensus is part of a larger and more inclusive organization. That can be done in part at the DZ campfire or DZ.com. I realize that the current system has no interest in large participation nor in inclusiveness but actually seeks to favor a small minority which is in a position to be included. Many believe that it is the way it "should be". With that mind set, I do understand that anyone who actually tries to encourage and expand participation will probably be seen as someone who "just bitches and moans".

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

I do understand that anyone who actually tries to encourage and expand participation will probably be seen as someone who "just bitches and moans".

I don't bitch and moan, I stir the pot.