USPA election candidate opinions

[Michele 1]

Quote

And your statements are a testament to the level of intelligent discussion you are capable of. As they are in a rather public place, it at least gives people a good view into the personalities and skills of those people running for the BOD.

And, I might add, the forthrightness of some of them, as well. There have been innumerable requests for the original candidate statement from Treetop, and it has yet to be submitted. Instead, we have a litigious individual screaming for his point to be heard and acknowledged, but from his statements previously, it would be clear to any attorney that he is bent on pure provocation and not resolution. There can be good provocation - inasmuch as it can stimulate someone to think and to question - but this is not, imho, what was done, if one takes into consideration a previously disclosed "disclaimer" that can be found in more that one spot. At this point, one can only think of spoiled children and stomping feet.

At least Buzz used the opportunity he was given by this website to further discussion, assess policies, and learn what the membership is thinking (whether or not I personally agreed or not is moot). Others have simply alienated the constituency.

'Tis a great pity that we still have not seen something which could've proved a position, and perhaps stimulated conversation in a good direction. Oh well, methinks the whipping of a dead horse is fruitless.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Look into handing off the nationals to the FSL.

I actually liked some of your other ideas, but this one? Y'all gots ta be kiddin'. Right?

The USPA is the FAI governing body in the USA. To hand the Nationals over to the FSL just doesn't make sense.

Nationals is, for all practical purposes, outsourced already. Running under tha auspices of a regional league would devalue its "National" status. Besides, Nationals involves a lot more than FS.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

One of the guys I know recently took the course and failed despite the fact that he had been doing reall AFF's for years and finally just wanted the rating. He's went through the bad things in real life with students but since he did'nt play the games the course director wanted played he failed the course. How many students are going to make a break for the door as soon as you drop grips to take the exit grip? Stupid stuff like that needs to be eliminated. Also having a evaluator closer would help lower the cost to the canidates. An instructor per region would be a good start, one per state would be ideal, but that would delute the standerds too much.

That's not about politics, it's about real life and passing the real life course. If he didn't play those games as you refer to them then the evaluator has no idea HOW he'll react, or that he is capable of reacting when it happens. They didn't just make that stuff up, it's all happened, and it's likely to continue happening. That's not politics, that's proving that you're paying attention and have what it takes to complete the course. I hate to say it, but your friend should have taken the course more seriously. Sounds to me as if he went there with a bad attitude and that attitude helped him to fail the course. Too bad.

Quote

Quick question... how much extra do the USPA members in Alaska and Hawaii have to pay just to get a course? There is a lot in flying an evaluator from FL to Hawaii for 10 days and paying the expences. Why can't there be some one in those remote states that can offer the course for no travel fee?

What's preventing anyone in Alaska or Hawaii from getting their I/E ticket, that's all that's needed, isn't it?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

...the Truth is always the Truth.

(don't you think this is a bit heavy for a skydiving forum, even for you? )

I'm always amazed by those who claim to know the "truth". No theory of truth can avoid a paradox if it contains its own concept of truth. Try to describe truth using a formal language and you will always be able to reason your way to a contradiction.

Are you referring to Goedel's Theorems?

GT1: "Any consistent formal theory of mathematics must contain undecideable propositions"

and

GT3: "No formal system of mathematics can be both consistent and complete"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhreeZone 15]

IE tickets are given out from the BOD/ ST committee and thats about it. Plus the ST committee limits the number that are allowed. A IE is currently on the BOD and a member of that committee...

And funny thing is this same person that failed is a Coach Course director so I think he's got a good altitude about learing new things and can play the games with the best of them.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,400]

>One of the guys I know recently took the course and failed despite
> the fact that he had been doing reall AFF's for years and finally just
> wanted the rating.

You can do dozens of AFF's with no fatalities even if you're not rated; that does not mean you're a competent AFF instructor. I'd be willing to bet than anyone with 100 jumps could do a RS Level I with about ten minutes of training.

>He's went through the bad things in real life with students but since
> he did'nt play the games the course director wanted played he failed
> the course.

Which is exactly how it should be. Pilots are trained to deal with an engine out combined with an approach to minimums at an airport with no ILS; they actually practice such things in simulators, even though the odds are against them ever having to do that. Skydiving is no different.

>How many students are going to make a break for the door as soon
> as you drop grips to take the exit grip?

It only takes one, and yes, it's happened to me (although I never let go.)

>Stupid stuff like that needs to be eliminated.

I think 'stupid stuff' like that should be used, since it happens in real life. AFF is one of the safest ways to learn to skydive _because_ the course is tough; making it easier will produce, on average, less talented instructors, and that's not a good thing.

[sangiro 4]

Quote

Are you referring to Goedel's Theorems?

GT1: "Any consistent formal theory of mathematics must contain undecideable propositions"

and

GT3: "No formal system of mathematics can be both consistent and complete"

The comment about "truth containing its own concept of truth" is indeed Goedel (Gödel). Thanks for posting that. I haven't thought about those for a while.
The reference to the problem with language has it's roots in Tarski's Semantic Theory. There are obviously loads of philosophical schools when it comes to truth. There are 2 generally accepted limitations on truth and falsehood. Very binary, and very full of holes! These are also applied to thinking about logic.

1) Law of the Excluded Middle (Every proposition is true or false.)
2) Law of Non-contradiction (No proposition is both true and false.)

There's a lot of back and forth about a third constraint "that a proposition never changes its truth-value in space or time" Most people would like to believe that truth is binary. It is for you, the person who believes. I think that's a necessary organizing force in society but doesn't say much about the nature of truth.

Three Valued Logic ignores to the Law of the Excluded Middle and allows for true, false and undecided. Fuzzy Logic on the other hand allows for "degrees" of true and false. Still only a two-valued truth but includes all the gray between 0 and 1 as possible answers.

When it comes to something as objective as an opinion about the value of someone's words and even more so when it includes a moral, ethical, or aesthetic value (such as "you are all hypocrites") then it moves beyond fuzzy logic! It is debatable whether this is even a proposition to start off with or just a declarative sentence (back to language!) and therefore whether it is at all possible to corner the "truth" in that.

Ok - I'll stop ranting about this now so the skydiving discussion can continue.

Safe swoops
Sangiro

[markbaur 0]

I think you've confused Course Directors with Instructor-Examiners. I/E tickets are not given out. They are earned. There is a proficiency card, and a written test. There is no limit on the number of I/Es, and being an I/E is not a Course Director prerequisite.

I agree that folks should not appoint themselves, and I think all involved in that situation regret not having been more transparent about their actions (though I'm also sure that others will think their actions were transparent enough!)

To be a Coach Course Director, you need an Instructor rating, including air skills, plus some other small stuff. The air skills (present a stable target, stay close enough to tell what the student is doing) are not comparable to what a successful AFF candidate needs.

We've diverged from the original thread, so perhaps the moderator could snip this, and move it to Safety & Training.

Mark

[winsor 186]

Quote

>Interesting that not one of the chumps who thought they had a go at me had any positive input as to how we should change USPA.

What are YOUR plans on how to change the USPA? All I've heard is "give the USPA back to the fun jumpers" and Do away with the GM program".

How? How do you propose to make up the income that will be lost from the elimination of the GM program and the loss of jumpers that don't renew since they don't have to have membership to jump anymore? What is involved in giving it back to the fun jumpers? Elimination of compititions, more comps? Elmination of the student program? How and what will YOU do to change the USPA?

I happen to be a "fun jumper," but understand that the skydiving environment that I find optimal is one of symbiosis, encompassing the high-investment operations and pushing-the-envelope champions as well as the C-182 DZ and the jumper looking forward to the A license.

I want to see the organization focused on the skills that help keep us alive first and foremost. This includes input from any discipline that can improve safety - and they all can - with an emphasis on learning to fly the parachute safely to the ground in a wide range of conditions. CRW should be strongly encouraged, if not mandatory.

I have other ideas, and happily adopt those of other people as well that promise to improve our likelihood of survival while having a great time.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

If you are thinking NSL instead of the FSL that might be different. Also on the move if the USPA can find a preexisting building further out of the city for less money I think that the move option still needs considered. Its going to be hard to thin down the USPA staff since they are almost under staffed as is.

Yes I did mean NSL. Yes I believe there are a lot better locations than DC, or as you suggest further out but in the DC location. Perhaps if we no longer reqired uspa membership then the current numbers of members would be reduced and staffing would not be so swamped and the current building would do.

Does anyone think it's foolish to increase cost when we are running in the Red?

[PhreeZone 15]

I'm sorry Marc, I was wrong in that one. I've not even close to taking the AFF stuff so I've only looked into whats hit the electronic fourms.

Can an IE teach a course anywhere they want to or is that CD territory? I take it IE's are able to give airskill tests?


Back to the original topic and a side brach of Winsors post on making things more safe. Would any canidate support restrictions on camera jumps? Something like you have to have a C licence under the new requirements. Add it on as a privlage of the new licence?

Also a question that some one gave to me... would you support drug testing of anyone that the USPA decides to send and represent to the World meets?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

We've diverged from the original thread, so perhaps the moderator could snip this, and move it to Safety & Training.

I disagree, we need to see where the candidates stands on expanding the aff program.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

>

snip

I want to see the organization focused on the skills that help keep us alive first and foremost. This includes input from any discipline that can improve safety - and they all can - with an emphasis on learning to fly the parachute safely to the ground in a wide range of conditions. CRW should be strongly encouraged, if not mandatory.

Where would you encourage/require CRW? For the A license? D license? Do you believe the current licensing criteria are appropriate for the times?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[alan 1]

Quote

someone

You can use my name. It is Alan.

Quote

decided to wash his dirty laundry in public.

My dirty laundry? I am of the opinion that it is your dirty laundry........must have been too close to home. You cleaned it very nicely.

alan

[sangiro 4]

Alan - I sent you a PM.

Safe swoops
Sangiro

[winsor 186]

Quote

I'm sorry Marc, I was wrong in that one. I've not even close to taking the AFF stuff so I've only looked into whats hit the electronic fourms.

Can an IE teach a course anywhere they want to or is that CD territory? I take it IE's are able to give airskill tests?


Back to the original topic and a side brach of Winsors post on making things more safe. Would any canidate support restrictions on camera jumps? Something like you have to have a C licence under the new requirements. Add it on as a privlage of the new licence?

Also a question that some one gave to me... would you support drug testing of anyone that the USPA decides to send and represent to the World meets?

I like the idea of everyone getting to the ground in one piece, but I don't think that further regulations are the way to do that. You might as well pass a rule forbidding injury or death and be done with it.

I do recommend that anyone considering jumping camera speak with people who have done it for a while, and to research the instances where people have died with a camera on their head. It becomes clear that it isn't just another skydive, and it isn't what you do if your skill suck enough that it's the only way to jump with a group.

I also think subjecting team members to a whiz quiz is of negative net value. If there are rules forbidding performance-enhancing substances and you have to rule out their use, then there is a basis. I have yet to hear anyone complain that the competition did better because they were using steroids or cocaine or drinking a better quality of beer, so I think testing causes more problems than it might solve.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>

snip

I want to see the organization focused on the skills that help keep us alive first and foremost. This includes input from any discipline that can improve safety - and they all can - with an emphasis on learning to fly the parachute safely to the ground in a wide range of conditions. CRW should be strongly encouraged, if not mandatory.

Where would you encourage/require CRW? For the A license? D license? Do you believe the current licensing criteria are appropriate for the times?

The A license level is where I suggest people get their first experience flying canopies in close proximity.

It's been a while since I reviewed the material for any of the licenses, and it has been just about as long since I did a Style Series.

I think the skills put forth in the ISP are just hunky-dory, so far as I have reviewed them. I think the means of implementation suggests whoever wrote them makes a living as an instructor and was at least as focused on job security as ensuring quality of the educational process.


Blue skies,

Winsor

• Quote

[billvon 2,400]

>We've diverged from the original thread, so perhaps the moderator
> could snip this, and move it to Safety & Training.

There is quite a bit of good input being given by a few BOD candidates, so this seems like a good place for this discussion (for now, at least.)

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

>We've diverged from the original thread, so perhaps the moderator
> could snip this, and move it to Safety & Training.

There is quite a bit of good input being given by a few BOD candidates, so this seems like a good place for this discussion (for now, at least.)

There are a lot of jumpers who do not know the candidates personally and have not been exposed to the opinions of the BoD candidates. Both the negative and positive posts have provided insights into the thoughts of the candidates. The posts have proven invaluable to other non-posting readers who have followed the thread also.

I have spoken to readers offline who have been able to make decisions based on the content of this thread. It hasn't been always pretty, but sometimes that was the informative part.

[markbaur 0]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. I do think that getting candidate info is important, but it seemed as though the thread had branched, and that the AFF Certification Course stuff might be better discussed in another forum. I stand corrected.

One of the problems we have with rating courses is inadequate publicity -- compare the listing in the current Parachutist with what is on the web site. I'd like to hear comments from prospective Board members on what they'd do about it.

Mark

[happythoughts 0]

Didn't mean to sound like I was referring to your comments. I was making a general statement about the thread and some previous posts, not just the AFF part of it. I was more or less responding to BillVon as to the overall value of the thread. Wasn't directing anything towards you personally.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

One of the problems we have with rating courses is inadequate publicity -- compare the listing in the current Parachutist with what is on the web site. I'd like to hear comments from prospective Board members on what they'd do about it.

I'm not a candidate, but I'll offer a thought. Those courses are partially a member benefit, but they also benefit the local dropzones. I'd like regional directors to be more tuned into how many courses are offered in their regions and at what dropzones, then push for a course when DZ's or members feel the need. That may mean advocating at the USPA level, or encouraging a DZ with the facility and air support to hold a course. Regional directors can probably better use their S&TA's for communication with regard to that function. Likewise, the USPA monthly S&TA and DZO newsletters should be listing courses and promoting them more aggressively.

I'd also like DZO's to be organizing courses on their own. If a DZO runs a small dropzone he probably won't have a need for a course, but several small DZ's may have that need, and certainly the larger DZ's can be a source of candidates and facility when a local need has been established. DZO's should be working together to pool resources and coordinate needs in this area. Creating an adequate supply of AFF instructors helps create happy customers and AFF graduates, and that benefits the entire industry.

-tom buchanan

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Quote

One of the problems we have with rating courses is inadequate publicity -- compare the listing in the current Parachutist with what is on the web site. I'd like to hear comments from prospective Board members on what they'd do about it.

I'm not a candidate, but I'll offer a thought. Those courses are partially a member benefit,


-tom buchanan

I have to strongly disagree with you here. This is a MEMBER Benefit, not partial, not sudo, sorta, or kinda.

If this is a group membership benefit, then why don't they pitch in on the costs for the candidates? Let's face it, its not cheap getting an AFF rating.

The dz makes plenty of money off the jumps and the future revenue they can make by having rated instructors.

I really hate this politic stuff but I've fought this battle with the USPA on who can host, who can't, etc. etc. Yeah, we got our course, but I had to pay the course fees, pay for plane tickets to the BOD meeting, pay for a hotel at the BOD meeting, pay for a car at the BOD meeting and miss a beautiful summer weekend of jumping.

Then they changed it again.

judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[nws01 0]

Tony Thacker at Skydive Raeford has my vote. Awesome guy and runs a great dropzone.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Tony Thacker at Skydive Raeford has my vote. Awesome guy and runs a great dropzone.

I'll second that vote. Tony was great as a Meet Director for Nationals. When I was working as Air Boss during the event he was easy to work with and wanted only the best product for the competitors.

Chris Schindler