Ron

13 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

You are absolutely correct that I haven't spent much time at the range, truly it just doesn't make sense or seem fun to me. What do you do at the range that's not same-o same-o? Ricochet accuracy? You do have me on the Pitts, though.

You do things like this... Every station is a different course of fire.  

And some people don't see the point in jumping out of an airplane... If you heard someone say, "I mean all you do is fall and open a parachute before you die" would you consider them knowledgeable about skydiving? 

 

On 1/8/2023 at 3:16 PM, JoeWeber said:

Well, since I crashed I think motor sports are stupid, too. Besides, you can sit on your porch and watch cars go by for free and drink good booze instead of racetrack plonk. You must have never flown a variety of cool aircraft if you would analogize aviation to hitting a bongo drum the same way, again and again, which is what target practice is more akin to.

You must have not spent many days at the range if you think that is all it is.... And I've flown some pretty cool aircraft, own a Pitts... And I still go to the range from time to time. I certainly do more than "hit a bongo drum the same way"...

Quote

After opening, they will still need an anticipated $300,000 to $400,000 in donations to stay open.

The hope is that after the USPA agreed to funding, that other national associations would follow.

Thanks Rich.... And this is the issue, they KNOW that it will not be self supporting. At least one Ambassador has stated he wants more money from the USPA.

Quote

We could start an entire thread on what difficulties our sport currently faces, and what is coming down the road to affect skydiving in the USA. Unfortunately, I think we’re going to need that money sooner than later.

Exactly. This is not about a museum, this is about giving money to a private organization with a questionable plan (or at least a plan that seems poor because of a lack of communication). And that money we sure as hell could use in other areas that are DIRECTLY in line with the charter of the USPA, like helping our teams or airport defense.

Quote

I’m “attacking” people that are blatantly ignorant about the subject.

People YOU claim are ignorant about the subject... While you yourself admit to be ignorant on the subject, but defend it. You just broke the irony meter.

Like I said, people bring valid complaints and instead of discussing the issue they brought, you insult them. You even admit you are doing it.

Discussing the topic with you is a waste of time, you only insult those you disagree with and avoid the actual issues - Out.

peek

***I asked one of the "Ambassadors" and they said "If you wanted information, you should have traveled to Zhills and asked about it there during the event."

Now who would that be?

Bob Lewis.
Here is that thread: https://www.facebook.com/rook.nelson/posts/10156865826656532?comment_id=10156866132706532

Bold by me....

Quote

Thank you. I will. I will get the numbers, making sure to be accurate and honest. At this point, and without adequate research, I would say that the Ottley family contributions, office space and an original donation was the only financial help from USPA. I will give you (you) the exact numbers by mid-week.......So, again, the people who are trying to say that somehow this museum is mistake and a fiscal weight around USPA's neck are being disingenuous or are being willfully ignorant.

That was six weeks ago and not a single set of numbers from him.

And from Bob:

Quote

As far as more funding in the future, I certainly hope so; a mutually beneficial relationship between the International Skydiving Museum & Hall of Fame and the entire sport is the goal

So we have an "ambassador" flat out saying he hopes more money comes from the USPA.

His last reply:

Quote

I suggest you go to the Museum's events. Better yet, educate yourself. I will not continue to argue with someone who distorts what I say and hides their agenda.
You asked questions, I tried to answer but you refuse to learn and consider my exasperation as a refusal to debate this very important project. You cannot learn if you refuse to listen, repeat the same questions and construct rhetorical traps. I will be glad to talk with you or get you the information that you claim is being hidden but one-upsmanship is not a game that I have neither the time nor the tolerance. "It is easy to throw mud at the clowns in the parade but not to march with the band.

Basically, a "ambassador" insulting people, saying he hopes the USPA provides more funding, that he would provide information and didn't, and that said if I wanted information I would have to "educate myself".... But not providing the information he said he would supply.

Hard to educate yourself when the people who claim to know the answers and say they will provide them refuse to provide them.

LeeroyJenkins

***

Quote

I do not know much about the particular project

Some of us do.

***That lack of information does not mean there is a problem, it just means the information isn't public.

Which most of us would not care about if we were not paying for it, and potentially on the hook for paying more for it in the future.

If there is not information.... Then it IS a failure of the museum to communicate to gather support. I asked one of the "Ambassadors" and they said "If you wanted information, you should have traveled to Zhills and asked about it there during the event." So if I wanted information, I had to travel and pay to attend one of their events?

Again, if I was not paying for it.... I'd actually agree with him. But since they are getting USPA membership dollars, then I say the USPA members should be informed and not blown off.

Quote

I do however know about project management and non-profits.

You are not the only one with project management experience.


I’ve never seen so many people get this upset over spilled milk.

I have never seen someone this defensive over spilled milk. People have brought valid concerns about membership funds being wasted and all you have done is attack them for it.

Quote

I do not know much about the particular project

Some of us do.

Quote

That lack of information does not mean there is a problem, it just means the information isn't public.

Which most of us would not care about if we were not paying for it, and potentially on the hook for paying more for it in the future.

If there is not information.... Then it IS a failure of the museum to communicate to gather support. I asked one of the "Ambassadors" and they said "If you wanted information, you should have traveled to Zhills and asked about it there during the event." So if I wanted information, I had to travel and pay to attend one of their events?

Again, if I was not paying for it.... I'd actually agree with him. But since they are getting USPA membership dollars, then I say the USPA members should be informed and not blown off.

Quote

I do however know about project management and non-profits.

You are not the only one with project management experience.

Quote

I am a much newer member of USPA and do not know the history; a quick search on the web does not turn up anything that old about it. Maybe someone could post a quick summary on the history and when it really started? (If it was really 40 years ago--I would tend to think it's not going to happen--

Look at the start date here: http://apps.sos.wv.gov/business/charities/detail.aspx?OrgID=6786

01/01/1972

Or here: http://skydivingmuseum.org/trustees
"Established the American Museum of Sport Parachuting and Air Safety in 1972 as a not-for-profit corporation, which is now the International Skydiving Museum & Hall of Fame"

Or you could look at this: http://www.skyxtreme.com/archive/march2000/features.html

"The AMSPAS, incorporated in 1986 as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit association"

Here is a thread from 2003: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=333816;search_string=Museum;#333816

The Hall of Fame was started in 2010

So it was started in 1972. The name changed in 1986. Then it was added to in 2010.

Few other details. It lists the primary address as the USPA HQ.
The mailing address seems to be a UPS store in Port Orange FL... Next to Spruce Creek SCUBA. Actually been there, not even an office, just a UPS store. https://www.corporationwiki.com/p/2zee77/international-skydiving-museum-hall-of-fame-corporation


Bill Ottley donated money in 1972. The USPA and the PIA gave them (IIRC) 25K each as seed money in 1986. The USPA has given it 300K dollars in support OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=150716;


They have been talking about the "Experience" for 10 years: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3310144;search_string=USPA%20Museum;#3310144

It was supposed to be next to the USPA... Didn't happen. Now it is supposed to be next to a tunnel... That does not yet have plans to be built.

LeeroyJenkins

Ron,

Can you explain why a museum is a bad thing for the sport of skydiving?

Never said it was. I said it was not something the USPA should be funding.

I am not alone in that thought: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=334066#334066

That whole thread actually has some really good points.

This whole thing goes back to before 2002. The PIA and the USPA each gave matching grants of 25K to the "The American Museum of Sport Parachuting." The American Museum of Sport Parachuting was established in *1986*.

And as of 2018, we still have no museum. I have friends that bought "bricks" for the museum. The museum has still not been built.

I have no issue at all with a museum. I just don't want the USPA to waste money on it. I'd rather the USPA work on airport access issues and lobbying efforts to support skydiving. Maybe focus on better student programs, better gear, support the National teams, ensure the insurance is still available.

Here is a thought, maybe spend some money on jump pilot training? Maybe work on reducing these types of accidents: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4895519;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

I think if a private entity wants to run a museum for..... Well, anything, they should do whatever they want. If you want to spend membership money on it, then you should ask the membership.

Not a difficult concept.

mark

*********failure of TSO'd rigs to open in time

What evidence do you have of rigs not opening in time?

See post #4

That's it?

--Mark

It was enough for the USPA to ask the PIA to do a study.

mark

***failure of TSO'd rigs to open in time

What evidence do you have of rigs not opening in time?

--Mark

See post #4

chuckakers

I sometimes try to address stuff I see on these forums that I believe to be off base,.... I have learned that I can not convince those whose minds are already made up that there is any other truth beyond that which they have convinced themselves of.

Huh, exact same thing I am feeling.

Quote

I will reserve my energy for more positive efforts to serve our members.

Maybe you should have the USPA look into failure of TSO'd rigs to open in time? Maybe you should ask why the USPA is buying into a museum with general funds from the membership? Maybe look into making the Group Member program actually something useful or try to get rid of it.

Or you could just continue to claim you personally know nothing of the issues (in spite of you positing on the topics before).

Quote

That part is largely untrue. They did not raise the floor...

Oh, so my comment was actually 100% true.

They did release a report.... https://www.pia.com/images/rocketlauncher/PDF/TECHNICAL_REPORTS/PIA-TR-401LowReserveOpeningInvestigationReport91316.pdf

It took 6 years and they claimed raising pull altitudes would be a good idea. Of course, this didn't solve the RIG issue. And the USPA raised the altitude two or three years prior claiming it was to allow AAD manufacturers to increase activation altitudes.... That has yet to happen.

So no real report on the RIG issue.

Quote

As I stated, I have been on the board for 3 years and in that time I have not seen an example of the organization favoring or protecting manufacturers over members

Well, you didn't add IN THAT TIME till now. But in any case, I have provided an example that I knew about, and I was not even on the BOD... I'll mention that YOU also posted in that very thread. So you knew about the issue at one time... I think you were post #39.

Quote

Take note that the person making claims in that thread is (or was) a manufacturer, and thus can not be expected to be impartial when opining.

Should I also take note that you are on the BOD, and thus can not be expected to be impartial when opining?

Quote

Raising the minimum was long overdue without respect to any problems with rigs.

And yet we still have not solved the rig issue. And like I said, you see any older AAD's now made with higher opening altitudes?

Quote

Also consider that the 2,500 foot minimum opening altitude BSR can be waived.....

Strawman. My point was the USPA instead of really looking into the issue of TSO'd rigs no longer working as the original TSO required, just caved and raised pull altitudes.... Claiming it was to allow higher AAD activation, yet I have not seen CYPRES or VIGIL raise activation altitudes.

I see no reason to believe that the USPA has not put other interests over the general membership... Another example?

https://skydiveuspa.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/refocusing-the-u-s-parachute-team-sponsorship-program/

"What we weren’t able to predict was the opposition of some of our members to the idea. Some saw that the USPA would be helping the U.S. Team compete with demo teams for air show business."

Then we can add in the current museum debacle.

So when a guy says he has seen the USPA amend reports to protect manufacturers.... I can believe it.

You could start here: http://www.dropzone.com/forum/Skydiving_C1/General_Skydiving_Discussions_F18/USPA_and_PIA_Issue_Joint_Skydiver_Advisory_P3833943

In particular, John Sherman's response (post #2)

One of the things asked for in the advisory was for the PIA to "to collect and review relevant data, to work within the industry in order to identify any trends or specific causes and to make any relevant recommendations. "


Read post #11...

From the advisory "Research shows that in the past 10 years there has been about one fatality per year in the U.S. in which, for uncertain reasons, the jumpers struck the ground without a fully functional reserve parachute after apparent reserve activation at a sufficient altitude. Although most of these incidents occurred after the automatic activation device (AAD) initiated reserve deployment, others occurred after a manual reserve ripcord pull or activation by a reserve static line (RSL)."

From John, "The AAD's all show firing at 750+/- and the reserve didn't work. "

And might want to read post #70.

This might provide some reading: https://skydiveuspa.wordpress.com/category/uspa/

"Finally, USPA isn’t ignoring the tight-rig issue. Back in 2010, USPA formally asked the Parachute Industry Association to research the accidents in which the container design may have infringed on reserve deployment. The PIA committee tasked to do so is also setting up testing protocols to try to identify rig designs and components that have the potential to inhibit reserve deployment. We continue to monitor PIA’s progress and look forward to seeing continued improvement in rig design."

So, ever see that report?

"And yes, there had been discussions with the AAD manufacturers about a series of too-low (i.e. fatal) reserve deployments following proper AAD activations. With a BSR allowing a 2,000-foot main deployment, the AAD manufacturers did not feel that enough buffer existed for them to raise their baseline activation altitude. Now, a 2,500-foot main deployment BSR provides them that opportunity."

So some rigs were now having a problem opening after an AAD fire. Instead of really looking at the rigs, the USPA caved to the manufacturers and raised pull altitudes so AAD's could fire higher and help cover up the problem with tight rigs.

You see any higher AAD activation standards?

Again, I ask... Ever see that report from the PIA? The USPA asked for it in 2010. This was released in 2016 https://www.pia.com/images/rocketlauncher/PDF/TECHNICAL_REPORTS/PIA-TR-401LowReserveOpeningInvestigationReport91316.pdf

In it, the PIA basically said it could not find anything, but instead just asked for higher pull altitudes so AAD's could fire higher.

It also states, "Over the last six (6) years of discussion, committee deliberation, bench testing,
development of customized load sensors, live
testing and the combined efforts of some of
the brightest contributors to our industry in
modern times, the Committee Members have
yet to locate evidence that supports or indicates a systemic or specific equipment design
issue."

So we had a rash of "new" rigs changed under the same TSO they were originally certified under over time (rumor is that the Vector Micron is STILL under the old Wonderhog TSO) that before didn't have low activation issues... But now do. The USPA asked the PIA to look into it, and before the PIA report came out, the USPA raised pull altitudes.... Just like the PIA suggested, but two or three YEARS before they suggested it.

You see anything in that report about looking into container design some more? I mean it goes on about body position and training, but NOT rig design?

USPA changing rules to make AAD and rig makers happy and not actually holding the rig manufactures to the standard.

Hey, John, you ever see a final report from the USPA or PIA?

BarryWilliams

I was quite surprised to read the report published by the USPA that removed pertinent details that most certainly save a number of lives of USPA members. I can only imagine that the details omitted in the report were to protect the interests of a particular manufacturer for a known issue when the details that were submitted didn't line up with the narrative they wanted to put out.

Yep.... The USPA protecting manufacturers over members.

Quitting is doing something... You may not like it, but that does not change that it is an action.

Facts matter. Quitting an organization you think does not respect you IS an action.

And I am not going to get dragged into this yet again. I tried to change things, I finally did the one action I had left. I ran for the BOD, I voted for 20 years, I wrote and called my BOD reps, I have had face to face chats with my BOD reps, I have exchanged emails, phone calls, texts, PM’s....

It has become clear to me, that the BOD cares more for UPT and a museum than the general membership.

So why in the hell would I stay a member?

And I have the right to express an opinion and don’t really care if you don’t like it.....

End of message.

Once again... I didn't think it was OK to play the poster? Normally a MOD would do something about it, I guess if a MOD does it it is fine?

Quote

And now you've quit USPA

Why would you support an organization that ignores you? I guess then that you are a member of the NRA? I mean you don't agree with what they are doing, but if you don't join up but say you don't like them, then you are just a complainer?

Quote

while simultaneously telling everyone you won't do anything about it.

I DID something about it.... I stopped supporting an organization that does not support me instead of rewarding it for bad behavior.

That is not "not doing anything about it"....

3331

Don’t let the USPA BOD waste anymore of your money on donations to the International Skydiving Museum (boondoggle) in Orlando.

Here is the vote right from the BOD meeting, this is available to all USPA Members right here https://uspa.org/BOD . Look up USPA Meeting Minutes, BOD 2018 Summer Meeting (Jul 2018) and scroll down to Motion 14, what you will see is attached.

Thank you, I was trying to find this.

Conversations with Mcgowan and he has said he voted for it, but now considers that vote a mistake and will vote against it if it comes up again.

I was going to email the BOD... Then just quit the USPA and decided to fly more. So no point in me knowing who voted for what, they don't give a damn what the membership wants anyway.

DanG

And the loudest bitchers don't have any actual proposals to fix the problems they perceive.

Well, that is just false. I have provided several suggestions. I threw my name in the hat for an open RD position (The BOD selected a industry employee). I have been a co-signer on at least two proposals sent to the USPA. I fought against the USPA creating a USPA sanctioned demo team that would compete against USPA members (successfully). I have been fighting against the USPA giving away membership funds for a museum (which when this whole thing started I was one of the vocal ones telling the USPA NOT to get involved). I tried to hold the USPA to the fire when it was found that TSO'd rigs were NOT opening in time (look up the double fatality in ZHills student and instructor, both with AAD's)... USPA "asked" the PIA to look into it, and then dropped it. I bitched about the BOD caving into UPT's desire to increase opening altitudes (and had a BOD member get in my face and physically threaten me).

So your claim is not factual.... Unless you don't put me in the "loudest bitchers" category.

Quote

I don't really care if you are done with me. The only reason I bother to post about this is so that others can understand just how weak your reasoning is.

So no. You are not a USPA member. You do not work at a USPA GMDZ. Yet, you claim to be an expert on why US DZO's join the USPA.

Quote

If you know some that say they need "USPA for advertising", they probably just got sick and tired of listening to you complain about needing a membership and they told you that to make you go away.

Yep, more personal crap..... That IS all you can bring... Goodbye.

Anyone know if I can block a person so I don't even see them? Asking for a friend.

Quote

Really wish I could find the one where you used the terms promise or guarantee. Seems like it was part of a deleted comment of yours.

Yep, like I said... Strawmen. And you will notice in the other quotes I use quotation marks.

And your edit.... that the best you have?

Might want to read the pledge the DZO is supposed to sign:
https://uspa.org/Portals/0/files/Man_GM.pdf

"As a person with operational control, I pledge to:"

That is a promise. And we have clear evidence that the USPA does not hold the DZO to it, but we only have that proof and knowledge because we have been in the sport for a while. Heck, even some jumpers in this thread think a GM DZ is safer.

You have nothing but strawmen. I should have stopped wasting my time a while ago, but I kept hoping you would bring something of substance.... You didn't.

As obelixtim said... It is pretty clear. You just are arguing to argue at this point. You have fun with that.

Quote

I am a recovering DZO, however...

GREAT!!!! A fantastic person to get an opinion on the topic.

Quote

I can tell you that airport sponsors and the FAA FSDO look favorably upon a Group Member DZ in many cases.

OK so the appearance of safe.... Now as a DZO, did being a GM DZ make you act any safer? Was your DZ safer because you were a GM?