zipplewrath

Skydiving: you could die having this much fun. You will die, you could die skydiving!

However, dropzone.com can be an easy place to figure out what folks actually want to do prior to approaching USPA more formally. Of course someone might complain about the process. They'd probably do better to participate in it than just complain.

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. From my personal experience, little actually gets accomplished at meetings, especially ones as large as a membership meeting. Such meetings are predominately for final votes and major decisions. In an inclusive structure, proposals wouldn't even be eligible for consideration at such meetings without establishing a fairly wide scope of consensus and participation. Tools such as the internet would be used to develop and document the level of participation and consensus. It would be used to establish over arching priorities and doctrines. Participation (and the encouragement thereof) would be the incentive for moving projects forward. No one person, or region, or committee could move projects forward without demonstrating appropriate levels of participation and concensus of the affected membership.

Well, actually, this process was explained to me by a BOD member. They apparently saw it differently. It isn't really a "nefarious" process to so speak. It is a natural reaction to the larger structure and process. Inclusion easily means things take longer. It can result in the addition of POV that don't align with the original intent. And everyone is aware in any such organization that it merely takes one person to act strategically in opposition to make ones job difficult. It is human nature really. And a single act by the executive committee can set a process back by months if not years and they can act outside of the regular meetings. That's the point of critiquing the basic structure. The organization is structured to encourage people to not seek wide participation and consensus but instead assume leading roles as a replacement for concensus. The result is people taking actions outside of the awareness, or even contrary to the wishes of, the larger membership. There is a general implication that some how "good people" can't do self serving things. They can. At the very least it colors their definition of what is good and bad. It can even lead them to believe that the way things are also are the way things "should be". The nature of USPA has been to attract the participation of people who think the way the organization is also is the way it "should be" and that attempts to alter the basic structure away from that is counter-productive.

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. 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. 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".

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. 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".

While I can share your enthusiasm, there are some physical realities that might put a damper on your vision. First of all it won't be "true" human flights. I'd expect that generally he will be constantly decending. "Flight" is usually reserved for motion paths that can increase in altitude. And this sorta gets to the larger point and the continuous difficulty of "landing" a wing suit. Whether in freefall or undercanopy, we are involved in one big energy management exercise. Converting "potential" energy of altitude into "kinetic" energy of motion. And just like under canopy, the trick to landing is actually slowing down to a "survivable" speed. Both wing suits and canopies rely upon converting horizontal motion into vertical forces. The faster the motion, the greater the vertical force. Someone in a wing suit who is trying to land needs a large lifting force and from very low speeds. We call that a "canopy". It will take something of that size to accomplish it. The only other alternative would be accepting higher speed landings. Even when we shrunk our canopies down from the 200- 300 sq ft monsters we used to jump down to the 100 sq ft numbers (and smaller) that are a bit more common today, we did it predominately by accepting much higher speeds (well, more like demanding them). Through particular manuevers, we can flair them and gain large vertical forces and low horizontal speeds. But one will often note that in low wind conditions, the smallest of canopies still need to be "run out". There isn't really anything out there that would make a wingsuit particularly "Landable". We will see this done as a stunt in various ways, I'm still expecting someone to land one on a snow covered ski slope. But if there was a way to "land" a person without a parachute, the US military would have been all over it about 4 decades ago.

Golf is seeing a decline as well. There is an implication in the larger society that sports in general aren't as big a draw for the up coming generations. I suspect Mr. Burke and others would do well to study these larger trends before concluding that the answers lie in efforts like a national sky patrol. Tennis, baseball, bowling, have all gone through periods of serious decline. My personal suspicion would be that there is a common theme here that is vastly larger than skydiving.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

That can be restated however as "it is no surprise that DZO's show up a lot more than your typical member. It is structured to favor their attendance and participation." USPA does not operate itself in a manner which encourages participation by the "typical member". The truth is the typical member is often "driven away" by the response they receive from USPA. USPA is structured, and operates, to be most responsive to those with the time and resources to participate at length.

It isn't that "too many" it is that "so many".