jlmiracle

Would

Should

Right

Might

That is what I get out of your posts.  Not any content that might actually be relevant, but you purposely spelling those words incorrectly.  I get the occasional misspell, but that is not what is going on here.  Stop dumbing yourself down and people might take you seriously.

19 hours ago, BIGUN said:

In the early 2000's; Jeff Mullins was jumping an Extreme FX 84 and win/show/placing in swoop events. He has since gone on to become a Major in the Marine Corps and was one of the Blue Angel pilots last year. Another contender at that time was Luigi Cani - he jumped a VX 65, but I don't know how young he was.    

Jeffery still is a Blue Angel ; ).

 

10 hours ago, baronn said:

Clearly this has turned into just a bitch fest from a little bitchy person. Anyone that has time to put nearly 77K posts up can't have much time for anything else. Way to go. 

YOU are the bitchy little person barronn.  Bill has been on Dropzone.com since the beginning.  He had been a moderator so he might have quite a few posts.   

I have read all your posts regarding this BSR.    WHAT is the big deal?    Did you pitch a fit when seatbelts became mandatory in cars and aircraft?  Why did it take them so long to require it?.  Why didn't they do it in the beginning? Could it because because they didn't know how bad it was in the beginning before they collected data?  Don't try to say you not against it because you obviously are because you won't let it go.  Lobby the board to have it removed if you feel so strongly against it and according to you have you all this "support" backing you up.  Give them a better way.  Don't just respond with "well you should know".  Enlighten us.   Tell us what we should know.

 

3 hours ago, baronn said:

So suddenly any time the board needs to "collect" data, they pass a BSR? Of all the options I see to collect this, passing a BSR to do it wude have been past last on my list. Granted, I'm not on the board and maybe this is happening a Lot more than I (or most everyone else here) are seeing but, going heavy handed like this, seems inappropriate at best. Those in favor of this, seem to continually use the argument of how badly this info is needed to back their argument of being in favor of this. I don't think anybody is against finding that out, including me. I don't agree this is needed to get it. I remember the days of the Convention and can't recall seeing any more than a few (<5) activations. Pretty sure there were more jumps done in those 10 days than just about anywhere else on the planet. Let me make a prediction: I don't think this is going to be reported very often. A; it just doesn't happen often. B: it's embarrassing and since there is (at this time) no repercussions for NOT doing it, there is little reason to expose the risk of trusting the USPA with that info. 

If you are not against it, why do you keep fighting about it?  

 

Why the BSR?  IMO - maybe because instructors/staff can have such egos that that unless you make it a requirement, they don't believe it applies to them and so many are certainly not going to admit to a mistake.  Mistakes are made, AAD's fire, and hopefully no one will die because the mistake is made.  We learn from them and move on.

Why not require everyone report? IMO -  Need to start somewhere.  Maybe we need to be more concerned about the students, whose training them, and whose jumping with them.  I'm sure the USPA would be happy to receive other reports on AAD's firing if anyone wanted to let them know.

WFFC  - there were not as many AAD's worn back in the day so you wouldn't see that many fire.    How many low pulls were there back then?

I am not a big fan of the USPA and how they secretly do things but you are pitching a fit over nothing.    

Horrible.  Can't find anything.   I think I'm done with this site.  

wolfriverjoe

***I had 2 pictures attached (I thought) and one was the close up.

I'm only seeing one.

No big deal, the 'smart people' on here have your answer for you.

Thanks....technology is not my friend.

I had 2 pictures attached (I thought) and one was the close up.

Thank you Chuck and Dqpacker.

LeeroyJenkins

******

Second; why does USPA have no "teeth" to enforce their rules?
The answer is, it doesn't need to. In the US at least, our legal system provides all of the motivation, and then some, for DZO's to follow the rules. For example, if your DZ has an incident it will be discovered that you are a group member of USPA who has signed a pledge to follow ALL of the rules. This means if you have broken ANY rules related to your USPA membership, wether it is related to the incident or not, the courts will conclude you have not been following industry standards and you will be found negligent.

Also means the USPA can be sued for not supervising THEIR Group Members. If you are going to "sanction" something, you better know exactly what's going on there.

J

That would be an absurd legal standard.

Yes, but this is the United States of America, home of the MOST ABSURD legal cases ever brought to court and won! Anyone can be named in a lawsuit.

If you want to endorse/sanction a business, then you need to take responsibility for said business. And with all the supposed confidential reprimands, a jury may want to wonder what the USPA is hiding. I know I do.

j

Millstone

Second; why does USPA have no "teeth" to enforce their rules?
The answer is, it doesn't need to. In the US at least, our legal system provides all of the motivation, and then some, for DZO's to follow the rules. For example, if your DZ has an incident it will be discovered that you are a group member of USPA who has signed a pledge to follow ALL of the rules. This means if you have broken ANY rules related to your USPA membership, wether it is related to the incident or not, the courts will conclude you have not been following industry standards and you will be found negligent.

Also means the USPA can be sued for not supervising THEIR Group Members. If you are going to "sanction" something, you better know exactly what's going on there.

J

Can anyone help me identify who made this jumpsuit?

Thanks
Judy

Well Chuck, we had to go the a board meeting, many years ago, to GET a rating course at out DZ because several Board members said it would never happen because we were not a GM DZ. Don Yarling said there was no reason, what so ever, we should have had to show up for a meeting to fight for it, it should have just happened if we had the people to attend.

Cost us plane tickets, hotel, and time off work. Watched Danny Page play solitare on his computer during most meetings and at the end, the Chairman at the time, sat there and read the Sunday paper during the voting.

What happened at the next meeting? The BOD decided they would charge an fee (extortion) to non-GM DZ's to hold a rating's course. A fee that would be passed on to those attending the course and making it so expensive, it wouldn't be worth it. A course that benefits individual due paying members. The "right thing" should have been to never charge that fee to non-GM DZ's.

Judy

Skydiver landed on car, went through the windshield, hit so hard he bent the dash, broke his leg. It was better than him impaling himself on the fence. Skydivers landing on cars happens more often then you know.

Another example would be damage to crops/farming equipment. A lot of dropzones are located by farmland.

But don't get me wrong...not a big fan of the USPA (especially the GM program). Thinks it total BS that non GM dz's have to pay an extortion fee to have a rating course held at a non GM DZ even though it is supposed to be for the benefit of the individual member and not GM dropzones.

Judy

Maybe he was snorting the condoms.

Elpnor

So, Lodi isn't a part of the uspa as far as I know. Which got me to wondering how many dropzones aren't, and what advantages they get for not being in. Anyone have a guestimate? Lodi is the only one I've ever heard of.

Lodi is not a USPA Group Member Dropzone. I don't know how many non-GM dz's there are in total out there. It may be as simple as not wanting to spend the money on the GM as they don't see the benefit. Many still require their jumpers to be USPA members.

J

yoink

I think you're onto something regarding who reads the magazine.

Maybe the USPA should develop a one-off special issue that gets sent to jumpers once they get their A license, kind of like a 'Welcome to Skydiving!' thing. It can be specifically tailored to them with articles on gear selection, what to do after AFF, what boogies are and how to prepare for them, how to travel for skydiving, common mistakes to avoid - stuff like that.

You'd only need to update the articles very occasionally and you could do one-off print runs for the year based on the estimated number of new jumpers you expect.

Then make the general skydive mag available online and save all of those printing and mailing costs.

LOVE THIS IDEA!

billvon

> And I also told my directors if you are going to include tunnel, then you need to
>include base, paragliders and parasailing for that matter.

That makes no sense. If we include freestyle with skydiving, does that mean we have to include gymnastics?

I don't see any reason for USPA to "take over" tunnel flying. I also don't see any reason for USPA to not get involved with the aspects of tunnel flying that cross over into skydiving.

I see cross over in base, paragliders and parasailing where you do not. I do not see where freestyle skydiving and gymnastics cross over? Does that mean we should have dirt diving competitions too then. Where does it end?

yoink

I don't think the USPA should become involved in tunnel regulation.

But I do think that people using the semantics of what the organization is called is a stupid point in the argument - there are so many better ones.

Let me as you a question; When you describe what you do for a sport to other people, what do you call it? I bet you $100 99% of people say they do 'skydiving' not 'parachuting'. You could make the argument that 'parachutists' include BASE, Paragliders and Speed Flyers.

I don't think that flying in a tunnel is skydiving. But then I don' think that going on a Tandem ride is skydiving either, so I'll upset both groups with my opinion on that.

Of course I say skydiving. And I also told my directors if you are going to include tunnel, then you need to include base, paragliders and parasailing for that matter.

Skydivers can compete in tunnel competitions as tunnel competitors. If from a "competition" point of view this is the same as skydiving, then Nationals and all other skydiving competitions (other than canopy) should be held at tunnels to guarantee no weather delays, no landing injuries, daylight issues or aircraft issues.

The tunnel discussion is a waste of time. These meeting are only twice a year. They don't have a lot of time to discuss the real important things. They will be wasting their time deciding to rename Basic Safety Requirements too and a few other things that if I brought up might get this bumped to speakers corner.

yoink

***I am totally against it. Aside from I see it as just another way for the USPA to make money, it's the United State PARACHUTE Association. Not TUNNEL association.

This is the dumbest reason ever.

Change the USPA name to US Skydiving Association. That solves that non-issue and is more representative of, you know, skydiving.***

Well bless your heart and thank you for your opinion.

Let the tunnel start their own organization and they can call it whatever they want....It just one of many reasons I believe the USPA should not include the tunnel. If tunnel people want to join the USPA, no one will stop them. If a 1 yr old want to join the USPA, no one will stop them.

The USPA will address at the next board meeting renaming the BSR from Basic Safety Requirements to Basic Skydiving Requirement or Basic Safey Rules. Why do this? Will it make people safer? Does it have something to do with including the tunnel?

Quote

a $10 increase in 30,000 membership dues is $300,000 in revenue. do the math.

Its $14.00 increase to renew, not $10.

Quote

How about a decision by the Feds 20 years ago to NOT tax skydiving at a federal level that saved you at least 10% of the cost of every skydive you ever made?

Is that a question or a statement?

I am just trying to figure out if this dues increase is for the museum, Ed Scott wanting a raise or what. I read the minutes and the agenda and it doesn't really give me the information I'm looking for. What are they hiding?

No, I won't "get over it". Why do you have to be that way?

I wouldn't mind paying a little more if I knew what I was getting for it. But they are all hush hush again. Why isn't GM going up?

What does the individual member get for this?

Judy

They will be voting on this in a couple weeks.

Why do we need the increase? Is it to cover the increase in per diem they gave themselves last meeting? Does someone want a raise?

From the winter meeting: Postponed to vote on at summer BOD meeting: Move to increase USPA membership dues to the following amounts:
Domestic NEW member: $79.00
Domestic Renewal: $69.00
Foreign NEW: $99.00
Foreign Renewal: $89.00
Also increase member A, B, C and D license fees to $40.00
Effective date of these increases to be 1-1-18.”

I don't see anything in the winter BOD Minutes that would justify such an increase.

Judy

I am totally against it. Aside from I see it as just another way for the USPA to make money, it's the United State PARACHUTE Association. Not TUNNEL association. If you include tunnel then include BASE, at least they use a parachute. USPA would be taking on way too much liability.

Are you going to have a whole new set of BSR's for tunnel? Group Member Tunnels? What about the age limit? Most tunnels take very young children. Why is the tunnel okay for a 5 yr old when a tandem isn't? You can still get injured or killed.

Tunnel is not skydiving. USPA should stay out of the tunnel business.

Also, If you are going to increase our due's, (as stated in the Winter minutes - I guess you will be voting on this at the meeting in a couple weeks) I want to know what I get out of it as an individual member.


Judy

TriGirl

Hmmm... I head that the last time they had a quorum for the general membership meeting was a few decades ago. As for the plenary session of the BOD, at least this ONE I attended last weekend, good work was done in the committees, and the plenary was productive because of that.

Perhaps if more members attend when they can, we can keep those BOD meetings on the same level, as I would hope a board member would be embarrassed to be caught by a constituent not taking these meetings seriously. (Hopefully, that's why the members you spoke of are no longer board members?)

ETA: as we now have three years between elections, I really hope more members will take an opportunity to attend at least one BOD meeting near them, in order to make a more informed decision when voting. Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream, but the more we're involved, the better our representatives can work for us.

Since we didn't have a quorum that makes it okay to sleep and play on their phones? Not so long ago if their phones went off in a meeting they had to buy a round...now it really doesn't matter does it.

j

I have been to multiple meetings. Unfortunately they feel the need to "get business done" on the side and in the bars without the input of all committee members. If you are scared to say it in front of everyone, then get off the board.

The last GM meeting I went to, a couple board members were sleeping while others were playing on their phones. They showed complete lack of respect for the organization and the members that showed up for that meeting. A few of those board member were not re-elected.

I thought at one point Jan Meyer had tried to get a virtual meetings setup, at least for the GM meeting.

j