geronimo

I do remember that conversation. The winds were borderline flaky. It also illustrates the 'peer pressure' phenomena. To jump or not to jump - based on what others say. What I couldn't figure out is why something someone you didn't know had any value to you - except you did know I was a 'local'. I'll be at Elsinore this Saturday. What the heck does Ciels mean? --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

I believe it is the first country listed. Hit tab then down arrow. Besides Jupiter was not listed. I don't know how many jumps I have, nor do I care. Why? Why not reply to what someone writes, the content, as opposed to seeing if they filled out a form to your satisfaction, live in the right country, wear a red shirt or have the right type gear? "I have a dream that each jumper will be judged by the content of his posts and not by his screen name or profile settings." - apologies to Martin Luther King Jr. --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

Why? Why not reply to what someone writes, the content, as opposed to seeing if they filled out a form to your satisfaction, live in the right country, wear a red shirt or have the right type gear? "I have a dream that each jumper will be judged by the content of his posts and not by his screen name or profile settings." - apologies to Martin Luther King Jr. I started in 1981. At Perris you needed 100 jumps before jumping a ramair. I did my first ramair jump on #93. This was a DZ rule - not a USPA rule. sample letter: QUOTE: "Next you'll want jumpers to supply an affidavit as to the number of jumps made and experience level before he can purchase Hi performance equipment." Neils Asche, E-19 Australia made in 1969. Asche was responding to a report that partially blamed an equipment seller for a fatality of a newer jumper with thirty-something jumps. Asche concluded his letter to the Australian Skydiver Editor, Trevor Burns, by stating "Training makes the difference and knowing your equipment." a random short sample: Parachutist Dec 1972: (Annual Frap Report) "Although this fatality is reported under the heading of ground impact, it is not known exactly what caused the deceased's broken neck. He handled his canopy in an erratic fashion until landing in a small pond." Parachutist April 1981: (Annual Frap Report) "Another death occurred as the result of a high flare. The victim had 176 jumps but few on a square. He walked away from the resulting hard landing …. He died later in the hospital." You have apparently read more into what I said. Today's comments are the same-old-same old. see also http://ParachuteHistory.com/ramair/tolerance.html There are also many, many letters about banning low hook turns. Until we determine the reasons people die under perfectly good parachutes, any solution to prevent these injuries and fatalities may be incomplete or totally miss the mark. "They made a low turn" is not the reason they die. You have to find out WHY they made the low turn. Unfortunately, most are dead or do not remember the accident, so getting the reasons is difficult. No one crashes on purpose. The percentage of landing injuries was smaller because the no/low pull fatalities dominated back then. Malfunctions and the mishandling of them were the next biggest category. Fatalities in these categories are sharply reduced today because of inventions, not rules and not training. The 3-ring and the CYPRES have made skydiving safer. People lose altitude awareness just as often as before. The magic box saves them, not the minimum pull altitude rule. You still see a bunch of people screwing up EPs. What would probably work better than rules is an automatic inflatable landing pad or a Michelin-man inflatable suit. Don't get me wrong. The landing problem is serious. The proposal to limit WL does reduce the severity of a mishap. The implementation of such a rule becomes complicated very quickly. The real power of enforcing rules is in the hands of DZOs, not USPA and not the FAA. Bill Dause had a no hook turn rule and threw people off the dz many times. He also has a no low pull rule. He even ejected Jerry Loftis from Lodi. USPA has what might be called the 'persuasion' technique. Formal disciplinary actions are rare. Normally, a RD makes a few phone calls & gives a few people a 'talking to' in order to fix some safety issue. This is also known as intimidation when it gets into heated debates. Do you think that if someone jumped a canopy loaded at 1.25 when the rules say he can only jump up to 1.2 he would be grounded or suspended by a USPA official? A DZO could readily change this person's behavior or tell the person to take a hike. What happens when a DZO makes such a rule? There is a thread someplace here about that. --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

THanks for writing. This issue you address is of concern to everyone on the BOD and DZOs. Specific solutions are debatable. My 2 cents is that this has been an issue since the first high performance parachute entered the skydiving arena. The comments you see & read about today's 1.x+ WL were said 30 years ago when PCs were introduced. There were letters that blamed retailers for selling gear to people not qualified to use the gear. There were letters that blamed the mfgs for not implementing some sort of qualification program for the users. There were letters that blamed PCA/USPA for not implementing 'rules' that would mitigate the fatalties and injuries. Right now, I do not have a solution. More rules is not the way I'd go either. I would not mandate AADs anymore than some maximum WL - even though there is substantial evidence to say using AADs or lower WLs reduces the severity of a hazard. The reasons for this are that safety and risk are not the same thing, but many people interpret them the same way. Whuffoes look at what we do 'jump outta a perfectly good airplane' and state it is 'unsafe'. We know that it has it's associated risks that we are willing to assume. That is, both parties see the same risk level. One party says it is acceptable. Another party says it is unacceptable. That is the difference between risk and safety. On another level, I think that there is a totally different reason new jumpers get in over their heads on WL. They obtain their A license & realize that they have to work up a ladder for RW, vRW or CRW, but they don't see that path for WL. I wonder why that is. Perhaps it is because canopy control is so simple. 'pull right - go right; pull left - go left; pull both toggles - slow down;' The missing info about toggle sensitivity, toggle stroke length, responsivness vs planform, etc is not in the minds of new jumpers. I wonder why that is so? More ramblings later on r.s probably. FMI: see http://ParachuteHistory.com/eng/risk.html http://MakeItHappen.com/spsj/yourcan.htm --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

Some Definitions: Signer A Signer is the person signing a proxy. Assignee An Assignee is the member that a proxy is assigned to. General Proxy A general proxy gives the Assignee the right to vote as the Assignee sees fit on all issues and motions. Limited Proxy A limited proxy is a signed proxy that the Signer stipulates the way the Assignee is to vote on specific issues. The Assignee must cast the Signer's vote the way the Signer designated on the proxy. ... The proxy in the May 2003 issue of Parachutist is a limited proxy. You designate your choice on each issue. The Assignee cannot change that. If you change your mind, you may revoke your proxy by any of these methods: Revocation of Proxies A member may revoke a properly executed proxy at any time before its exercise by: Delivering a written notice of revocation to USPA; Delivering another proxy that is dated later than the original proxy; Attending the General Membership Meeting and giving notice of revocation to the meeting Teller or Attending the General Membership Meeting and voting by ballot. --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

The Tangled Web We Weave........ Greetings USPA members! Many members have questions about the USPA proxy in the May issue of Parachutist. Some questions are related to the legal nature of the procedures, some are related to the issues and how that influences how USPA is run. It is my belief that the vast majority of jumpers want to make up their mind about the issues based on information and not be told how to mark the proxy. A lot of jumpers do not know the background or history of the issues on the 2003 proxy. In an effort to fill you in on the details and historical track record of USPA, here is a summary of what has come before. I am still awaiting some answers from HQ about the details of procedure at the July GMM. I will post that information when I obtain it. I also compiled data from the past 8 USPA elections. Please refer to http://ParachuteHistory.com/skydive/uspa/elections/eleccandidates.html Below are excerpts (I think I got them all) from BOD Meeting Minutes & a few other places in chronological order. ........ In 1998, National Director, Billy Richards, proposed the following motions at the July BOD Meeting: Motion 70: Failed, 5/10 (Mr. Richards) Move to delete Paragraph "B" of Article X of the Constitution and By-laws which reads: "A motion to amend a section referring to size, composition, or election of the Board of Directors shall be submitted to a vote of the General Membership by mail ballot." Motion 71: Failed, 4/13 (Mr. Richards) Move to change Paragraph "B" of Article X of the Constitution and By-laws to read: "A motion to amend a section referring to size, composition, or election of the Board of Directors shall be submitted to a vote of the General Membership." Motion 72: Passed, 10/7 (Mr. Richards) Move that Sec. 1,"Election Schedule" be changed to read: "Biennial election of the Board of Directors will be held every even-numbered year as follows, with at least one month between each phase of the election: July- Nomination of Candidates August- Publication of names of nominees September-Ballot election by mail October- Announcement of the New B.O.D. & its Members January- Seating of the new Board" And submitted for the 1998 Ballot for approval by the General Membership." ........ On the election ballot of 1998 there was a referendum that read: The biennial election of the BOD will be held every even-numbered year as follows, with at least one month between each phase of the election: July- Nomination of Candidates August- Publication of names of nominees September-Ballot election by mail October- Announcement of the New B.O.D. & its Members January- Seating of the new Board" Each member could mark For or Against. The membership voted 1919 to 736 to approve this measure. ........ At the January 1999 BOD Meeting, the following motion was passed: Motion 38: Passed, 22/0 (Mr. Hayhurst) Move to table any action on the referendum until the next meeting, until Constitution and ByLaws Committee presents a legal clarification to the Board about how Article IX, B, "changes to size, composition and election to the Board" is to be implemented. (Refer to Motion 67, U.S.P.A. Board of Directors Meeting, Portland, Oregon, 10-12 July, 1998) [My note: the referenced Motion number is incorrect. It was Motion 72.] ........ >From the July 1999 BOD Meeting Minutes: The President brought to the committee's attention that a correction that was supposed to be made at the July 1998 BOD meeting had not been done. The committee reviewed the correction resulting in the following motion: The committee reviewed Article IX of the Constitution and Bylaws resulting in: Motion 7/22: Passed, 21/0 (Mr. Gramando) Article IX C. Change to Read: A BOD motion to amend a section referring to size, composition, or election of the BOD must be approved by two-thirds (2/3) majority of the BOD present and then go to the General Membership by mail ballot and be approved by two-thirds majority of the votes cast. The committee reviewed the July 1998 BOD minutes and discovered an error resulting in: Motion 8/23: Passed, 22/0 (Mr. Gramando) Move that motions #65, 66, and 67 of the July '98 BOD meeting be removed from the Reapportionment Committee Report and be placed at the end of the minutes under a general section and that the Reapportionment Committee reflect "No Report". The committee spent 4 months studying the all the action surrounding motion #67 of the July 1998 BOD meeting. The report is to be an attachment to the minutes. Motion 9/24: Passed, 22/0 (Mr. Gramando) Move that motion #67 (72) of the July 1998 BOD meeting in Portland, Oregon, be rescinded and thereby annulling all actions resulting from motion #67 (72). Motion 30 of the January 1999 BOD meeting was brought off the table and placed before the BOD plenary session and was passed. The motion read as follows: "Move that we: 1. Amend Article III, Section 2 from a two-year term to a three-year term 2. Amend Article IV, Section 2 from a two-year term to a three-year term 3. Amend Article V, Section 1 to read: election of the B.O.D. will be held every three years... 4. Amend Article V, Sections 3&4 to read: '..ensuing three years.' This will begin with the year 2000 elections." The motion was passed 20/1 abstention (Mr. Gramando) ........ At the January 2000 BOD meeting, every Board Member was served with a lawsuit by Tracey Bartels. The lawsuit said that the BOD's actions of recinding the results of the referendum were illegal. The rule about a 2/3 BOD approval before a change was submitted to the general membership was not in existence when the referendum was passed by membership. The suit also mentioned the 1980 precedent [when the regions were last re-apportioned] that only a majority of participating rather than a majority of total members is needed to change any part of the Constitution relating to the size, composition and election of the BOD. Source: Skydiving Newsmagazine #224 ........ >From the July 2000 BOD Meeting Minutes: Bartels vs. USPA: We continue to be plagued by the lawsuit which was instigated by one of our previous Board members who wanted to get his way, no matter what. While this will be an expensive endeavor for the members of this association, and a time-consuming one for the Staff and Board, I hope we can turn this obstacle into an opportunity as well. Because our association is incorporated in the State of New York, we are forced to abide by an ineffective means of operating as a membership association. It may be time to re-incorporate in a new state, whose laws provide for a more practical means of operation. And while we are in the process of re-incorporating, it may be time to re-evaluate the function of the Board, and its relationship with the membership, and the Headquarters staff. These responsibilities will fall on a new Board and its new leadership. In the meantime, let's be as productive as we can at this meeting, and leave a well-functioning Board for the new guard to inherit. and Bartles vs USPA: Chris Needels presented an update on status of this litigation. USPA's attorneys continue to believe we have a very strong case. A decision is expected to be made in the coming weeks. and Financial impact of Bartels vs. USPA, et al lawsuit. Discussion between USPA and Association insurance carrier ongoing regarding insurance deductible amount for which USPA is directly liable. Current status of case is pending a summary dismissal filing by USPA attorneys. The lawsuit is costing a significant amount in terms of Headquarters time and effort which is being displaced from other members' needs. ........ >From the January 2001 BOD Meeting Minutes: Quorum of USPA Membership: As with most not-for-profit corporations, USPA must garner votes from a quorum of its members in order for the membership-at-large to change corporate policies. During the past year, it was determined that the laws of New York State set this quorum at 50.1% of the association's registered members. These state laws also provide a means for reducing the size of the quorum to a more practical size limit. In addition, there is a means to reach a quorum through the use of proxy voting. The committee believes that USPA's members wish to have a practical means to make policy changes via the membership-at-large, but that the membership does not want to put any mechanism in place which would subject the association to abuse by a few narrowly focused members who do not represent the best interests of the majority of the members. Executive Director Chris Needels agreed to obtain a legal opinion on the various options by which USPA can garner proxies under NY state law, and to determine if there is a "default" proxy provision which allows USPA to assume proxy authority if no response is received after solicitation for same. Chris will present the information he finds to the committee, and make proposals on how USPA can prevent abuse which could occur with a quorum as small as a few hundred members present or represented by proxy at a GMM. Proposed amendments to the election of the Board of Directors: Roger Nelson presented a paper which proposed three modifications involving the election of the BOD. He and the committee acknowledged that no changes to the BOD election policies will take place until the membership quorum issue is resolved. 1. Extend BOD terms to three years: Roger suggested that this would save money on the election process, and provide a longer time frame for BOD members to address current and future affairs of USPA. The committee forwarded this proposal to the Nominations and Election Committee, with the recommendation to support it in principle. The committee believes that if approved, this proposal would not have any negative impact on the association. 2. Change the voting time frame as follows: July-nomination of candidates; August-publication of nominee names; September-start mail ballot election; October-announcement of new BOD. Roger suggested that this schedule would generate a larger voter turnout, because jumpers were more prone to voting if the election took place during the active jumping season throughout the country. The committee did not have strong opinions on this proposal, but did see some potentially negative aspects of adopting this election schedule. One could be creating a situation whereby drop zone operators would have an undue influence on the outcome of BOD elections. The committee forwarded this proposal to the Nominations and Election Committee, with the recommendation that future BOD elections require voters to only use original ballots sent to them - by post or electronically. 3. Term Limits: Roger proposed prohibiting BOD members from serving consecutive terms, but that they could be re-elected after sitting out one term. This proposal was forwarded to the Nominations and Elections Committee, with the recommendation to not implement term restrictions, since there is no evidence that new BOD members serve the membership any better than incumbent BOD members. The committee believes that the membership can benefit from continuity among its BOD members, and that it is better to let the members elect the BOD from among any and all members of the association. Regarding all of the modifications proposed by Roger, the committee recommends that these issues could be presented to the members - along with statements pro and con for each issue - and let the membership comment on these issues via a message to USPA's website, or with a traditional letter. It is believed that the BOD could use these comments to become better informed when addressing these issues in the future. ........ >From the July 2001 BOD Meeting Minutes: Confirm that Article IX - Amendments, Paragraph C [which refers to a mail ballot for size composition and election of the Board] was removed from the new Governance Manual, due to the fact that the motion for this amendment was not allowed under the laws of the State of New York: The Board is officially notified that New York State Law does not allow the USPA Board to adopt the existing Article IX C in the Bylaws, and therefore it has been removed. This deletion will be reflected in the next printing of the Governance Manual. Establish a legal and practical means to change the size, composition, and/or election of the Board of Directors, which is not easily subject to abuse: and Chris Needels investigated this issue at great length through discussions with USPA s counsel, and through research of ASAE materials and records. After reviewing various possible options, the committee recommends that the size of the quorum needed to conduct USPA business during a General Membership Meeting be reduced considerably. If this action is approved by the Board, the committee recommends that Headquarters conduct a comprehensive effort at soliciting proxy votes from the membership to enable the Board of Directors to legally enact changes to the size, composition, and/or election of the Board of Directors at the February 2002 General Membership meeting. Some of the possible changes could be to extend the term of Board members to three years, to change the time frame of the election process, and/or reapportion the composition of the Board of Directors. ........ In December of 2002 USPA solicited a blanket proxy from members. There were not enough proxies submitted to establish a quorum at the Feb 2002 GMM. ........ >From the Feb. 2002 BOD Meeting Minutes: The Constitution and Bylaws Committee conducted a joint meeting with the Nominations and Elections Committee, to facilitate an effective and accurate understanding of Nominations and Elections policy issues - especially with regard to what changes could or could not be made to existing Nominations and Elections policy. After some discussion, it was determined that Bylaws Article IX allows for any Nominations and Elections policies to be changed or adopted - as long as these new policies are not in conflict with existing Nominations and elections policies contained in USPA's Constitution and Bylaws. Despite this restriction, it was clarified that the Board could make certain modifications to USPA's existing governance structure, in an effort to improve membership services - such as modify the number of Regions, modify the number of Regional Directors on the Board, and re-draw Regional boundaries. and 3-1.2B3 Petitions The committee had discussed and reported from our previous meeting out intent to revise the petition requirement for candidates. Since the proxy failure did not allow the necessary change to Article IX of the Constitution & By-Laws, we were unable to make those changes proposed by Mike Mullins and tabled debate on any amendments. Tabled Items Due to [my note: should read Because of ]the failure of the Proxy Vote, the committee tabled discussion on the proposed changes to the election schedule, elimination of petition requirements, restructuring of Regions, a 3-year term proposal, and term limits. ........ >From the July 2002 BOD Meeting Minutes: A. Motion from C&BL - BJ Worth "Add to Article II, Section 1 of the Bylaws, the words 'or by proxy' between '…in person…' and '…at the meeting.'" Motion 9: Passed (20/0) (Mr. Yahrling)Mr. Nelson absent from room "To move Proxy motion to new business." Instead, it was addressed by the Constitution & Bylaws committee and reported on there. and Motion 28: Passed (20/0) (Mr. Perry) "Move to change Governance Manual 1-1, Article II, Section 1, third sentence to read: 'A quorum of the general membership shall be 10 % of the total membership. Regular members are entitled to vote either in person or by proxy.'" ........ >From the January 2003 BOD Meeting Minutes: Motion 40: Passed, 13/8 (Mr. Goswitz-Against) (Mr. Mullins) "Move to solicit members' proxies to change the USPA By-Laws by eliminating the National Director Nominating Committee and eliminating the Regional Director Candidate petition requirements." Motion 41: Passed, 14/7 (Mr. Mullins) "Move to solicit members' proxies to change the USPA By-Laws to make the term of office of USPA BOD members and officer's 3 years, such change to be effective with the USPA election held in 2004. Motion 42: Passed, 17/3/1 (Mr. Mullins) Move to solicit members' proxies to change the USPA election schedule as follows: August- Nomination of candidates September- Publication of names of nominees October- Ballot election by mail November- Announcement of new USPA BOD. Seating of new USPA BOD at the next scheduled BOD meeting. ........ In the May 2003 Parachutist, USPA printed a specific proxy with the 3 issues of: 1. extended terms 2. earlier election schedule 3. elimination of petitions for RD Candidates. ........ I hope this helps explain things. ;) -- --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

Frequently Asked Questions about the USPA Proxy Statement First a correction to my previous posts. The 3 issues on the proxy statement are all considered ONE proxy, not 3 as I had mentioned earlier. This is one of the legal nomenclature aspects that I, and many others, did not know. The proper terminology is that one proxy is being solicited and it has three issues on it. ------------------------ * Do I need to send in a proxy? * How will a quorum be established? * When will a quorum be established? * Will a quorum be established for each issue on the proxy? * May I assign my proxy to someone besides the USPA President? * What is the process to count proxies submitted by members? * What is the validation process for proxies submitted at the GMM? * Can this proxy be used for another issue? ------------------------ ............................... * Do I need to send in a proxy? If you will be at the July 11, 2003 General Membership Meeting of the United States Parachute Association you do NOT have to send in a proxy. If you will NOT be at the July 11, 2003 General Membership Meeting of the United States Parachute Association you may send in a proxy to represent your wishes on each issue. You are not required to send in a proxy or attend the GMM. In this case your wishes will not be represented at the meeting. ............................... * How will a quorum be established? A quorum will be the sum total of all USPA members present, all proxies assigned to the USPA President and all proxies assigned to any other USPA members in attendance. All proxies will be validated against the USPA membership roster and must have an original signature. ............................... * When will a quorum be established? A quorum will be established at a point prior to a call for vote. The USPA President will determine the procedure. ............................... * Will a quorum be established for each issues on the proxy? There is only one proxy. The proxy has three issues or questions. A mark yes or no for any one of the issues will count towards establishing a quorum. ............................... * May I assign my proxy to someone besides the USPA President? Yes. You may assign your proxy to any USPA member in good standing. That member must attend the meeting to submit your proxies. That member also has the option of not submitting your proxy. ............................... * What is the process to count proxies submitted by members? Counting the tallies per issue is a housekeeping item that will be determined by the USPA President. Proxies held by the USPA President as well as those held by USPA members present will be counted. ............................... * What is the validation process for proxies submitted at the GMM? A validation process will be established on site. The USPA President will determine the logistics of this. ............................... * Can this proxy be used for another issue? The proxy may only be used for the 3 issues on it. No other issue that has a call for vote at the GMM may use these proxies. ............................... If you have any other questions that are not addressed here please feel free to contact anyone on the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, the USPA President or the USPA Executive Director. Constitution and Bylaws Committee Mike Mullins, Chair michaelmullins_AT_skydivekingair.com Jan Meyer Aerosoftware_AT_MakeItHappen.com Gary Peek peek_AT_freefall.com Scott Smith sesmith4_AT_mindspring.com John Goswitz USPANCdir_AT_attbi.com USPA President Glenn Bangs ggbangs_AT_aol.com USPA Executive Director CNeedels_AT_uspa.org replace _AT_ with @ --- This FAQ was compiled by Jan Meyer based on emails among Mike Mullins, Chris Needels and myself. It does not necessarily represent official USPA policy. It is provided for informational purposes only in an effort to better serve the USPA membership. --- --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

I intentionally left out any statements about 'how to vote' on each proxy because the vast majority of jumpers I know really hate being told what to do. I stated PROs on CONs as objectively as I could, so that each jumper could decide for themself how they wanted to vote on each proxy. I will be voting yes on all three proxies because they are good for our organization, members and BOD members. I won't ask anyone to be a lemming and follow me, but if that's what you want to do, by all means follow me. --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

First Proxy in the May 2003 Parachutist: 1. To change the term of office of USPA Directors and Officers from the current two years to three, effective with the next election. Yes __________ No ________ PRO: - cost savings because election is held less frequently - new BOD members have more time to be effective. Typically, it takes two years to understand how the BOD meeting work and how to get things done. CON: - turnover of Directors may be less frequent ............................................ Send in your proxy as soon as possible. Your voice can and will be heard. ............................................ Second Proxy in the May 2003 Parachutist 2. To move the election schedule for USPA Directors two months earlier (start date from October to August) and to seat the new board at the next scheduled BOD meeting following the election. Yes __________ No ________ .......................... PRO: - more members would likely participate in the election if it were held during the summer months. - BOD meeting schedule remains in tact. There is still a window for the summer meeting from April to September. - Lame Duck Period is longer. This will allow more time for new Directors to come up to speed on issues - staff time in counting ballots will not be during the Christmas-New Year's holiday period CON: - Lame Duck Period is longer. Directors not returning to the Board could or might neglect their duties. ............................................ Send in your proxy as soon as possible. Your voice can and will be heard. ............................................ Third Proxy in the May 2003 Parachutist 3. To eliminate the National Director nominating committee and the petition requirement for USPA Regional Director candidates. Yes __________ No ________ .......................... PRO: - allows more people to run for office - saves staff time in validating petitions CON: - there may be a large number of candidates running per region Some people have said that collecting the signatures shows that a candidate is interested in the position and is willing to do the necessary work to get elected. Collecting signatures also allows a candidate to get to know members. Others say that in order to win, candidates still have to get out and meet the members. ............................................ Send in your proxy as soon as possible. Your voice can and will be heard. ............................................ The BOD cannot independantly make these changes. These changes require a quorum of members present in person or by proxy. ............................................ ---- Member of the I hate IE Club. --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com

Do you mean Has everyone experienced having to do a cutaway and pull reserve, and did you realize immediately that you had to? 1st: jump #7 SL from a DC-3 had opened the R3 on the right side. Same thing happened in hanging harness that very day. I finished the cutaway and pulled reserve I beat the Steven's lanyard on chest mounted reserve. Reserve pilot chute gave me a fat lip. (No AAD) 2nd: jump #400-something some sort of spinner on a demo in high winds into a tight spot. cutaway & pulled reserve. landed my round reserve in a river. Good thing I had REAL live water jumps to get my licenses. (No AAD, no RSL) 3rd: jump #600 or 700??? no cutaway - just a high speed total. after the 3rd try at the main - time for reserve. Pulled reserve asap. (No AAD, no RSL) 4th: jump #3000 ish ??? I was shaking risers & heard my dirt alert go off. (It was the original Dytter with only one sound at one altitude) I set it for 1500 ft, in case one day I would be shaking risers when it went off. I checked the ground & altimeter. Yup time to cutaway. Yeah it might have opened. Cutaway & pulled reserve. (No AAD, no RSL) 5th: jump #3700 ish???? some type of spinner on a World Record attempt. No- pressure. Cutaway & pulled reserve asap. (No AAD, no RSL) 6th: jump# >5K TBD The HOT Tip: Have BLACK LINE decision altitudes and procedures. Follow them without question. Think 'Cutaway and pull reserve' not just 'cutaway'

Search the 2003 SIM http://MakeItHappen.com/sim It's free.

Sangiro testing post permissions for user. --- I have a dream that my posts will one day will not be judged by the color of the fonts or settings in a Profile but by the content. Geronimo_AT_http://ParachuteHistory.com