EDYDO

DC Skydiving is a new DZ located in Warrenton, Va about 15 miles west of Springfield. That's near the area, but, I think, too far to see a canopy. Ed

Yep, that policy seems petty to me. I'd like to see it changed, but looks like that won't happen since most of the board favor it. Ed

Hi Mark, I checked with USPA government relations before I spoke on the NOTAM. I see it is required under authorizations, but cannot find it otherwise. Can you help me out with the regulation number so that, if true, I can enlighten them? Good to know about the ultralight waiver. I was always given the same answer by FSDO Columbia, "Two place ultralights are for instruction only and you must not make a parachute jump from one." LSA? that is out of my range of knowledge. I recently jumped a J3 in the presence of a FSDO inspector with no permision from anyone. I think they fall into the LSA category, but not sure. Funny thing, I could jump from it with the little fold down door folded down, but I could not remove it since there was no authorization for flight with door removed !! I am speaking for myself only. Blue Skies, Ed

Hey those are my posts I can't believe it is as easy as that to say my farm is a dropzone. Can I declare my suburban back yard as a temporary DZ? Please edumacate me. Hi Mike, See Speed2000's posts. You are quoting regs about authorizations and none are required for many off DZ jumps. Your backyard seems to be described as a conjested area, so probably not. On the other hand if you have a farm, in appropriate airspace, you can notify ATC as appropriate (24 hours to 1 hour), meet other requirements, eg: door off waiver if needed, radio contact, etc. and jump. I believe there was a post in this thread about that. It is perfectly legal. The requirement to notify ATC is regulatory. There is no regulation that requires one to file a NOTAM, but some people confuse the two. With that said, it would be foolish not to file a NOTAM (short for NOtice To AirMen) under such circumstances. First time I ever heard them called "bandit jumps" was here. I speak only for myself. Blue Skies, Ed

Your rudeness is noted. Without going through all of the posts, #23 and #28 are off the mark and numbers 24, 32 and 37 seem to have it right, although they may not be complete in every circumstance. The FAA is revising the Advisory Circular for FAA Part 105. It has not been revised in many years. USPA and PIA have been given an opportunity to review and comment. I was fortunate to be one of those to read both. If the comments are accepted by the FAA as presented, we should see a better more understandable AC-105. Blue Skies, Ed I am speaking for myself only.

I am your USPA Regional Director. Call or PM and I will help you make sure you are legal. There is a lot of good information in this thread and some really bad. It would be difficult to sort through it. What you want to do is not difficult. Blue Skies, Ed

He mentioned a powered parachute and I believe that is classed as an ultralight under Part 103. Ed

It is not legal under any circumstances (other than a TRUE emergency) to jump from an aircraft classed as an ultralight. Two place ultralights are certified by the FAA for instructional purposes. I have been over this with the FSDO inspectors many times and I always lose. Probably because they are right. Now a standard certificated plane......search this site for details and have at it. Ed .

Hey " S Man", don't leave yet, there's more !! You have three S&TAs at Orange, Lambert, Reynolds and Steve. Get their advice. I want to stay on subject so I won't go into why some of these things are being said. I can tell you that board distrust and ignoring procedure are red herrings. Security is a non-issue. This online system has great security and our present system is about as bad as it gets. I do, however, thank those raising these subjects for keeping this thread interesting enough so people will take the time to read it. Cost: The cost of the basic system is about $15,000 for election years only. More has been budgeted just in case. It amounts to about 35 cents per member per year. If we someday go to 3 year board terms, that reduces our yearly costs further. Cost is a fair target for those who would criticize. The board obviously believes it is worth the cost and they probably know more about that subject than most members. Here is something important about cost. Do you realize at present, USPA staff counts the votes? Think about it. I trust the present staff, they are great, but it hasn't always been that way. Staff should NOT be counting the votes for the board. It gives an appearance of possible wrong doing. If we don't get online voting, the board should move to get a third party to count our election ballots. With online voting, as a side benefit, that concern will be resolved. Another fair target is whether or not online voting will accomplish the desired goal of getting more people involved. Nobody knows for sure and the only way to find out is to try it. I believe one person said there was no provision for recounts. Wrong. That same person made another accusation about reconciling duplicate votes between paper and online. Also wrong and it is addressed in post 19 of this thread. The board (all volunteer) is elected to make good things happen. We will do the lion's share of the work, but we can't do it without your help !! Just take 2 minutes, print out the form at the link below, sign it, then fax or email as instructed on the form. USPA can be a better organization, but members must participate for it to happen. Blue Skies, Ed Click here to download a proxy, then sign and fax or email as instructed on the form. http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Proxy%20Download.pdf .

Phree, You are absolutely correct. Below is a copy/paste of the actual email that shows what was used for passwords and usernames during the test. You can see it was our actual USPA number for a username and our D number for a password. Of course anyone could hack it. Jan was involved and she has to know she is distorting what took place. Right now this is about online voting and I want to see us stay focused. --------------------------------------------------- QUOTE from email before the online voting test: As a place to start, I propose the following: - To conduct a vote for a fictitious roster of candidates in a mock USPA election, with the possibilities of write-ins, just like one of our real elections. (We would be voting for one region only in this mock election.) - That this election take place this week, Wednesday - Friday - That all board members and staff members be invited to vote - That the voters use their real USPA membership numbers for their User IDs - That the voters use their real USPA D-license number: with the letter, but not the dash before the number. (Staff members without a D-License would be provided fictitious D-license numbers by HQ) (For an actual election, we would use computer-generated passwords) End Quote -------------------------------------------------- Blue Skies, Ed

Thanks for your passionate views. I wish more people cared. Link to proxy. http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/USPAVotingProxyInformation/tabid/521/Default.aspx Blue Skies, Ed

Realistically speaking, the board is weary of trying to get a successful proxy, plus at present it costs several thousand dollars. I had a difficult time trying to get them to approve this one. If there is no quorum this time, it is my belief that there will not be another effort for years to come. If this proxy is approved and we get online voting, the system can be used for other purposes at almost no additional cost since we would get unlimited use for a year. I believe there is a lot riding on this and I am intentionally trying to make that point. Proxy link: http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/USPAVotingProxyInformation/tabid/521/Default.aspx Blue Skies, Ed Edited to add: Oh yes, the apathy issue. Anyone is free to have their own opinions. Mine is that if a quorum is not met, the reason will be member apathy. It's just like getting 2500 members out of more than 30,000 to vote in the last election. Withholding a proxy has the effect you mention, it is, nevertheless my belief that the numbers would be inconsequential. .

Andy, there is no need or desire to circumvent rules. That's why this is in the hands of the members. They will decide or prove that they just don't care what USPA does by not voting. If the board wanted to have online voting by circumventing rules, it would just happen and no proxy would be necessary. This is the simplest most straightforward proxy that can possibly be presented. In my opinion the worst case scenario is if there is no quorum, proving that those who say our members don't care, are indeed correct. If this happens, the results will be longlasting. It's easy to cast your vote by signing and faxing/emailing this proxy to allow USPA to have online voting. http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/USPAVotingProxyInformation/tabid/521/Default.aspx It will only take a minute of your time. I can't see what any board member has to personally gain by USPA starting online voting. Only the members will benefit. One thing that hasn't been said is that once we get the process approved, we can use it to poll the members on any particular issue at any time during the year it is active. This is an effort to get members more involved in a number of ways and I just don't see a downside to it. Blue Skies, Ed

Jeff W. made a suggestion I consider worth sharing. Click here to download a proxy http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/USPAVotingProxyInformation/tabid/521/Default.aspx Print it, sign it, then take a photo with your phone and email to the address on the proxy. You can do it all in about 2 minutes without leaving your chair. The only thing easier than that will be true online voting with no paper at all (unless you choose to use paper). Blue Skies, Ed

I would be happy to meet you one day. I am not saying I have technical answers. The authorized voters would be a confidential electronic list sent to the provider who would then attach passwords to each. If I understand your question about source code, I would have to say no it is not available. Take care, Ed