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

Those interested in security information, please take a look at the attached diagram. Ed

DSE, You can certainly let that concern rest. Mike Mullins would not put up with any of that, nothing like that is getting past me and if it did, Jay Stokes would roll some heads !! There is at least a double layer of protection. By the way, it's good to see you care enough to come to the meetings, even when under the weather. Ed

This is an effort to allow USPA members to vote for their BOD representatives online in addition to the present snail mail ballots. 1. Click here and print out a proxy form. http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Proxy%20Download.pdf 2. Fill it out with your vote (for or against), information and signature. 3. Send it to USPA via email, snail mail or fax as instructed on the form. That's it. Ed

This was decided by Constitution and Bylaws, Mike Mullins, Chair. I agree with their decision and I disagree with you. The members decide whether or not they want online voting and if so, the board and staff implement it. Also, you seem stuck on parliamentary issues. We consulted with New York attorneys (where USPA is incorporated) and they advised us. Personally, I will take the advice of the attorneys over a parliamentarian. Actually, it wasn't Bagley, but he is no longer involved with the Committee and no one is trying to pull anything other than getting online voting for the members. We want to hire professionals who do elections on a daily basis with excellent records. Of course it was easy to vote for someone else during a test with no safeguards in place. We used commonly known passwords and usernames. The demonstration was just to show you the system. Actually I did answer the question. Why would you say that I didn't? All paper ballots will be keyed into the online system which checks for one voter, one vote. You have asked a "ton" of questions over time and I believe I answered all of them. You are so deeply into minutiae that, in my opinion, is best handled by professionals. Unfortunately, you have misrepresented some of what I said. I misspoke, corrected it and you choose for some reason to repeat my mistake without making reference to the correction I made. Why would you do that? To reiterate, a member may check in as often as he/she likes to view the ballots. When the member presses the "VOTE" button, he/she receives a paper receipt of the vote and is locked out of going back. The committee has made some suggestions concerning user names and passwords. Birthday was recommended as a username along with a password generated by the provider. Even USPA would not have access to the password list since it would be entirely handled by the provider. I can't say this is what will actually be used. None of us on the committee or the USPA staff are professionals at online voting. If the members want online voting, professionals will be used. Your questions and tone indicate that you are deeply into micromanagement. That is not the method or intent of the N&E Committee. Ed Dixon N&E Chair

Jan, We had a choice. We could complicate the issue with so many details that almost no one would read it or those that tried would doze off, or we could simplify matters and tell the members what we intend to do. We could not please 100% of the BOD with the wording and we will not be able to please 100% of the members either. This is a legitimate effort to begin to bring USPA into the 21st century. I believe the vast majority of members are in favor of online voting or I would not be supporting it. USPA will not be forced into doing things another way if this effort should fail. If the proposal does not pass, I believe it will be dead entirely. I would like those reading this to know you sat beside me during much of this discussion in Phoenix and we talked. What I see in your post is surprising and does not match what I recall at that meeting. Sometimes I think you must have a twin. Take care, Ed

If 90% can't be bothered to vote in elections, I wonder if 10+% can be bothered to vote by proxy for this motion. Sadly, I'm guessing not. There could be a lot more than just online voting riding on the success of this proxy. The BOD is weary of asking members for their participation only to get a "Ho Hum" reaction. In the future, we really need to change the BOD term to 3 years. More would be accomplished without the interruption of an election plus the cost of elections would be reduced by 50%. That also would require a proxy vote. So, either the members participate or USPA remains stagnant and in the dark ages. The BOD has no authority to make these changes without YOUR approval. These proxies can be emailed or faxed, so please take a moment to send yours to USPA. Ed N&E Chair

I see someone provided a link to the SIM. Here is the link to the SCM (and more). http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Downloads/tabid/84/Default.aspx

Hi Jan, I am far from an expert concerning online voting, although I have done a great deal of work on this project. The exact text of the proxy will be available to members as soon as it is available to me. I do not want it to be so detailed as to confuse those who are not familiar with our by-laws or require that they pull out a Governance Manual before they can vote. There are those on that side of the fence. With members approval, we will be changing what is ncessary to allow online voting and nothing else ! Online votes go directly into the system. Once a member casts a vote, they receive a paper receipt and are locked out. If they send a paper ballot, it is keyed into the system by an administrator and then that member is locked out. Essentially it is a 100% online system that locks out the possibility of two votes by one member, so there is no concern about voting twice. It has not been firmed up as to how usernames and passwords will be handled. We do know that our provider will generate random passwords that USPA staff and BOD will not have access to. This will be far and above more secure than our present system. The system cost will be determined by how many of the services we use. I expect the cost will be about $20,000 every other year (should we move to 3 year BOD terms? I think so.) That amounts to about 32 cents per year per member. The actual amount budgeted is $25,000 just in case something unexpected arises. Blue Skies, Ed

The proxy request will target only those changes necessary to allow online voting. Specifically we must change By-Laws Section 7 where it says, "Ballots that do not contain the voting member's original signature will be declared invalid." and Section 5 which says, " December- Ballot election by mail." Some other changes are also necessary in Section 3, but those are the two that the BOD may not change without the members approval. The proposed plan still allows paper and photocopy ballots. The only difference will be another (more convenient?) way to vote. So again, the members will make the decision. Blue Skies, Ed Dixon Chair N&E

There are indeed enough BOD members who want to see online voting for USPA general elections. A motion to solicit proxies to change the USPA by-laws to allow online voting passed at the last meeting and as soon as we can get it out, you will have an opportunity to have your "say". The board has done its part, it is now up to the members. Ed Dixon Chair Nominations and Elections