Dizallving USPA

[Slyde 0]

My favorite mentor has said to many skydivers: "If we didn't have USPA we would have to invent USPA."

Is that still true?

Do we even NEED this mutated outfit anymore?
This USs PAy? Has our vessle sailed it's course? Is it floating our sport over and into troubled waters? Waters where we are regulated into oblivion by higher and higher operational costs from excessive regulations? Is there Cancer on the Bridge, doctor? This bridge over troubled waters?

Is it a good idea that Federal Government tell you how to spend your weekend at SPORT RECREATION, or is it time to deregulate and get Uncle Sam OUT of our sport?

FAA WOULD LOVE TO DEREGULATE. They have tried before. (More on this and WHY it failed later.) FAA knows they have no business regulating sport. USPA labors to change their minds; to fool them into sustaining the rust-bucket, dump-truck-aircraft carrier; the employer and plaything of a small handful of elitists.

It is sad but true that USPA must continue its quest to BE your uncle, Sam. Steadily, day by day, Feds are beginning to assume that USPA is not voluntary. This will turn around and you can accelerate the process if you wish to help.

Maybe the USs PAy has sailed it's course and maybe it is time that the flat world and global communication marketplace take over where USPA left off. Return to being the once loved Parachute Club of America. Please. It's time.

I don't like being pushed around by Uncle Sam after voting and paying my taxes ... or my dues for 31 years.

YOU DON't need higher dues or any dues at all in a flat world. Not in America either, if you have some balls. There are SMARTER ways to buy insurance and education. Like, look around. Here you are.

USPA is the problem. Not the solution, me thinks.
Give it time. I believe USPA will prove it to you American jumpers and global observers. The ship is run agrounded. Check out your new directors. Same old same old. plus randy oh deer! we're in deep doo doo kidz

Please stay tuned.
The Sphincter Brothers are on the air.

eDo Onward.
pork r

Pick your sphincters from the attached photo in honor of Orville & Wilbur.
luv,
slyde

Spare change you can believe in.

A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike!

[futuredivot 0]

Dude, You might have a valid point. I might even agree with you if it were presented clearly. What do you dislike about USPA? What other options do you suggest? I'm not inclined to wade through the above post in an attempt to decipher what you're saying.

This is honestly a request, not an attack.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[tombuch 0]

Quote

What do you dislike about USPA?

His membership was revoked. See the very long thread at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3550597;page=unread#unread. If you read the whole thing you will get a better sense of what happened, and why he hates USPA, but you probably won't buy into his appeal.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[skyjumpsteve 0]

I wouldn't cry about dues dude.....BPA charges about $190 a year or about 3 times as much as USPA. I think USPA is a great deal. We get 12 Parachutists a year, insurance coverage, and we benefit greatly from their work with the FAA and other agencies to allow us to keep jumping. If it kept me in the air I would gladly pay what our cohorts in the U.K. pay. Are there possibly some issues with the way USPA is run? Maybe. But your rants are really not productive and do not forward any type of suggestion on how to make it better.

[airtwardo 7]

R.I.P.W.H.O.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[rdufokker 6]

First of all you are taking a Spanky and Our Gang mentallity toward Clubs. This is not a day and age when we can have the USPA disolved and a Club put in its place. Hey here is an idea, start the USPA Haters Club. That sounds like a good name, you can be president. You also said that you want de-regulation. Are you SURE? Do YOU know all the implications of that move. Would we still be allowed to operate at Federally funded airports, would we still be allowed into class B airspace? I'm sure it sounds good right up until the FAA says "oh by the way, we are not going to allow xxx now". De-regulation doesn't necessarily mean we are left alone to do as we would like.

Modifying the goals and structure of the current USPA should always be looked at, specially by the board. This organization should be dynamic not stagnant. What we should not do is start from scratch. One thing I would like to see is some type of Legislative committee, and be allowed to donate to a skydiving PAC. An area where we are fooling ourselves is thinking that working with the FAA will solve our problems. BS. What will help with problems is meeting with Sen's and Rep's on aviation subcommittees. Getting them to understand how sophisticated the sport is and how safety and efficiency is paramount with most all skydivers

You say we are regulated into higher and higher operational costs. What Costs? A reserve pack every 180 days and USPA license. What else?

As for your problem Slyde, have you asked for some type of mediation process with USPA ?

Bruno

[Slyde 0]

Quote

R.I.P.W.H.O.

I'm pretty sure that was his last demo.
He's a tough act to follow. I'm not optomistic thus far about the near future.

But if we keep smiling, laughing and needling the little pair on or about the cheeks and sphincters ...

well ... it seems the doctor was OUT for a while there.

eDo onward.

(Also pictured, DZO Karl Priggee & gymnast Howard Sphincter aboard the illegal flight to honor O & W & 100 years of powered flight.)

efdd (do demos)
m~

A Peace Prize within minutes of Bombing the Moon. Coincidence? "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." You GO Ike!

[tkhayes 348]

USPA is a 'sport' organization. The feds are a REGULATORY body. By having USPA, we have actually DEREGULATED the sport. (at least in part). And we have a say in the regulations that do exist.

Not having USPA would likely mean the feds would HAVE to regulate us. A bad idea.

If you do not like USPA, then invent a new organization to compete with USPA, steal all the skydivers away to your new organization.

Not having a voice in Washington, means the death of the sport due to 'rules' made by people within the FAA who know nothing about skydiving.

Read the 'action' items on www.uspa.org and you will see why the membership is worth every nickel of $65/year and even more.

And if you lost your rating or membership - well, my experience is that it ain't really that difficult to comply with a few simple rules. And they are not asking you to do anything different than they are asking 32000 other members to do, and most of us/them seem to have no problem with it......

stop yer whining. No one is stopping you from running for the BoD and changing the rules.

[VectorBoy 0]

we benefit greatly from their work with the FAA and other agencies to allow us to keep jumping.

[labrys 0]

WTF is Dizallving?

Ah, Do'h.. I get it. Kinda like making one of those fake science project volcanoes where you pour vinegar into baking soda, right?

Owned by Remi #?

[tombuch 0]

Quote

USPA is a 'sport' organization. The feds are a REGULATORY body. By having USPA, we have actually DEREGULATED the sport. (at least in part). And we have a say in the regulations that do exist.

Not having USPA would likely mean the feds would HAVE to regulate us. A bad idea.

I think his position is that FAA wants to stop regulating us, but USPA is actively keeping them involved. If I understand his rant correctly, he believes that if USPA went away FAA would stop regulating skydiving and we could then do whatever we choose.

That would be a really, really bad outcome.

Right now the FAA occupies the regulatory landscape at a minimal level and preempts most state regulation. If the FAA somehow stepped out of that role (and I doubt they would choose to do that) the states would be free to step in. We would be left with as many as fifty different state-level regulatory bodies, all asserting differing levels of control, and making up their own standards for equipment, licensing, training, and behavior. It would be chaos.

It's much better for us to have a single major player in the regulatory arena, and then deal with the limited actions available to the states. And of course FAA is willing to yield to USPA policy in most areas, so we have a pretty good deal.

USPA does a good job of working with the FAA within a federal regulatory framework, and USPA does an outstanding job of keeping state regulation at bay. Nothing is ever perfect, but USPA Government Affairs is one of the places where I really believe I'm getting my money's worth.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[tkhayes 348]

AOPA and EAA are also far far larger than USPA, more money, more members, more voice in DC

[NovaTTT 2]

Quote

stop yer whining. No one is stopping you from running for the BoD and changing the rules.

Ah - he'd have to be a member to run.

Otherwise, as usual TK, you're right on it. ;-)

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[zipplewrath 1]

Your assertions not withstanding, the ultralight aircraft industry did not follow the path you describe. They were extensively deregulated a couple of decades ago. The FAA is predominently interested in money, and there just isn't that much money in skydiving. The various marginal areas of aviation (gliders, ballons, etc.) haven't suffered at particularly because of their "second tier" status. Skydiving will always be connected to the aircraft, and the aircraft will always be regulated. Getting us classified outside of the normal aviation rules could allow us to be exempt from most of the rules governing parachutes. The biggest danger of moving outside of the FAA would be the occasional airport access issues that come up, and I haven't been impressed over the years that it particularly helps in that area.