USPA Solo Challenge

[MakeItHappen 15]

This is an FYI post about what USPA is doing that you might not have noticed.

“Training Center” designation by USPA

USPA established a program called the ‘Solo Challenge’ at the Winter 08 and Summer 08 BOD meetings.

Quote

[Winter 08 Meeting]
The ‘Solo Challenge’ was billed as
“Introduce the USPA Solo Challenge program that provides an early, attainable goal, at which a person is recognized as a skydiver”

1. Ed Scott introduced USPA’s Solo Challenge. By establishing a low benchmark for new skydivers to achieve (i.e., First complete jump unassisted) and recognizing their achievement in some way, we are hoping to retain more skydivers in the sport beyond their first jump. Ed also informed the committee that there are available funds in the budget to enact the ‘Solo Challenge’
program to include either a pin, patch, and / or certificate to be given to every student that has made this achievement.
2. As a component of the ‘Solo Challenge’, Ed Scott briefed the committee as to designate Group Members who are willing to participate at no additional cost to the GM, as “Training Centers.”
Group members will be allowed to use the logo with the term “Training Center” until renewal of the GM is due. Certain criteria may have to be met at such time to retain the designation of a “Training Center.” Such criteria will be discussed at the summer 2008 BOD meeting. A motion was made to designate any Group Member who is willing to participate in the ‘Solo Challenge’ program to be designated as a “Training Center” until such time that certain criteria has been
established to retain the designation of a “Training Center.”

Motion 65: Passed 16/0/4 (Mr. Casares)
“Move to designate any Group Member DZ who is willing to participate in the ‘Solo Challenge’ Program to be designated as a ‘Skydive Training Center’ (or similar phrase) until such time that certain criteria has been established to retain the designation of a ‘Skydive Training Center.’”

[Summer 08 Meeting]
Group Membership has kicked off USPA’s Solo Challenge Program
concurrently with registering Group Member DZs as Training Centers.

Rhonda Kaletz updated the committee on the USPA’s Solo Challenge. Group member drop zones have been sent a copy of the “Solo Skydiver” certificate last week. Any GM DZs willing to participate in the Solo Challenge simply need to just notify headquarters.

Ed Scott updated the committee on designating drop zones as training centers. Discussion was made on criteria to retain the training center status. A decision was made to set the criteria at the next board meeting

If you note in Parachutist Oct, Nov, Dec 08 issues –
HQ has placed a green TC next to DZs that have signed up for the Solo Challenge in the DZ listing section.
That is ok nothing wrong with that.
But what the magazine says is

Quote

”TC” designates a USPA Training Center. These drop zones provide skydiving training beyond the first jump.

emphasis added.

This little sentence “These drop zones provide skydiving training beyond the first jump.” is an outright leverage technique to coerce DZs into buying into the ‘Solo Challenge’. This sentence strongly implies that the DZs without the TC designation do not provide training beyond the first jump. HQ has gone beyond what the BOD authorized.

So what do you think about this?

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[riggerpaul 1]

Not that I always agree with what you say, but in this matter, we are certainly on the same page.

When the October Parachutist came out, I very quickly sent an email to HQ asking for more details about the program.

I did this because, though my home dz has a very active student program, we did not sport the TC designation, and I wanted to understand why.

HQ never responded.

I talked with the DZ management and learned that we would not participate because there was some sort of requirement to send information about our students to HQ. I never got a clear idea of the exact nature of this requirement. If you could enlighten, please do. Anyway, our DZ declined to do whatever it was, preferring to protect the privacy of our students.

I've talked with a number of people, including my RD, and essentially gotten no traction for my belief that designating some as TC did a serious disservice to other DZs who chose not to participate. I feel this way exactly because of the notation you mentioned, that TC means you are a DZ that offers more than first jump training.

I believe that not having the TC designation carries the implication that you are only a "tandem mill", and that is far from the case for most of the DZs that don't have the TC.

Personally, I would have no problem if the magazine said that TC indicated DZs that had chosen to participate in the Solo Challenge.

But I feel strongly that what they did say is not in the best interest of a great deal of the Group Member dropzones.

I invite persons of a like mind to start writing to HQ objecting to this divisive language.

In fairness, I will say that some of the feedback I've gotten included the notion that the little note in Parachutist will not have a big impact on where students go, because not many will even see it for quite some time.

Though there may be some truth to this, I still think that USPA is doing a divisive disservice to Group Members, and should at least change the magazine immediately.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

This little sentence “These drop zones provide skydiving training beyond the first jump.” is an outright leverage technique to coerce DZs into buying into the ‘Solo Challenge’. This sentence strongly implies that the DZs without the TC designation do not provide training beyond the first jump.

I sounds like they want DZs to buy into the "Training Center" concept, and are using the 'Solo Challenge' to ease it in there, all nice and lubed up.

Of course, later on you'll have to deal with -

Quote

Certain criteria may have to be met at such time to retain the designation of a “Training Center.” Such criteria will be discussed at the summer 2008 BOD meeting

- whatever that means.

Does anyone know why 'such criteria' cannot just be rolled into the GM program? No DZ is required to be a GM, and they can be notified of rule/regulation/requirement changes at the time of renewal.

We really need another DZ membership program, and band-aid fix for the student program? Because along with more of anything you run into this-

Quote

Ed also informed the committee that there are available funds in the budget to enact the ‘Solo Challenge’

Does anyone here really think that any student who comes back for jump #2 isn't fully briefed on the student progression? How it works, how many and what kind of jumps?

These people are well aware of the milestones - being released in freefall, one JM, solo exits, no JM, etc. Is it really the idea that jumpers will strive to tackle the solo challenge? How about the fact that after they do, of course they have to go back to jumping with a coach to get their 'A'?

"Hey Jimbo! Way to go, you just met the Solo Challenge, and jumped all by yourself. Please go find a coach so you can get your A card completed, and one day you can jump by yourself again."

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

HQ has gone beyond what the BOD authorized.

Good to know they are standing up to our expectations.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

HQ has gone beyond what the BOD authorized.

Has the BOD addressed this concern directly with Headquarters?

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

HQ has gone beyond what the BOD authorized.

Has the BOD addressed this concern directly with Headquarters?

Your response sounds disturbingly like a knee-jerk reaction to Jan's post.

I sincerely hope that is not the case.

Jan, a board member, apparently feels that it went beyond what she expected.

But that's not really the issue here, is it?

So, I'll ask you directly, do you think it appropriate for the "TC" to mean "These drop zones provide skydiving training beyond the first jump"?

I think that describing the "TC" in that manner is, at best, misleading, and at worst, a ploy to strong-arm group members to participate in a program of which they do not approve.

I would like that description of "TC" changed.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Your response sounds disturbingly like a knee-jerk reaction to Jan's post.

Not at all, just trying to learn what I can about the board's ability (or lack thereof) to influence HQ's execution of its decisions, and whether there has already been an attempt to address the issue directly.

As for the topic at hand, the way the "TC" designation is defined in Parachutist - it appears to be "technically" accurate*, but also misleading and incomplete based on what I have read about the program and its stated goals (I can only go on what has been published, as I am not currently on the BOD, nor was I privy to the discussions that led to the creation of the program). As others have said, the definition implies that other GM DZs do not provide training beyond tandems. While indeed some may not, most do.






* I say "appears" to be accurate because I certainly haven't gone to every DZ that has the TC designation and validated that they have a student program beyond tandems.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[DanG 1]

Quote

Your response sounds disturbingly like a knee-jerk reaction to Jan's post.

I sincerely hope that is not the case.

Jan, a board member, apparently feels that it went beyond what she expected.

I think NWFlyer's question is perfectly legitimate. At some point, someone decided how the description in Parachutist would read. I sincerely doubt it was the Parachutist staff. If it was, and they just made a mistake, have they been contacted to correct it? If it was someone else, have they been asked to correct it? The whole story is not contained in Jan's post.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

I think it's a good program to push, though as always, the details are important.

My intent after AFF1 was not the A license, but the solo jump. Or more precisely, a jump where I was actually in control and responsible for its success.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Your response sounds disturbingly like a knee-jerk reaction to Jan's post.

Not at all, just trying to learn what I can about the board's ability (or lack thereof) to influence HQ's execution of its decisions, and whether there has already been an attempt to address the issue directly.

As for the topic at hand, the way the "TC" designation is defined in Parachutist - it appears to be "technically" accurate*, but also misleading and incomplete based on what I have read about the program and its stated goals (I can only go on what has been published, as I am not currently on the BOD, nor was I privy to the discussions that led to the creation of the program). As others have said, the definition implies that other GM DZs do not provide training beyond tandems. While indeed some may not, most do.


* I say "appears" to be accurate because I certainly haven't gone to every DZ that has the TC designation and validated that they have a student program beyond tandems.

Krisanne, please accept my public apology. Perhaps it was my knee that was jerking. Your terse response/question just made me feel that we might be descending into the bickering that we have seen amongst ourselves over the Jan issue. Make no mistake, I am no particular supporter of Jan's, but the last thing we need now is to start fighting amongst ourselves again.

In my own defense, I'll point out that I even said that I hoped that what I was feeling wasn't the case, as apparently, it is not.

In addition, others could not know that you and I have already had some discussion regarding this matter. The sense I got from you in those emails was that you didn't see the issue as being particularly troubling. That certainly was a factor contributing to the tone of my reply to you.

But, whatever led me to that tone, I apologize and hope that you will accept my apology.

Now, back to the original discussion.

You admit that while it might be technically accurate, it is misleading.

I have a hard time believing that whoever chose those words was not aware of the negative connotations they would imply for those who do not have their benefit. We are supposed to be trying to pull things together, not rend them apart. If it was really just a poor choice of words by a well meaning individual, then we need to correct it immediately.

Based on the content of the magazine, I think it is entirely reasonable to think that a person who is researching the issue of getting skydiving training would be steered away from many perfectly acceptable group members based on what was written. After all, the national magazine is telling them right where they can find the training they seek.

And, as I said, I tried to get information from HQ and got no response.

So, unfortunately, the whole thing smacks of people playing politics in the leadership of USPA. And I don't like to think my organization would let personal agendas so taint its operations. There are businesses and people's livelihoods that could be adversely affected by stuff like this. If this is just an oversight, then I say we should not be so accepting of such a poor performance on the part of whoever chose those words.

I will be happy to be proven wrong when I see the magazine published with more appropriate wording. That's all I want - a change in the wording.

Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that it was and remains intentional.

That would make me very unhappy.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Krisanne, please accept my public apology

None necessary. I can see how my first post could be interpreted the way you did.

Quote

If this is just an oversight, then I say we should not be so accepting of such a poor performance on the part of whoever chose those words.

Which is why I asked my original question - I'd like to understand if there's been an attempt by the board to correct the situation already, or whether Jan is using dropzone.com to solicit input from the membership prior to bringing up her concerns.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I think this looks a whole lot like the kind of political BS that comes out of Washington. Where we hear about this great bill that is going to fix this huge problem we have yet there are 10 other things attached to it that no one ever hears about till it is too late. This would also be a prime example of why people are reluctant to give up their vote for a proxy vote.

Jan, now that the ball is rolling on this who or how many people get to decide what strings are attached to it?

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

I talked with the DZ management and learned that we would not participate because there was some sort of requirement to send information about our students to HQ. I never got a clear idea of the exact nature of this requirement. If you could enlighten, please do.

I have no knowledge of a requirement that a DZ has to send USPA client information.
Can you send me the materials or pieces of paper that ask the DZ to do this?
This is news to me.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Quote

I talked with the DZ management and learned that we would not participate because there was some sort of requirement to send information about our students to HQ. I never got a clear idea of the exact nature of this requirement. If you could enlighten, please do.

I have no knowledge of a requirement that a DZ has to send USPA client information.
Can you send me the materials or pieces of paper that ask the DZ to do this?
This is news to me.

.

Hey, Jan - I first read about it in October's edition of the USPA Professional. I had definitely skimmed over that requirement myself but Paul brought it to my attention in our email chat that he references above and expressed concerns over the potential privacy implications of such a requirement.

From the the section entitled USPA Training Centers:

Quote

Training Center DZs also commit to providing USPA with the names and email addresses of their first-jump customers.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Hey, Jan - I first read about it in October's edition of the USPA Professional. I had definitely skimmed over that requirement myself but Paul brought it to my attention in our email chat that he references above and expressed concerns over the potential privacy implications of such a requirement.

From the the section entitled USPA Training Centers:

Quote

Training Center DZs also commit to providing USPA with the names and email addresses of their first-jump customers.

Whoa. It is a bad business practice for one company to release personally identifiable information to third parties, unless you go through a big disclaimer about doing that. Usually, if a company wanted to release such info they would sell it and not give it away and they would get the customer's consent in writing.
USPA is way out of line on this.

What USPA sold the BOD was a program that was an 'atta-boy' or 'atta-girl' for someone doing their first solo freefall. You know the H&P on SL progression or solo on AFF etc. The jumper would get a certificate (and/or pin/patch) to recognize this milestone.
I thought most jumpers would not be motivated by this certificate, but it would not hurt anything to recognize them either.
But now there is a requirement for DZs to release customers' personally identifiable information to USPA?
Where did that come from? The BOD never agreed to something like that.

Can you imagine if PIA, a recognized trade organization, asked all their members to provide the name and email of their customers to PIA? That would never fly. USPA needs to get out of the trade organization role. It needs to be a membership organization: for the members and by the members.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I talked with the DZ management and learned that we would not participate because there was some sort of requirement to send information about our students to HQ. I never got a clear idea of the exact nature of this requirement. If you could enlighten, please do.

I have no knowledge of a requirement that a DZ has to send USPA client information.
Can you send me the materials or pieces of paper that ask the DZ to do this?
This is news to me.

.

Hey, Jan - I first read about it in October's edition of the USPA Professional. I had definitely skimmed over that requirement myself but Paul brought it to my attention in our email chat that he references above and expressed concerns over the potential privacy implications of such a requirement.

From the the section entitled USPA Training Centers:

Quote

Training Center DZs also commit to providing USPA with the names and email addresses of their first-jump customers.

(Jan - HQ never responded to me. That's why I was asking you. Maybe they didn't respond because they knew I could find the information in the USPA Professional.)

You know, I didn't read the October USPA Professional very well at all. There is is in black and white. They also mention a weekly newsletter to the email addresses they collect. I cannot really tell from that description if they mean they keep sending weekly email to everybody. But I'd probably be a bit peeved if I started getting a weekly spam from USPA just because I'd made a tandem jump.

I just took a look at their example of the weekly email. It doesn't seem to have an opt-out link anywhere. Maybe there would be one in an actual weekly email. Or, have they made another little mistake and forgotten to give people a way to stop the spam?

The more I hear, the less I like it.

Now, I'd like to stop the whole program, but I'd settle for changing the description in Parachutist so that it didn't imply that other DZs were inferior.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Jan, now that the ball is rolling on this who or how many people get to decide what strings are attached to it?

[crotalus01 0]

The "training center" issue aside, didnt USPA have this same basic concept with the Falcon and Eagle awards? I understand they were done away with due to lack of people applying for them. Why not just ressurect those awards (maybe modified a bit), and do away with the training center designation?

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Because that would not produce the ability to strong arm the DZs into whatever it is HQ has in store for them.

[NickDG 23]

They finally lost me, after screwing things up for years, when they came out with "Atmospheric Dolphin", WTF . . .

USPA is irrelevant . . .

NickD

[AggieDave 6]

Dude, the AD had nothing to do with the USPA, that was "I invented freeflying" Olav and his money making scheme.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[NickDG 23]

Dude, every harebrained USPA "program" is someone's idea. But they were pushing it . . .

All I ever wanted from USPA was them to be more like the NRA and to come down like a ton of bricks anytime anyone tried to limit skydiving.

That's all!

I don't need need them to me tell how I should jump, where I should jump, what gear I should jump. Who I should jump with. And most of all, how I should teach newbies to jump . . .

USPA is irrelevant.

NickD

[AggieDave 6]

The USPA never had anything to do with the AD, that was all Olav. Same thing with the PST "pro card." The USPA doesn't care.

I don't doubt the USPA has come up with some seriously stupid ideas over the years, you've seen more come and go then I have; however, this time it wasn't the USPA. There are plenty of other things to get hung up on with them, pick another one.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[NickDG 23]

- There stand against BASE that lasted 20 years.

- They banned Blast Handles.

- Eliminating Jumpmasters for Coaches.

- There reticence to denounce the "Nova" canopy because of Glidepath ad buys even after they knew that canopy was killing and crippling people.

- Jerry Schrimsher.

- The Flat Bed Ten.

- There silence on Tandem Mills.

- The joke that's the Pro Rating.

- Skyride? What's that?

- The persecution of Jan Meyer.

- Letting the I.E. rating languish then spending money on bringing it back.

- Appointing the Exec Dir instead of electing him or her.

- No naked chicks in PARACHUTIST, WTF . . .

- I could go further back, but I'm trying to stay within your limited timeframe . . .

NickD

[AggieDave 6]

That was my point. Keep up the fight you want to fight for real things, since they didn't have anything to do with the AD. It was something dreamed up by Olav and for his pocket book outside of the USPA's advice or ability to reach into everyone else' pocket book.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."