BOD meeting notes by Mike Turoff for the Feb. 06 meeting

[MikeTJumps 4]

This is by no means a complete rendering of what occurred at the BOD meeting. I have tried to be as accurate as possible, but I might have an error or two in the text. For complete and accurate details, you can expect to read the minutes of the meeting on the USPA website in the near future. This is just a listing of things that I observed and felt were important to get out to the field through this media.


USPA BOD meeting, 2/17/06

CTO by Glenn Bangs at 9:03 a.m.

Agenda motion moved and accepted.

Minutes of the July BOD meeting were approved as amended.

Introduction of the gallery and the BOD members

Membership 31,276 total, 4,187 new Renewal rate 85/5 Temp. 2,540 TIM to Reg. 546 Demo Ins. Policies sold 302. Membership is down from last year again.

2002 = 33,664 2003 = 32,628 2004 = 32,057 2005 = 31,276

Fatalities, up to 27 from 21 of 2004. Statistically 30-31. Landing fatalities under good canopies is decreasing in its share of the fatalities.

Group members = 266

Net revenue for the year is $ -87,229 (market fluctuations, sales of property expenses, etc.) Net worth $ 2,792,640 (still increasing).

Investment value:
2004 $ 945,183
2005 $ 930,688
2006 $ 2,500,276 $ 1,550,000 is from the sale of the Alexandria property. It is invested in short-term investments.

Dividends and interest for 2006 is projected to be $ 162,065

New HQ dedication will be May 12-13th and it will be in conjunction with a big party for the memory of Bill Ottley. This is scheduled for Saturday morning at 10:30 a.m. There will also be a Friday evening presentation of a "Lifetime Achievement Award" for Gene Paul Thacker.

Per Glenn Bangs: The focus for each one of us is to bring in “new blood” (members). We have an enviable renewal rate of 85%, but a new growth rate that is in dire need of rejuvenation.

Chris Needles had a nice PowerPoint™ presentation on USPA Sport Promotion. USPA is having its 60th anniversary this year.

Nominations and Elections Committee Meeting:

John Goswitz, Sherry Butcher, John DeSantis, J.Dan Stewart (members) and Larry Bagley as advisor. I was there as an interested observer.

New York Law governs the process. While not for the upcoming election, electronic balloting and signatures are a valid process. Therefore, Larry Bagley is being asked to get a legal opinion based upon NY law to determine if such electronic balloting can be used to obtain a quorum to conduct any business requiring a quorum as specified in the Constitution and By-Laws of the association.

Mike Turoff mentioned about the hurdles put in place for potential candidates for BOD positions as to why there may be so many unopposed slots. Mike mentioned that one of the ways around the quorum problem might be to put on every membership renewal form a proxy statement for a very specific issue that can be collected over a period of one year, thus obtaining an effective quorum proxy. Another possibility is to have every dropzone’s S&T Advisor to be a mentor/proponent for getting proxies signed and collected for a future BOD meeting (or for that matter, an instructor at every dropzone). Only through a massive effort will such an accomplishment be achieved based upon past history of failed proxy attempts.

Shanda Smith will be the primary function person in the upcoming election.


Safety and Training Committee:

Mike Perry, D.Jan Stewart, Mike Mullins, Sherry Butcher, Jan Meyer, Jessie Farrington, Chris Welker, Chris Quaintance. S&T Director: Jim Crouch
Advisor: Mike Turoff,

The canopy loading chart is a work in progress.

“Flying to Survive: Your Video Guide to Safe Canopy Piloting” is an excellent DVD Video presentation put together by Sherry Butcher and Jim Crouch. It is now in distribution. It presents a very good message to both beginner and experienced jumpers alike. It will be even better when it is finalized and released.

The Advanced Instructor Course (AIC) as developed by Rob Laidlaw is currently 4 days, $400/candidate wherever it is.

There was a motion for the waiver of instructional rating fees for lifetime members. Think about this….it would save the rating holder $20 or more per year there and if you stay in the sport, you’ll save on annual fees too. This is a win situation for anyone who stays in the sport more than 12 years as an instructional person and a win. However, most instructional rating holders only remain as such for seven years. Therefore, this is a win situation for the USPA. However, concerns over financial liabilities for a new large number of Lifetime members and “bottom line” finances as well as HQ tasking for monitoring those members caused this motion to be defeated.

A question is posed about allowing D-license holders to jump with unlicensed students who are signed off for self-supervision in relative work. A ratio of a minimum of one D-license holder to one student seems practical with a maximum size of four people. This was approved.

We are heading towards an expansion of Coach responsibilities to allow them to do everything after method specific deployment procedures are completed. It is such that a coach will be able to supervise S/L and IAD students who have completed their first successful solo freefall jump. This will allow Coach rating holders more jump supervision responsibilities and free up "appropriately rated instructors" from having to be in the aircraft during those jumps. There was a motion to this affect that was approved. Look for details to come in the USPA's website for the BOD minutes.


All other S&T agenda items were dealt with. Some required motions, some were discussed with no action planned on them.

Rob Laidlaw has been appointed to the position of AFF CD. Several other members are working on obtaining a similar appointment.


Membership Services:

No change in the insurance policy costs this year because of the good performance of the organization. This may give us some onus for pursuing self-insurance.

There are about 1,000 subscribers for the Accidental Death & Dismemberment insurance.

Future jump wings and hour badges will do away with the jewel chips. They will be made of gold and will have the award label spelled out on the item.

Mike Turoff
Instructor Examiner, USPA
Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook

[airtwardo 7]

Thanks Mike!

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

[matthewcline 0]

Thank You.

Very good of you to help keep us all informed, regardless of region.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

A question is posed about allowing D-license holders to jump with unlicensed students who are signed off for self-supervision in relative work. A ratio of a minimum of one D-license holder to one student seems practical with a maximum size of four people. This was approved.

We are heading towards an expansion of Coach responsibilities to allow them to do everything after method specific deployment procedures are completed. It is such that a coach will be able to supervise S/L and IAD students who have completed their first successful solo freefall jump. This will allow Coach rating holders more jump supervision responsibilities and free up "appropriately rated instructors" from having to be in the aircraft during those jumps. There was a motion to this affect that was approved. Look for details to come in the USPA's website for the BOD minutes.

Very good ideas.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Skymonkey2 0]

• Winter Board Meeting Completes
• D-license holders may now jump with students cleared to solo freefall supervision (certain limitations apply).
o About five years ago the USPA came up with a new student program called the Integrated Student Program (ISP), which was modeled after the Skydive University program. When this program was adopted by the USPA the Jumpmaster rating was basically changed to Coach. The program promoted survival skills in two different ways, first the basic survival skills for a student. First it was for the student to show the instructors that they were altitude aware and heading maintenance and hover control could be maintained (stability) for a stable deployment. If you remember the old student programs the students were required to move forward and dock. This was removed from the initial program for multiple reasons. One it is not a survival skill. Two with the new coach program it was part of the second phase to make much more aware and safer license skydivers. Phase two of the coaching program was to take the survival skills and perfect them while teaching students basically relative work survival skills. As a Course Director I have meet many D license skydivers that have a hard time skydiving in groups, and don’t have the skills to work with students. We as course directors teach USPA Coaches how to teach and the proper ways to teach students to meet the requirement for the A license. We are supposed to teach the latest up to date techniques. Also in the coach course and in the instructor courses we as course directors’ talk to the candidates about not letting students absorb information from other experienced skydivers. So now with USPA giving D license skydivers the opportunity to work with students we are breaking some of the principles of teaching. And we are letting the students possibly learn bad habits or not what we want them to learn.
o This looks like we are taking a step backwards in the Safety and Training department.
o I have met so many younger skydivers in Coach Courses that have said that this program (ISP) is so awesome and wished that when they were students they were taught this information and were taught these techniques.
o Before the board meeting I had the opportunity to talk to a former DZO and he like the idea for D license skydivers to work with students, but the only he could come up with was because he can’t to afford to loose instructors for coach jumps. This in opinion is not a good reason to change.
o My personal thought is that USPA is allowing this because not enough Drop Zones have coaches and they can’t give up instructors to conduct coach jumps. So possibly once again USPA is looking out for the DZ owners and not the students and there well being.

• Static line or IAD students may now begin working under the supervision of a USPA coach following a successful clear and pull.
o If you look in the SIM section 4 (ISP) you will notice that all the programs AFF, S/L and IAD are pretty much the same once the student moves to Category D. The students are conducting turns. So why can’t coaches work with AFF students at this time? The students could be conducting solo exits.
o Last summer two drop zones requested a waiver for their coaches to work with students after the students have been cleared form the static-line or the IAD. Back under the old system where there were Jumpmasters and Instructors. Both the instructor and jumpmaster were required to attend a course that was method specific. And the jumpmaster and instructor were required to attend a Basic Instructional Course before attending the ratings courses. So once again it looks like we have taken a step backwards in the safety and training side of skydiving. Coaches if taught properly may be able to work with these students, but don’t have the experience to properly critique the student in the air, so once again we are doing a miss-justice to the student.
o And if you remember the old programs each time a skydiver wanted a new rating he or she was required to teach and be evaluated; now we are giving some one with minimal experience and training the right to teach students.

www.airrageskydivingservices.com

AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E
Students are our future teach them well

[wmw999 2,439]

Thanks, Mike. And I'm glad to see some canopy guidance in there. Big change from when it was a little daring to go from cheapos to PCs as first jump canopies, eh?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Please don't take this as anything personal it is only a difference of oppinion.

I have been jumping 8 years and have seen the transition form the old program to new.While I don't think the ISP as a whole is a bad thing I think the coaches program has been implemented poorly and I think the decline in USPA membership is a product of that implementation.

When I went through AFF you did your 7 jumps and then jumped with experianced jumpers to not only learn to skydive but also make friends on the DZ.Now the new people are segregated into this group of people that no one is allowed to jump with if you have not jumped through the hoops of getting a coaches rating.There is a huge resource being wasted because quite frankly many people will never go to the trouble to get a coaches rating.All this is doing is driving up the cost of the A licence and driving people out of the sport,not only because of the $$$ but also the social segregation.Can anyone show me a drop in accidents or fatalities since this program has been implemented?

For everyones info.The coaches requirement can be waved at your DZ.If you feel the way that I do ask your S&TA about it.

Again,not an attack on anyone, just my oppinion.

.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

As a Course Director I have meet many D license skydivers that have a hard time skydiving in groups, and don’t have the skills to work with students.

And I have met some "coaches" that I wouldn't invite on a 4-way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[riggerrob 643]

Can anyone show me a drop in accidents or fatalities since this program has been implemented?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Fatalities, up to 27 from 21 of 2004. Statistically 30-31. Landing fatalities under good canopies is decreasing in its share of the fatalities."

[Skymonkey2 0]

I agree with this, but coaches are teaching basic RW and they are taught the princeples of teaching.

AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E
Students are our future teach them well

[Skydvr823 0]

I agree with what you said. I am an AFF, Static Line, and Tandem Instructor. I'm also a Coach Course Director and have seen a lot of D-license skydivers that can not skydive very well themselves much less know how to teach someone else how to skydive.
Example= Joe Blow gets his/her A-License then goes out and makes 450-475 solo jumps, takes the tests and gets their D-license. That person can now go and make jumps with students without having proven to anyone that they have the Air/Teaching skills required to properly instruct. We read on these very forums everyday about how low-time skydivers jumping beyond their skill level get hurt. What will happen to their skill level now?
The USPA just released a video(Fly to Survive) regarding canopy skills and how younger skydivers should look to experienced people like the PD Factory Team and other Canopy COACHES for advise. What about Air skills? I guess that Freefall skills aren't as important as Canopy skills.

I am someone who until now has had the highest regard for the USPA and what they try to do for the sport of skydiving.

It looks to me like the DZO's on the USPA Board are looking out for themselves and not for the future and safety of the skydiving industry.

At this time I think we should all give a big round of applause to the USPA Board for taking the sport of skydiving back about 10 years in the safety and training of students.

[Skymonkey2 0]

There are several dz that I know of one being Green Bay skydivers that there program has retained more students because of the coach program, this is a two C182 dz, and there a couple I could mention, at the 2005 PIA our Safety and Training Committee Chairman also said that retention has been up at his dz because of the program. Not the programs fault but the fault of the individuals that are trying to impliment it.

AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E
Students are our future teach them well

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

There is a huge resource being wasted because quite frankly many people will never go to the trouble to get a coaches rating.

I guess the question is "why?" I've heard a lot of people bitch that the coach rating is too easy to get, so why are D license holders who want to jump with students not bothering? This is really curiousity on my part... I learned under the new ISP, so I don't really have the "old days" to compare to.

I learned at a DZ where the student program is very tightly managed by the DZO and most of the folks who do coach jumps also have other instructor ratings as well. I did not feel "socially segregated" from the up-jumpers, but then again, it's a relatively small DZ. I guess I can see how that would happen at larger DZs.

I just wonder if letting anyone with a D license jump with students could be risky... not everyone can teach and I would think that at least "bothering" to get a rating indicates that you have 1) some interest in learning how to teach and 2) you have at least a baseline of training in how to teach (obviously, instructors, even with ratings, are going to vary widely in quality - I'm not naive enough to believe that just having a program ensures quality, but at least having a program and a standard is a step in the direction of developing a standard. And, frankly, in our litigioius society, having a community standard in place could be important).

(Caveat: I hold no instructional ratings and have no intention of going for them any time soon... I have a lot to learn myself before I feel ready to jump with people who don't have their A license. I'll continue to reach out to new A license holders and jump with them as much as I can, though.)

"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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I guess that Freefall skills aren't as important as Canopy skills

Good guess. It was the reverse of this that got us into the open canopy incident trouble that we're having now. Evryone got all excited about freefall, with AFF, and Skydive U, and forgot to update the canopy control portion to match the updates in canopy technology.

If a jumper can get stable on demand, and knows how to pull, they've got the basics covered for freefall. Many of the same jumpers know very little about canopies, how and why they fly, and the best way to handle them. Canopy control is a skill that they will us eon every jump, from 400 ways to solos.

Freefall skills are limited to certain jumps depending on what sort of jumps you are making. Freefall skills, short of being stable and knowing how to pull, will not save your life. This, of course, does not apply to people getting on jumps they're not qualified to make.

Even with jumpers making poor choices about what to do in freefall, collisions represent a very small protion of the incidents. Fuck any additional freefall training. It's taking up time you could spend teaching people how to finish saving their ass (pulling is only the start of the process), and what worse, is it's giving the impression that freefall skills should be the focus of jumpers energy as the progress from student to fun jumper.

[Skydvr823 0]

So what you're saying is that we can't focus on both learning safe canopy flying and learning freefall skills too!

THAT MAKES NO SENSE!

I'm not saying that we shouldn't become safer canopy pilots. I'm saying that the USPA is wants us to find expert Canopy Pilots to learn from, but that anyone can teach freefall skills without proving their skill level. We should teach Freefall and Canopy skills the same. They are equally important.

[davelepka 4]

I see you quoted my entire post. Did you have something to add, or just think it deserved repeating?

I've hit the 'Post Reply' accidentaly before. Maybe that's what happened.

[michaelmullins 81]

[repl

Future jump wings and hour badges will do away with the jewel chips. They will be made of gold and will have the award label spelled out on the item.

[MikeTJumps 4]

Thanks for the correction, Mike. As usual, I miss some item or two and you've caught one. I would amend it in my original posting if I could, but it doesn't seem to have that option available.

Mike Turoff
Instructor Examiner, USPA
Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook

[AFFI 0]

Quote

We should teach Freefall and Canopy skills the same. They are equally important.

Jumper #1:
Totally screws the freefall portion of a jump but deploys the parachute on time and properly navigates the canopy piloting portion of the skydive and lands safely in an area free of obstacles. Jumper #1 repacks and is on another load that day to go practice freefall skills again.

Jumper #2:
Illustrates perfection in freefall but does not deploy their parachute on time, makes poor decisions in navigating their canopy and lands in an area that is not free of obstacles resulting in a serious injury (or worse). Jumper #2 is not able to skydive again for an extended period of time (if ever) while healing from the injuries sustained on their landing.


In a perfect world the freefall portion and canopy piloting portion of a skydive are both successful without injury. In the real world people make mistakes, especially when they are still a novice/student level skydiver. I have never heard any stories about a skydver in the plane on their way to altitude with a femur sticking out.

Midair freefall collisions can be catastrophic as well; perhaps this is why we never see a skydiver with 19 jumps on Big Ways…

Which jumper would you rather be? Number 1 or number 2?

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I would rather see someone jump with someone with 500 jumps that can't teach than do solos because they don't have the money to pay a coach or there are no coaches available.

Lets think about this.Early freefall skills are not rocket science.We are talking about falling relative to another body,docking,tracking.I'm not suggesting a free for all where the new guy gets on any skydive he wants.I'm saying that someone with 20 jumps jumping with someone with 100 jumps without a coaches rating is not the most dangerous thing that can happen.Thats the way it use to be and people didn't die every weekend because of it.I'm just saying that the sport was not necessarily more dangerous the way it was and I don't believe it is any more safe now,but it damn sure costs someone more to get an A licence.


.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Which jumper would you rather be? Number 1 or number 2?

When I was a student I had "Number 1" tattooed to my forehead.


(Hey! Welcome back!)

[Skymonkey2 0]

For quit a few jumper it is rocket science. I have been running coach courses sense the beginning, and I do a lot of coaching, for free. And there are a lot of D license skydivers I would not let jump with anyone. Plus not everyone can teach, this is a critical time in the beginer students long term carreer. I don't think that there are a lot of coaches out there that know what there doing, but that falls back on the course director and the individual. I also hear form a lot of old time instructors that a individual should be a coach for at least one year before they get their instructor rating just like with the old jumpmaster program. The student can work without a coach or instructor on the skills to complete the A license card. And then when ready basically test out. Almost every big sport out there requires money.
Education is the best way to prevent accidents.

AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E
Students are our future teach them well

[labrys 0]

I really don't see it stated anywhere in the original post that D license holders are going to be allowed to teach or instruct students. It says that they can jump with them.

That leaves a unlicensed jumper with 3 potential options. Solo, get a coach, do up to a 4-way with at least 1 D license holder.

Am I missing something?

Owned by Remi #?

[Skydvr823 0]

What I think a lot of people are missing in this is that without proper training.... You can become a bad combination of both jumpers 1 and 2.

Don't get me wrong the USPA did a great thing in producing the video Fly to Survive. We plan on incorporating it into Safety Day at our dropzone.

Where they went wrong is in lessening the training required for jumpers to instruct students. I've seen people argue on this forum that jumpers with 100 to 200 jumps are not experienced, yet you are only required to have 100 jumps to get a coach rating. Do you feel that it is okay to have a person with 100 jumps teaching a jumper turns for the first time? With this new system they will be allowed to take a static line student as soon as they complete their clear and pull(7th jump). That means the student will have no other freefall experience. Would you have a coach do the same thing for AFF. That means it will be the students 4th jump.
This argument is not about what is more important to the student (canopy skills or freefall skills). It is that the USPA is dropping their standards for student instruction.

You can't preach safety and do this at the same time. Instructional Rating courses have been implemented for a reason. A person looking to be an Instructor is evaluated on their ability to fly with and teach a student. D-License holders are not instructors or coaches.

[Skymonkey2 0]

You are correct. but it goes back to teaching the student the correct information. If the D license skydiver is not teaching the or if you would like working on the correct techniques or the drop zones syllabus then we are confusing the student and he or she is getting mixed information. Again this is critical time in any ones learning.

www.airrageskydivingservices.com

AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E
Students are our future teach them well