USPA Election Results

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I'm not saying anybody did, just that Jan won't.

Ummm - I'm sure a lot of things won't happen with Jan on the board... such as drafting all USPA members into the 82nd Airborne or selling USPA to Vogons as intergalactic construction workers. I'm curious why you made that statement.

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

It will be interesting to see the vote totals, to get an idea of how much support the anti-DZO/GM movement really has.

...

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

[Craig 0]

Quote

It will be interesting to see the vote totals, to get an idea of how much support the anti-DZO/GM movement really has.

Same here, I am interested in all the vote totals, even if it was for "Mickey Mouse"...

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I would have gotten my AFF-JM rating even if my DZO didn't require it. I learned a lot and it made me a better instructor. But in the end the only people who can really regulate skydiving are the DZO's, which is one reason I worry about separating them from USPA. USPA would then become a club with no power to enforce anything - or even suggest anything. The 'DZO association' would effectively control most of skydiving - setting the rules, the limits and the standards.

USPA is already doesn't regulate anything. "Self-regulation" is a myth. It doesn't really exist. DZO's do what they want and if USPA doesn't like it, too bad. DZO's laready set the standards, rules, and limits. I think it is hypocritical for a DZ to be a USPA group member, violate the BSR's with the knowledge of the regional director, and nothing happens. If, as part of being a USPA group member DZ, the DZ had to have an inspection once a year and be subject to no-notice inspections with the penality of their GM status being revoked, then the USPA and the GM program might actually have some regulatory power and being a USPA GM would actually mean something. Currently, being a GM DZ means the DZO wrote a check to USPA and "pledged" to follow the BSR's, and we all know how much that "pledge" is worth if it gets in the way of profit. The inspections would be paid for by the GM dues. I am sure DZO's would not favor this, because then they would have to actually follow the rules.

Hook

[billvon 2,991]

> "Self-regulation" is a myth.

Many DZ's have adopted USPA regulations, and they enforce them through warnings and groundings. Therefore it's a bit more than a myth.

>I think it is hypocritical for a DZ to be a USPA group member, violate the
> BSR's with the knowledge of the regional director, and nothing happens.

Of course it is. If it's blatant, and it bothers enough people, then boycott that DZ. Take out an ad in Skydiving magazine. It will hurt them (not kill them; most places can make a living doing tandems) but at least they will take notice, and fewer skydivers will be jumping at unsafe DZ's. Students will, but we have little control over that.

>If, as part of being a USPA group member DZ, the DZ had to have an inspection
> once a year and be subject to no-notice inspections with the penality of
>their GM status being revoked, then the USPA and the GM program might
>actually have some regulatory power and being a USPA GM would actually mean
> something.

So they get inspected and fail, and their GM membership gets pulled. They continue operating, and nothing changes. How does that improve things? (unless you go the boycott route, and you don't need to pull their membership to do that.)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

> "Self-regulation" is a myth.

Many DZ's have adopted USPA regulations, and they enforce them through warnings and groundings. Therefore it's a bit more than a myth.

True, a lot of DZ's follow the BSR's, for the most part. But they are only bound by a "pledge". USPA doesn't actually regulate skydiving. They tend to follow the BSR's because they make sense and smart DZO's don't sacrifice safety for profit.

Quote

>I think it is hypocritical for a DZ to be a USPA group member, violate the
> BSR's with the knowledge of the regional director, and nothing happens.

Of course it is. If it's blatant, and it bothers enough people, then boycott that DZ. Take out an ad in Skydiving magazine. It will hurt them (not kill them; most places can make a living doing tandems) but at least they will take notice, and fewer skydivers will be jumping at unsafe DZ's. Students will, but we have little control over that.

Most skydivers don't really care. If someone does stand up and say something, they are labeled as a troublemaker and either banned or ostracized.

[qoute]>If, as part of being a USPA group member DZ, the DZ had to have an inspection
> once a year and be subject to no-notice inspections with the penalty of
>their GM status being revoked, then the USPA and the GM program might
>actually have some regulatory power and being a USPA GM would actually mean
> something.

So they get inspected and fail, and their GM membership gets pulled. They continue operating, and nothing changes. How does that improve things? (unless you go the boycott route, and you don't need to pull their membership to do that.) [/qoute]

Not being a group member can really hurt a DZ when a competitor uses the "they aren't a USPA member and therefore don't have to follow the Basic Safety Requirements that we do." A student reads that figures the DZ is un-safe and goes to the USPA DZ. I have heard several DZ's say they are GM DZ's only for marketing reasons and to defend against being labeled as un-safe by their competitors. If the DZ had to follow the BSR's to be GM DZ and be inspected, they could advertise that, which would be very valuable if their competitors didn't pass the inspection. "The only Drop Zone in the XXXXX area to pass the USPA DZ Safety Inspection program." Powerful statement. I laugh when I read things like "Endorsed by USPA", or "USPA Group Member" on DZ's web pages. We know that it means nothing, but 1st jump students don't know that.

Maybe I am a bit un-realistic, but I don't think the current system is a good one. DZ's advertise being a USPA GM as if it means something. A non-USPA GM DZ can be just as safe or safer than a USPA GM DZ. A non-USPA GM DZ can follow the USPA BSR's without paying the USPA. An USPA GM DZ can dis-regard the USPA BSR's without repercussions from USPA.

Hook

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I do not agree with the madolyn part, since she stated to our face that there is nothing the USPA can do to inforce BSRs

Well, that's a fact, isn't it? As far as I know, there are no "BSR enforcement police" employed by the USPA. If they did start trying to "enforce" BSRs in some manner, they would either need to have USPA staff members at every DZ all the time. Or they would have to selectively enforce them. Which would most likely end up politicizing where they were enforced and against whom. I don't know anything about Madolyn Murdock, but seems to me she was just making a truthful statement.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

hans and andrea weren't elected.

I'm sure it was a tight race with my 2 votes from you and Galen. Thanks for being my campaign manager, Stacy. Maybe we can get up to 5 votes next time!

Actually 3. After talking with Stacy and Galen, I voted for you also. I was concerned that it would interfere with your dz.com flirting duties. However, I was assured that a person of your experience would be able to balance the demands of the two.

[Hooknswoop 19]

In the past, USPA has suspended ratings and suspended membership, and if the person in question was a DZO, they could terminate the DZ's Group Memmership. Wasn't a GK's ratings suspended because he was simply aware of some non-rated AFF JM's doing AFF?

Hook

[Opie 0]

Quote

Quote

. . . with Jan taking Rogers spot.

The best part about that is that Jan has absolutely NO financial interests specific to a DZ. Sure, she runs a couple of little skydiving interests and web sites, but there isn't going to be any hijacking of Nationals because of Jan.

-----------------------
Also curious about what you are trying to say here? Is it that one board member has the ability to hijack the whole nationals process?

Does anyone know where the votes numbers are at or will be?

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

As far as I know, there are no "BSR enforcement police" employed by the USPA.

Isn't that what an S&TA is for?

Chris

[quade 4]

Quote

Also curious about what you are trying to say here? Is it that one board member has the ability to hijack the whole nationals process?

In a word -- yes.

The fewer DZOs that are on the BOD the less likely this is to happen.

That's it. That's all there is to it. If you or anybody else is reading something else into my statements, then that's your own issue.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Also curious about what you are trying to say here? Is it that one board member has the ability to hijack the whole nationals process?

In a word -- yes.

The fewer DZOs that are on the BOD the less likely this is to happen.

That's it. That's all there is to it. If you or anybody else is reading something else into my statements, then that's your own issue.

Hold on, Paul. You made a statement out of the blue about hijacking the Nationals, then anyone who asked exactly what you meant has an issue? I don't think that's fair or reasonable. Clearly YOU have an issue or you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

...

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

[billvon 2,991]

>Most skydivers don't really care. If someone does stand up and say
> something, they are labeled as a troublemaker and either banned
> or ostracized.

Hmm - not in my experience. Look at all the people who badmouthed Brown when Buzz required AAD's - none of those people were banned or ostracized. Public opinion is one thing that got Ted Mayfield's place shut down.

>Not being a group member can really hurt a DZ when a competitor
> uses the "they aren't a USPA member and therefore don't have to
> follow the Basic Safety Requirements that we do."

Not necessarily. Roger Nelson could use the same tactic in reverse - "Jump at Lake Wales! Member of World Skydiving Association. NOTE - Deland does NOT belong to the WSA or follow standard WSA safety rules!!"

And to a whuffo that sounds pretty bad.

>An USPA GM DZ can dis-regard the USPA BSR's without repercussions from USPA.

It can, but only if we let it. The USPA is not like the CIA; they're not some shadowy secret organization with lots of power and mystery. The USPA is a bunch of skydivers. I know most of them. If we don't care much, just show up every weekend and jump, then DZO's will do what they want. If we complain constantly when BSR's are violated, then USPA will take action - if for no other reason than to get us to shut up. But we have to want to do that.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

As far as I know, there are no "BSR enforcement police" employed by the USPA.

Isn't that what an S&TA is for?

Chris

How effective can that be if the S&TA is the DZO or an employee of the DZ?

...

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

[quade 4]

Geeze John I don't wanna get into an argument about this.

I just don't like the idea of DZOs on the BOD.

I think there's too much of a chance and it's far too tempting for them to have conflicts of interest when it comes to certain things that the USPA does. I used the Nationals as an example because, well, it would be a perfect example of exactly the kind of thing I'm saying could happen with a DZO on the BOD.

The Nationals are, or certainly could be, a huge plum to be picked.

Yes, understand that you -think- I might be refering to a particular incident a couple years back. That's not actually the case. That's not what I'm saying. Yes I understand that in the case you might think I'm talking about the party in question recused himself. That's why I find it odd you think that's what I'm talking about. We both know better.

However, removing DZOs from the process also removes any hint of impropriety without the need to go to any lengths to prove it.

Is that more clear?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jlmiracle 7]

I have only been to 1 board meeting but at that meeting, that voted on Nationals. DZO's on the board that had a bid in for Nationals had to leave the room while the rest voted.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[quade 4]

Quote

DZO's on the board that had a bid in for Nationals had to leave the room while the rest voted.

Had to? As in it's in the rules? I don't think so. There's certainly nothing in the USPA Skydiver's Competition Manual (section 10) that even hints that this is required.

My guess is that any DZO that would like to keep his good name and maintain a level of respectability would do so very publicly, but again, there's nothing that I can find that prevents him from voting for his own DZ.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jlmiracle 7]

That's just how it worked at that board meeting. Larry Hill left the room and so did another person - I believe it was a Regional Director at that time who had financial interest in an otter that would have been used at National's had that DZ won Nationals.

I don't like having alot of DZO's on the board, but we keep electing them. I would like to see a DZO from a small cessna dropzone on the board. They don't seem to be heard very often.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

I would like to see a DZO from a small cessna dropzone on the board. They don't seem to be heard very often.

Are many small DZ's owned by one person? I'm asking because most of the small DZ's I've been to are club operations.

Speaking as 1/7th of a "DZO" (I'm on the club BOD), it would be hard for one of us to run, since we're pretty remote, and the base of voters is much smaller.

But I agree, since ours is run as a non-profit organization, it would be interesting to have someone on the board who knows the particular trials and tribulations of DZ's that are operated this way, as well as the issues that skydivers who jump at those DZ's face.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

>Most skydivers don't really care. If someone does stand up and say
> something, they are labeled as a troublemaker and either banned
> or ostracized.

Hmm - not in my experience. Look at all the people who badmouthed Brown when Buzz required AAD's - none of those people were banned or ostracized. Public opinion is one thing that got Ted Mayfield's place shut down.

Fair enough, but that has been my experience.

Quote

>Not being a group member can really hurt a DZ when a competitor
> uses the "they aren't a USPA member and therefore don't have to
> follow the Basic Safety Requirements that we do."

Not necessarily. Roger Nelson could use the same tactic in reverse - "Jump at Lake Wales! Member of World Skydiving Association. NOTE - Deland does NOT belong to the WSA or follow standard WSA safety rules!!"

Good point, I haven't seen that tactic used. it could be defended against with "Deland is a USPA Group Member Drop Zone, which is a national organization and meets or exceeds USPA's standards for safety."

Quote

>An USPA GM DZ can dis-regard the USPA BSR's without repercussions from USPA.

It can, but only if we let it. The USPA is not like the CIA; they're not some shadowy secret organization with lots of power and mystery. The USPA is a bunch of skydivers. I know most of them. If we don't care much, just show up every weekend and jump, then DZO's will do what they want. If we complain constantly when BSR's are violated, then USPA will take action - if for no other reason than to get us to shut up. But we have to want to do that.

But if a regional director is presented with proof of BSR violations and takes no action, then I think that person is not doing their job. I don't think USPa should have people sneak onto DZ's with hidden cameras wearing trench coats , but if they become aware of violators, they should take action. Otherwise the BSR's are hollow. If people knew that repeated BSR violations would result in some sort of disciplinary action, I think there would be less violations.

I agree that it is up to fun jumpers to stand up for what is right, but I see/hear of cases where everyone (exageration) knows what is going on, but no-one says anything.

Recently here in Denver, the police started enforcing the 2 person minimum occupancy in the HOV lanes and increased the fine to $100.00. The number of people driving "solo" in the HOV lanes has dropped noticeably.

Hook

[jlmiracle 7]

It probably would be hard for someone owning a smaller dz to run for the board but when the USPA changed the A license requirements and the AFP to add all these "coaching" jumps, I heard of alot of smaller dz's that just didn't have the staff to accomodate all this and its harder to retain students.

I think you should run. I'll come watch you dropzone for you while you go to the board meetings.. I've always wanted to visit New Mexico.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

DZO's on the board that had a bid in for Nationals had to leave the room while the rest voted.

Had to? As in it's in the rules? I don't think so. There's certainly nothing in the USPA Skydiver's Competition Manual (section 10) that even hints that this is required.

Look here http://www.uspa.org/Publications/Governance%20Manual/Gov_Manual_April_2002.pdf

It's on page 11. The addition was championed by Mullins in 2001 and has been fairly strongly opposed by Larry Hill.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[weid14 0]

Quote

Quote

. . . with Jan taking Rogers spot.

The best part about that is that Jan has absolutely NO financial interests specific to a DZ. Sure, she runs a couple of little skydiving interests and web sites, but there isn't going to be any hijacking of Nationals because of Jan.

right and larry hill won't try that either... suuuurrrreeeee. I am alright with this board (would have liked to see Max on it), I don't think Larry will be unbiased though. At least there are some competition knowledgeable BOD members now...

[quade 4]

Thanks for the research Dave.

I think it's interesting that both parties in question (one for and one agaisnt) are DZOs.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver